A week from now, a Massachusetts judge will hear a challenge from two developers who wanted to build a new Springfield courthouse. The project attracted multiple bids last year – all to replace the home of Hampden County Superior Court and other facilities downtown.
The winning bid was announced in early July, with a developer looking to build the proposed Springfield Regional Justice Center by Union Station. The building’s owner would technically have the Massachusetts court system as a tenant for 40 years, plus a contract worth around $2 billion dollars.
But - one of the winning bid's key partners, John Barros, is in the crosshairs of conflict-of-interest claims. As the leader of another, unrelated state agency, his disclosures with the state make up part of the legal challenge.
Barros recently divested from the project, but as WAMC's Pioneer Valley Bureau Chief and Western Mass Politics & Insight's Matt Szafranski recently discussed — there's more to it than that.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
James Paleologopoulos: So, Matt, we find ourselves about a week, week-and-a-half out from an initial hearing on two groups that wanted to build the next courthouse, [who are] taking significant issue with the developer that was picked.
We have a group led in part by Jeb Balise of the Balise Automotive Group – that [bid] had sought to put a new courthouse off of Dwight Street and we also have the operators of Tower Square, [including Dinesh Patel], who actually had multiple bids: one on Main Street and Chestnut Street as well, at least.
[They're] prodding at DCAMM's process for selecting the developer, the Liberty Junction Group, which is made up of a number of prominent companies and stakeholders on the other side of the state - Mayor Domenic Sarno has taken issue with that.
We've also had some developments over the past few days: we saw one of the key players, the interim head of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, John Barros, step away. How are things standing in your view?
Matt Szafranski: Well - in some ways, there's been an incredible sea change that may not make a difference yet. Barros's decision to step away from or divest from the company that won the bid to develop 125 Liberty Street as the new courthouse…
Paleologopoulos: CoJo Partners – the other half being…
Szafranski: The “Co” and the “Jo…” –
Paleologopoulos: [U.S. Representative] Ayanna Pressley’s Husband…
Szafranski: Conan Harris. [CoJo Partners is] actually one of the developers for Liberty Junction, overall.
[Barros’s divestment] is, in the short-term, only a public relations move because it's an attempt to show that he's not going to gain anything further from the development of this site if it moves forward, but it doesn't change the fact that at the time this thing was awarded, he was still a part of this entity.
Now, I can't say for certain that the Jeb Balise and … Dinesh Patel are going to be successful in their lawsuit on that basis, but his making these changes, divesting after the fact, doesn't actually alter the legal posture of their argument.
Paleologopoulos: And that legal argument … you go into great detail on your website, Western Mass Politics & Insight.
A lot is said about conflicts of interest, a lot is said about Mr. Barros specifically, and when he may have filed his notice with the state ethics commission. I know in some follow-up filings that we're still going over, there was mention, and I know MassLive/Springfield Republican has also mentioned [it] - I believe it was July 1 when he filed some of these important disclosures.
Of course, the [bid award] announcement of Liberty Junction Group came a day later, on July 2… we're also seeing parties in this lawsuit saying that, technically, the decision was made on June 30.
Can you talk to me a little bit about the legal footing - how does this argument work?
Szafranski: So, there's two ways to look at this.
There is the actual, potential violation of state ethics law, in other words, [Barros’s] obligation to ... disclose his relationship with CoJo, which, based on my reporting, suggests he did not do until the at least the last 60 days, or at least not in significant part, because his 2025 ethics disclosure does not mention this entity, and it has existed since 2023.
So, there's a question about whether or not he has filed all of his necessary paperwork just as an owner of it - whether he's filed the necessary disclosures.
Whether or not there's a direct violation in his seat as the interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority and this particular project - that's not apparent to me, that there's an actionable claim by the ethics commission in terms of … a pay-to-play or undue influence or anything like that.
Right now, we're purely in the appearance of impropriety element of the state ethics law.
Now, that is something that the ethics commission has - I wouldn't say completely exclusive jurisdiction - but largely exclusive jurisdiction to enforce.
Where Balise and Patel get into court, however, is … in the course of the bidding process, DCAMM, the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, essentially incorporated the ethics law into part of its bid.
Now - and this is where a lot of legal wrangling is going to be - , how far does that go? Who does it really apply to? I'm not entirely certain how deep that goes.
But what I found compelling was that in the statement that added this, it seemed to suggest that it would not have to be only the ethics commission that could take advantage of this, which sort of makes sense because there are some reliefs that somebody can seek after the ethics commission has found somebody in violation.
