COMMISSION SENSITIVE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Event: Meeting with MASSPORT Counsels on Document Request

Date: September 2003

Special Access Issues: None

Prepared by: John Raidt

Team Number: 7

Location: Commission Office, K Street conference room

Participants - Non Commission: Dave Mackey, MASSPORT; John Altieri, outside

counsel; Christopher Moore, outside counsel; et al.

Participants — Commission: Dan Marcus and John Raidt (Mr. Marcus had to leave the
meeting for some period)

The counsels representing Massport, including on the New York litigation, came in to
provide an update on their production of documents requested by the commission and to
ask questions about the scope of some of the items in the Commission's request.

This MFR is to memorialize some substantive discussion that took place at the meeting
about 9-11 issues.

New York Pleadings and the role of the Airports in Checkpoint screening

v f yhe counsels provided their pleadings in the New York litigation pointing to the sections
\ arguing that airports were not responsible for checkpoint screening.

Massport History/Structure

r\ passport formed in 1957 as an independent authority with four main components: Port of
^ Boston; Logan Airport; Tobin Bridge; Hanscom Field.
r\% i >Seven member board appointed by the governor. Staggered terms to avoid packing by a

\ single governor. No taxing authority—self financing.

/ ( y j \a Buckingham, the Executive Director, appointed by Governor ^/Celucci.

T . / \m Kinton, the aviation director, was in his position since the early 1990's. Joe Lawless
\_/ started as Security Director in 1993, and reported to Tom Kinton.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE

x v ^\s State Policy Troop F is the law enforcement agency responsible for the
^—- airport. Massport pays the full cost of the LEO.

By the state's constitution dating back to the 1600s//, duck hunting was allowed at the end
of the runway prior to 9-11. *

Massport Service Improvement program

i ) ^Counsels explained that Ed Freni put together a plan approved at the Massport Board
_> 'level to help improve service at Logan. The program established benchmarks for serving
passengers.

Staffing at Checkpoint Screening

•~N
f i \ The counsels indicated that checkpoint screening was a service problem at Massport
V^ / because screening employee absenteeism and insufficient staffing levels were creating
bottle necks at checkpoints.

Joe Lawless

\e Massport Security Director on 9-11, Joe Lawless, was growing concerned about two
V- issues at Massport.

In the Spring of 2001 he was dissatisfied with the background checks being done by the
air carriers on their employees. He didn't want to accept the certification of the air
carriers. The FAA told Lawless to "butt out" because that was their jurisdiction.

Lawless also had concerns about the quality of checkpoint screening operations, and
\) /wanted the Massachusetts State Police to conduct undercover testing of the program. His
concerns were based on demonstrations by media investigative reporters (Fox) that the
system was ineffective.

f v j\e FAA and Airlines objected to MSP and Massport from doing their own testing
Vy Questions were raised about the legal authority for MSP to conduct such activity. The
^counsels indicated that an agreement was reached between FAA; MSP, and MASSPORT
in June of 2001 to do a better job of checkpoint oversight.

unsels said that in July, 2001 Massport pulled the plug on the program, but that issue
s never resolved before 9/11. The problem was that the FAA had said Massport had
no legal right to conduct its own testing.

.e counsels said that Joe had been treated very harshly in the press after 9-11. They
said he was a good person who was focused on terrorism and became a real player in the
world of aviation security.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE

They indicated that in April, 2001 Lawless had sent a memo to Virginia Buckingham and
Tom Kinton about the terrorist threat. The memo was printed in the press. They said that
it appeared as if "Ginny and Tom had been put on notice about the terrorist threat but
didn't do anything." They stressed, however, that Joe had no specific threat.

The counsels also indicated that Joe was frustrated with the Intelligence Community for
not providing more specific information.

The counsels maintain that Massport was taking some actions: including contracting with
CTI to look at security, including access to the Air Operations Area. The terrorism issues
v —x ^^Joe focused on were being addressed by CTI in their work of that summer.

-^ ^e contract witn CTI was signed on February 1, 2001.

The counsels said that CTI was engaged initially in a port/access assessment, but when
Sept. 1 1 happened and the study's scope was expanded.

first draft came out in Nov. 2001. It was 58 pages long and made some severe
judgments about management. Counsels say the management was upset because they
were never talked to, and felt that they should at least be interviewed by CTI before the
consultant could make such accusations.

A second and third draft were produced by CTI, aspects of which were played out in the
iress. The Board called in CTI and told them that they were ok with criticism but it
should be backed up by facts, and management should have an opportunity to comment.

\ ^ The Counsel's said that in an effort to be duly diligent the Board hired a third party to
review the CTI report to make sure it was accurate (Limmer). This report came out on
Sept. 30th, 2002.

Some aspects of CTI' s finding were dropped because they were moot after
implementation of the Carter Commission recommendations with respect to corporate
structure and organization.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE