There are several takeaways from the Steamship Authority’s internal investigation into the untethering of the Sankaty at its Woods Hole slip — one that uncorked a not-so-flattering narrative of the SSA. The response so far in addressing some of those issues has been flat.
The Steamship seems to be focused on protecting policies and procedures, rather than addressing issues highlighted in the internal investigation.
Much of the discussion following the release of the investigation has been about a lack of transparency, and rightfully so. Representatives to the Steamship governing boards say they were not informed about the findings of the investigation until it was reported by The Martha’s Vineyard Times, more than three months after the boat drifted away from its slip.
That raises questions of why it took a newspaper to reveal some of the Steamship shortcomings, or why the Steamship administration was not more forthcoming with the information to its governing body.
The Steamship’s response, unfortunately, is to say that they were trying to protect a policy. In a letter to The Times, general manager Bob Davis writes that he was protecting Steamship employees and its reporting system when they originally denied our request for records relating to the internal investigation. Davis writes that confidential reporting is the foundation of the Steamship’s safety quality management system, what they refer to as the SQMS.
While they are right to want to protect their employees, there are two issues with the comments.
First, there are ways around keeping staff names confidential while also letting the Steamship’s representatives know what happened. Management could have discussed the internal investigation in executive session with their board, while keeping names private. Names could even be kept out of a public discussion. But if our representatives don’t know the whole story of why the Sankaty came unloose, how are they to properly manage the organization?
But it isn’t just management. The Steamship board and port council members shouldn’t be off the hook, completely. The Times, through public record laws and a little digging, was able to obtain the records of the internal investigation. How come board members didn’t ask for the results of the internal investigation themselves? If they wanted to know what happened with the Sankaty, they could have asked.
In fairness to some on the two management boards, they initially did ask for the details at public meetings and were told that the investigation was ongoing. But after that initial request, there was silence, at least in public meetings. Yes, the Steamship management could have been more forthcoming with the results to the board, and we hope they will be in the future, but a lesson learned from the Sankaty debacle has been that our representatives could be more aggressive in learning details.
What is also troubling with Davis’ response to the Sankaty mishap is that the general manager did not address one of the elephants in the room. Protecting staff and the procedures and policies in place is fine, but the reporting system failed long before the release of the records (names were redacted in the documents released to The Times, and staff were not identified).
As was reported in the Steamship’s internal investigation, employees told the Sankaty captain that the freight vessel wasn’t secured properly days and hours before the boat broke free. But the vessel still broke free. The reporting system didn’t work.
Yes, transparency is a huge issue and the Steamship managing boards can’t work without all the information available. But management and the Steamship board should also be focused on why the safety quality system did not work. Was this just an isolated event and just the captain of the boat who was the problem (we have since learned the captain has retired after being given a two month suspension)? Or is there a culture at the Steamship that lends itself to not responding to these reports? These are questions that should be addressed in public meetings, to ensure the public that the ferry service is working towards better — and safer — service.
In fairness to the Steamship, they were originally upfront with information in the hours after the freight vessel broke free. They were also forthcoming in trying to address one of the biggest reasons the Sankaty did break free: that they have increased training to address the improper securing of the vessel. And they did eventually comply with our records request, albeit with the state’s help.
But we need more. As we’ve said before, the untethering of a massive freight boat is a serious safety concern. It’s lucky there was no major damage or no one died.
As was the case last week, the Oak Bluffs Select Board is right to call for improvements from the Steamship Authority. The board voted to join an effort spearheaded by the Duke’s County Commissioners that is calling out the Steamship for “deep, systemic problems.”
We need assurances that the Steamship is making every effort to make these systems work properly. And right now, we are not getting those assurances.
