To the Editor:
The scathing report from the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] on the Steamship Authority operations did not spare any words when evaluating the performance of Mr. Robert Davis, the general manager at the time of the report, and the prospects of keeping him on staff after he was no longer GM. The OIG expressed “concern over the board’s retention of the outgoing general manager for 18 months as a senior advisor. The board agreed to give the outgoing manager significant responsibilities, ensuring his continued influence at a time when the new general manager is trying to chart a new course for the agency. Further, the broad responsibilities enumerated in the senior advisor’s employment include areas in which the outgoing general manager has not demonstrated strength. The board’s agreement with the outgoing general manager appears to be far more generous to the outgoing general manager than to the Steamship Authority.”
In addition to collecting the same salary that he did as GM (with raises), Mr. Davis is getting paid vacation time, health benefits for him and his wife, an SUV with all expenses paid, and other perks. While his agreement is through April 2027, it extends indefinitely unless a six-month notice is provided. Therefore, we, the ticketholders, are paying for two GMs for the foreseeable future.
There is a clause, however, in the senior advisor employment agreement which allows the Steamship Authority and Mr. Davis to part ways before April 2027. If this is exercised, Mr. Davis gets a full year of pay plus unused vacation. The Steamship Authority, however, can terminate the agreement due to “willful misconduct in the performance of the employee’s assigned duties” and not have to pay for the year. There is plenty of evidence in the OIG report to at least warrant the discussion.
Our attempts to obtain a status of Mr. Davis’ employment have been stonewalled by the Steamship Authority board as “personnel matters.” We believe the public has a right to know, and hope to see it addressed at the next board meeting.
Amy Cody, Margaret Hannemann, Alysha Norbury, Beth O’Connor, Nat Trumbull
Steering committee of the Steamship Authority Citizens’ Action Group
Thank you to the Steering Committee of the Steamship Authority Citizens’ Action Group. NOW is the opportunity to get the Steamship Authority back on track. We need transparency and accountability, and clearly a continued overhaul. I have interacted over the years with a few very good SSA people who are problem-solvers and customer-service oriented, like Alison Fletcher and Leigh Cormie (I’m sure there are others). It takes many to replace a powerhouse like Bridget Tobin! If Mr. Davis is no longer needed, he should step aside to make room for new ideas and implementation. We NEED strong leadership to support Alex Kryska! Welcome aboard, Mr. Kryska!
The public has no right to know the details of the Davis employment agreement/ contract, however the SSA Board did a great disservice by keeping Davis on the payroll while the new CEO is taking over. The micromanagment will be manifest and the new CEO will be frustrated. The new CEO should never have accepted the job under these conditions.
Andy, the SSA is a public entity giving the public every right to know the details of the Davis employee agreement/contract. You are right though that Davis should have never been allowed to remain on the payroll.
Personnel issues in public entities can be revealed, but they are subject to a balancing act between public transparency and employee privacy rights. While Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) often cover personnel records, most jurisdictions exempt records that would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. However, records involving misconduct, performance, or discipline can sometimes be disclosed if in the public interest. The Davis files are none of those. As a Massachusetts public entity, the Steamship Authority is subject to public records laws, but personnel records are not fully open. While employees have rights to review their own files, 50-state laws—including those in Massachusetts—protect against unwarranted invasions of privacy. Sensitive, personal, or medical information is generally confidential.
Comments are closed.