So, by basically saying we're incorporating the law, and anybody who is has who would have an interest in this might be able to make use of it, they have broadly expanded the universe of people who might, in theory, and again - I don't want to overstate this, but could potentially say, "Hey, wait a minute, there's a violation here.”
And because of various connections in terms of, for example, DCAMM, the supervising agency to DCAMM is run by somebody who is on the MCCA board - you can start seeing a spiderweb of things that you know might be pure coincidences and at this stage, so far, it seems to be that case, but you might have enough there for those plaintiffs to hook into the claim.
So, that's a distinct area - that’s the legal case, and then there's potentially what the ethics commission could or couldn't do with regard to what Barros should or shouldn't have disclosed.
Paleologopoulos: I believe Mr. Barros was not yet appointed to the MCCA when the Liberty Group was coming together.
Szafranski: They submitted their bid in... I want to say October - definitely fall of 2025, and Barros was not appointed interim executive director until this year.
As far as I can tell, CoJo … was formed as early as 2023. I don't know what else it's done since then. It's absolutely true that this entity predates his appointment to that position, and also the filing of this proposal, this bid, predates his appointment.
Paleologopoulos: What does divestment mean at this point?
Szafranski: At the substantive level, if there is some type of way for this bid to survive, but [there’s’] maybe some kind of fix - I don't mean that in a crooked way, but like a correction - so that all of the potential ethical issues are dealt with: it might make that a little bit easier if he's no longer an investor in in the in the company.
But, on a practical level, I mean, let's take a step back. What the plaintiffs in this lawsuit want to do is, essentially, undo the selection, and I mean I think that's ultimately their goal.
At the moment, all they're trying to do is stop DCAMM from signing a formal lease because there isn't one yet, and if they can unravel that process, then suddenly they might be in contention again. My guess is that really only Balise probably has a shot at sneaking in there, but we'll see.
And so… on that level, the die has already been cast in terms of the problem. If the plaintiffs are right, if their complaint is correct - and I can't say that it is, but if it is - then it really doesn't matter what Barros does at this point.
Now, of course, I think it's also quite clear that the plaintiffs are engaging in a public relations battle, as well. They have not just lawyers, but public relations staff working for them and so, this is… as much about trying to leverage public relations and, therefore, politics to have a reassessment of what's going on here, as it is to try to get a judge to stop something.
And so, in that sense, it's possible that the divestment might have a bit more impact. But, it's a lot harder to game out for sure what the political ramifications are going to be, based on a PR fight between Liberty Junction/the state and the plaintiffs in this suit.
Certainly, the Barros divestment helps with that. It has a much more potential substantive impact because, if it is about appearance of impropriety in a non-legal sense and just a purely political public relations sense, then yeah, it could help somewhat.
Paleologopoulos: When we talk about the bids - at least 10 bids were up for consideration by DCAMM last year. The Balise-led group, coincidentally, is actually right across the rail tracks [off Dwight Street] - these bids are very much in line with DCAMM's criteria, what they laid out, what they were looking for.
Liberty Junction, however, came in at a lower cost. Governor Maura Healey was actually in Springfield last week for a series of announcements. She also faced questions about the courthouse, she has maintained trust in the process, while also emphasizing that the Massachusetts taxpayer [saves] quite a bit with the Liberty Junction bid. Here's what she said:
--
“Look, guys, this followed the standard procurement process … in this case, because it was about a courthouse, it involved the decisions and recommendations and assessments of the [Massachusetts] Trial Courts. So, you have to talk to them about this. But… as I understand it, what came out of this wa: the project that was selected is a project that's a high quality project that actually is $300 million less than any other project. Saves the taxpayers $300 million. I don't know about you, but I think that's a that makes a lot of sense.
—
Paleologopoulos: Matt - how dire, how important is this project in your view?
Szafranski: There’s two ways to look at this. One is that, and I think this is the part that I expect the state to lean on the most [in court], is that they claim that Liberty Junction’s able to get them a courthouse fastest.
There is a very urgent desire to get people out of that courthouse. Now, of course, they want to do it as inexpensively as possible.
I cannot believe that, if there were a will, that they could not find space in downtown or various places, to have courthouse operations removed from [the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse] - to get people out from a place that does not appear to be healthy.
For whatever reason, that is the direction that they're going in.
I think what does not necessarily get discussed as much is what impact this is going to have on downtown itself in particular. This is going to be a tremendous shift in the center of gravity.
The courthouse is a major anchor in the nature of downtown - Court Square is named as it is because the court is right there.
