A Hampden Superior Court judge is allowing discovery in an appeal of an August ruling in a civil suit in favor of a $2 billion state contract for a new Springfield courthouse — awarded, in part, to a firm co-owned by two politically connected bidders.
The lawsuit came amid intense public backlash when the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAMM) awarded the massive deal to a partnership that included CoJo Partners — a Boston-based firm co-owned by Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s husband, Conan Harris, and Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) interim Executive Director John Barros.
In August, the judge overseeing that case denied a motion by the plaintiffs for an injunction and restraining order which would have brought the project to a halt. That decision is the subject of the current appeal.
Just last week, Hampden Superior Court Judge David Hodge denied a motion from Liberty Junction, the partnership awarded the contract, to quash discovery in the appeal, filed by two of the 10 losing bidders in western Massachusetts car sales mogul Jeb Balise and business magnate Dinesh Patel.
“After review of Liberty’s motion, together with the plaintiffs’ opposition as well as Liberty’s reply, Liberty’s motion to stay discovery is denied. However, the court does find that Liberty has raised sufficient concerns about the confidentiality of the discovery sought to warrant the issuance of a protective order. As such, Liberty’s motion for a protective order is allowed,” wrote Hodge, who oversaw the original case in which he ruled in favor of the Commonwealth and Liberty Junction.
Attorneys for both Liberty Junction and the plaintiffs have submitted required paperwork related to the opening of discovery and the additional protective order. Hodge ordered attorneys to come to an agreement on the protective order for Liberty Junction during discovery, to which attorneys for Balise and Patel requested an extension for.
“This ruling by the Court will begin to allow the evidence to come out, despite the efforts of Liberty Junction and the State to keep the facts about this $2 billion mistake hidden,” a spokesperson for Balise and Patel told the Herald. “Governor Healey has twice told the people of Massachusetts that a judge found this process ‘flawless’. This ruling proves that statement false. The people of Hampden County and the Trial Court employees deserve a fair and transparent process.”
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is applauding the ruling by Hodge, saying that discovery will allow state taxpayers a more transparent look at any potential conflicts of interest or worse in the procurement process.
“It’s an encouraging step that the judge has allowed discovery. Taxpayers deserve a transparent process and right now there’s more questions than answers. Allowing for discovery will shed more light to what potentially has been going on,” Mass Fiscal Executive Director Paul Craney told the Herald. “Ultimately, Springfield deserves a courthouse that is not riddled with potential conflicts due to political deals from Boston powerbrokers.”
The development comes after court documents in Balise and Patel’s appeal showed Barros met with top staffers in Gov. Maura Healey’s administration just hours before the winner of the bid was announced to the public. The filing points to a MCCA privilege log, obtained through a public records request, indicating an 8:30 a.m. meeting on July 2 between Barros and Healey’s top staffers regarding “communications strategy deliberations on the RFP.”
That meeting included Healey’s Chief of Staff and General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel for the Executive Office of Administration & Finance, an aide to Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, and senior communications and political staff, among staffers from the MCCA.
The Healey administration, through the A&F office, is defending the meeting, pointing out that it occurred on July 2, two days after the contract was officially awarded on June 30.
“The meeting you are referring to occurred on July 2. The contract was conditionally awarded on June 30. The winning bidder was the recommendation of the Trial Court. The selection committee consisted of neutral representatives of the Massachusetts Trial Court and DCAMM professional staff,” said A&F Chief of External Affairs Matt Murphy. “There was no discussion between political officials and the selection committee. The Governor’s Office was not involved in the selection process.”
It was revealed in the original lawsuit that Barros did not disclose his financial interest in the company until a day after the bid was awarded. He later divested his interest in the deal as public scrutiny over his involvement grew.
Balise and Patel filed their original joint-lawsuit under their respective business entities USPB JV, LLC and Tower Square, LLC, back in July. Judge Hodge had denied their request for an injunctive relief back in August, slamming the civil suit in a scathing memo.
Pressley has defended Harris over the contract, while also distancing herself from the ins-and-outs of the deal, the procurement process, and her husband’s finances.
“I don’t have any unique insights on that. My husband and I met later in life. We got married later in our life. We keep our finances and everything completely separate,” Pressley told the Herald in August. “What I will say is I’ve always been proud of my husband and what he has done. He is the American dream. He’s overcome a great deal. He has made great contributions” to society.
“He worked for Barack Obama. He served in a mayoral cabinet. He was a leader in nonprofit, in government, and in business,” she continued. “So I’m very proud of my husband. But I have no unique insights on this. We met later in life, our finances are separate, I don’t know anything.”
As Harris remains with CoJo Partners and on the contract, Pressley’s net worth has exploded from an estimated $12,500 during her time as Boston City Councilor in 2018 to a whopping $8 million in 2024, according to Open Secrets. She receives a congressional salary of $174,000.
The Herald has requested comment from the Attorney General’s Office and attorneys representing Balise and Patel.
Original article
Comments