The spokesman for BART is known for phony astroturf campaigns and a failure to respond to criticism. That might seem normal for a spokesman of a service with ongoing and highly visible service issues. Yet recent reports show he might be taking things to an extreme with an inability to tell the truth about security decisions.

“We struggled with that decision,” spokesman Linton Johnson said at an Aug. 16 press conference. “That was a gut-wrenching decision. This agency takes free speech seriously.”

No one has any confidence in what Johnson says, which spurred a reporter in search of evidence to call his bluff. Here’s some excellent investigative reporting by the Bay Citizen:

But emails that BART released to The Bay Citizen this week show the decision was made on the spur of the moment with little discussion of the possible consequences. Officials approved one of the most controversial proposals in BART’s history just hours after it landed in their inboxes.

The final sign-off came from then-Interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. at a meeting of top BART staff that began at 8:15 a.m., according to Jim Allison, a BART spokesman. The discussion of the idea lasted between 15 and 30 minutes.

Lynette Sweet, a BART board member who has criticized the shutdown, said the short timeline showed that “not a whole lot of thought went into it.”

Johnson just keeps digging a bigger hole for BART to fall into. The best quote in the email thread comes from BART deputy police chief, who shows just how “wrenched” the BART leadership guts were:

I like this idea. Can anyone think of a downside?

Anyone? Anyone? Can anyone who received this email think of a downside to shutting down communication?