4 ms·

> Fifteen criminal cases have been filed against local and state officials,[17] but only one minor conviction has been obtained, and all other charges have been

by coryrc 5y ago

> Fifteen criminal cases have been filed against local and state officials,[17] but only one minor conviction has been obtained, and all other charges have been dismissed or dropped. But the guy with authority (local elected mayor, not the state emergency manager) and the engineers/technicians/??? who made the choice not to use corrosion inhibitor, which actually caused the problem, haven't been charged (or the Glasgow guy get let off?) to go after political targets instead and state people who failed to properly detect the mess the locals created.

gruez 5y ago
>But the guy with authority (local elected mayor, not the state emergency manager) doesn't the emergency manager have more authority than the elected mayor? How much did the mayor know and how much power did he have? >and the engineers/technicians/??? 1. the plant manager was prosecuted 2. what's the point of prosecuting non-managerial employees? Did they participate in the cover-up? Were they supposed to predict what was going to happen?
- coryrc 5y ago
  According to the linked Wikipedia article, the water department was under the authority of the elected mayor at the time, despite an emergency manager still involved in other affairs. Slap on the wrist. If my job was to get you spinach, and I am an expert in that area, and I chose to use animal waste for fertilizer, shouldn't I be held responsible for giving people e-coli if I don't take standard precautions?
nullc 5y ago
> and the engineers/technicians/??? who made the choice not to use corrosion inhibitor, which actually caused the problem As dreadful as it was-- that choice hardly seems likely to be a crime. Negligent sure, but where is the criminal intent? "muhaha I'll make everyone sick!" hardly. In an event like flint I'd expect the only crimes to be attempts to cover it up, not the event itself. ... and it seems like the the desire to prosecute the people "at fault" caused them to give immunity to the people who actually committed crimes.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Criminal intent? Probably not. Criminal negligence? I'd hope so.
  - nullc 5y ago
    From reading the filings in Walters v. Flint it appears to me that they hired an outside engineering firm to plan their switchover and that firm failed to warn them of any urgent need for corrosion control. The outside engineering firm argues that they didn't warn flint because they assumed flint would be using corrosion control. When it became clear that there were serious water quality issues, flint hired another outside engineering firm to review and monitor their system and make recommendations and the second engineering firm failed to identify the lack of corrosion control as a safety issue. They basically said 'you could add phosphates to reduce complaints about discolored water, but you're still going to get lots of complaints about discolored water'. To me it seems like a lot of the root cause was that they knew and expected the river water source would have serious cosmetic issues, but they felt forced into it. When things started going wrong they kept treating it as cosmetic issues (and it sure sounds that by count most of the complaints they had were cosmetic issues) even though the water was actually unsafe. With two outside water engineering firms, on top of the city's own staff not catching this... I think the explanation has to be more complicated than someone being criminally negligent.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      What you're describing is a dilution of responsibility. The first firm didn't do their due diligence, and assumed that Flint was doing something it wasn't. The second firm didn't do their due diligence, and simply overlooked the lead issue. I don't find this to be terribly convincing; it sounds like the both firms should be on the hook, because they both failed. As water engineers, they should be on top of this stuff. That two firms failed doesn't demonstrate that they shouldn't be responsible, it means that the city hired two incompetent firms which individually assumed and then neglected their responsibilities.
  - einpoklum 5y ago

by coryrc 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>But the guy with authority (local elected mayor, not the state emergency manager) doesn't the emergency manager have more authority than the elected mayor? How much did the mayor know and how much power did he have? >and the engineers/technicians/??? 1. the plant manager was prosecuted 2. what's the point of prosecuting non-managerial employees? Did they participate in the cover-up? Were they supposed to predict what was going to happen?

coryrc 5y ago
According to the linked Wikipedia article, the water department was under the authority of the elected mayor at the time, despite an emergency manager still involved in other affairs. Slap on the wrist. If my job was to get you spinach, and I am an expert in that area, and I chose to use animal waste for fertilizer, shouldn't I be held responsible for giving people e-coli if I don't take standard precautions?

nullc 5y ago

> and the engineers/technicians/??? who made the choice not to use corrosion inhibitor, which actually caused the problem As dreadful as it was-- that choice hardly seems likely to be a crime. Negligent sure, but where is the criminal intent? "muhaha I'll make everyone sick!" hardly. In an event like flint I'd expect the only crimes to be attempts to cover it up, not the event itself. ... and it seems like the the desire to prosecute the people "at fault" caused them to give immunity to the people who actually committed crimes.

klyrs 5y ago
Criminal intent? Probably not. Criminal negligence? I'd hope so.
- nullc 5y ago
  From reading the filings in Walters v. Flint it appears to me that they hired an outside engineering firm to plan their switchover and that firm failed to warn them of any urgent need for corrosion control. The outside engineering firm argues that they didn't warn flint because they assumed flint would be using corrosion control. When it became clear that there were serious water quality issues, flint hired another outside engineering firm to review and monitor their system and make recommendations and the second engineering firm failed to identify the lack of corrosion control as a safety issue. They basically said 'you could add phosphates to reduce complaints about discolored water, but you're still going to get lots of complaints about discolored water'. To me it seems like a lot of the root cause was that they knew and expected the river water source would have serious cosmetic issues, but they felt forced into it. When things started going wrong they kept treating it as cosmetic issues (and it sure sounds that by count most of the complaints they had were cosmetic issues) even though the water was actually unsafe. With two outside water engineering firms, on top of the city's own staff not catching this... I think the explanation has to be more complicated than someone being criminally negligent.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    What you're describing is a dilution of responsibility. The first firm didn't do their due diligence, and assumed that Flint was doing something it wasn't. The second firm didn't do their due diligence, and simply overlooked the lead issue. I don't find this to be terribly convincing; it sounds like the both firms should be on the hook, because they both failed. As water engineers, they should be on top of this stuff. That two firms failed doesn't demonstrate that they shouldn't be responsible, it means that the city hired two incompetent firms which individually assumed and then neglected their responsibilities.
- einpoklum 5y ago