Paleologopoulos: Law firms have literally built their offices around this building.
Szafranski: Exactly, and while I do not believe that walking to 125 Liberty Street would be too much for you know 60-70% of practitioners, especially those that are a little bit further down Main Street, closer to the arch and the railroad viaduct, it is going to be a change.
It's going to be a dramatic change, and there has not been, in my view, enough consideration about how this would alter Springfield's downtown fabric, how much it risks undermining new urbanism and trying to get people to live, if not car-free, then car-light.
I think a lot of people … a lot of attorneys may end up driving to the courthouse, which is going to create more traffic and more pollution and to say nothing of the fact that it has been the white whale of Springfield redevelopment … making downtown what it was again.
I mean, nostalgia is problematic for any number of reasons, but nobody's really been able to figure it out, and I don't know that this necessarily helps with it. Now, that's not to say that's an argument against this, but … this is another area that needs to be addressed, and I think that that's probably also … sotto voce: what the plaintiffs in this suit are trying to say.
What is significant is how this is going to change Springfield … how it's going to change the economy of downtown Springfield, and … that's the subtext of, of, I think, a lot of the public relations campaign, as well.
Because nobody who spends a lot of time on the north side of the railroad viaduct would call it a lively place. I mean, maybe Union Station a little bit, but that's only been true for the last eight years.
Paleologopoulos: We should also mention the fact that Springfield is serious about getting that particular patch of downtown redeveloped. I've spoken with CDO Tim Sheehan about the long-term plan that they've had, whether it's the clock tower or those other buildings intersecting State and Main with MGM Springfield.
With that in mind, Matt, closing thoughts: what is one thing you wish more people understood about this lawsuit?
Szafranski: To a large degree, I'm not sure we're going to know more until we actually have this up in front of a judge… we also need to see what the state is going to file. I mean, I suspect they're going to file an opposition to the injunction that says that they don't have a case, and if they don't have a case, then they're not going to get a judge to issue an injunction.
And then we'll see that tested on the bench, however the judge chooses to address a lot of that. Interestingly enough, I believe … the hearing will be in Springfield at least as of this recording…
Paleologopoulos: But with a Berkshire County judge!
Szafranski: But with a Berkshire County judge. Part of that is actually circumstantial -it's not necessarily because they were afraid that somebody couldn't be fair about it.
But, until we start seeing this legal argument tested, I'm not sure we're really going to know how serious it is. I mean, the plaintiffs are dead serious. Whether or not the legal claims can survive judicial scrutiny, that's what we really need to know.
It's going to come up really quickly, I mean, right now, Aug. 11 is when it's scheduled. We'll know relatively soon, but until then, we'll see whether or not this is going to be primarily a public relations fight or if it's really going to become an all-in-out legal brawl.
--
This conversation was recorded on Friday, July 31. In the run-up to this interview, a joint statement from John Barros and the Liberty Junction Group was provided to WAMC:
"My aim from day one has been to quickly deliver a healthy new courthouse for the people of Hampden County — one that’s also an economic development engine for a part of Springfield that hasn’t seen much investment," said Barros. "Throughout the process, I made every disclosure required by statute and strictly followed all procurement regulations to ensure my role was legal and proper. Even so, I have made the difficult decision to divest from the Liberty Junction team because my involvement has been targeted by those who place personal gain above the community, critically delaying the fulfillment of Hampden County’s need for a healthy place to resolve disputes. I do not want the people this courthouse will serve to lose any more time."
Before accepting his appointment to lead the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, Barros disclosed his company's role in the potential courthouse project to the appropriate state agencies and withdrew from active participation in the DCAMM selection process. That disclosure is a matter of public record.
"We deeply appreciate John’s contribution to this project and his willingness to step back for the community’s benefit," said Claiborne Williams, Principal of the Liberty Junction team. "From the start, John pushed us to keep the project’s two goals in balance — a new courthouse to replace a facility that has become a genuine health hazard, and real development opportunity for the North End that would greatly benefit local small businesses. His commitment to these values was greatly appreciated. We wish him well."
—
Also provided to WAMC was a statement from Jeb Balise and Dinesh Patel, issued the day Barros announced his divestment.
"Today's news that John Barros is stepping away from the Springfield courthouse project confirms what we have said from the start: this selection was irrevocably tainted, and no retroactive exit can undo that after the contract is already awarded. Springfield and the Commonwealth's taxpayers deserve a fair process that follows the law. For this reason, the only fair remedy is to set aside this award and redo the procurement. Our lawsuit will continue, and we look forward to making our case in court on August 11."
