Blog note: This Op-ed piece is by members of the Santa Clara County Chapter of CGJA and refers to a recent grand jury report by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury
Assemblymember
Marc Berman (D-Los Altos) has proposed much needed changes to the VTA board
that support the recommendations of the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand
Jury (CGJ).
Berman’s
proposed AB 1091 would significantly reshape the makeup of the board, as
recommended in the CGJ report “Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley
Transportation Authority.” The assemblymember withdrew the bill this past year
with plans to reintroduce it in 2022.
The
report’s recommendations follow the CGJ’s interviews of 37 VTA staff and board
members and research into 17 other transit agencies. The CGJ exposed a few
primary areas of concern: Continually deteriorating performance, inadequate
oversight by the VTA board, its financial deficit and unwillingness to
reconsider outdated projects of significant financial impact to the agency.
The
report identified several examples of problematic endeavors: An increased light
rail capacity without a corresponding demand for its product, resulting in
higher operating costs, such as the Eastridge light rail extension; unresolved
cost sharing agreements for the BART extension and continuing with the
technically outmoded and increasingly expensive light rail system.
The
CGJ found other transit authorities with boards that balanced elected officials
with members of the public who had 10 years or more experience in fields such
as transportation, law, finance and business. An example is Austin, Texas which
previously had 100% elected officials, but moved to include non-politicians.
The
VTA board now consists of two members of the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors, five San Jose City Council representatives and five councilmembers
from VTA’s other member cities. The CGJ report determined, “A root cause of
VTA’s poor performance was the governance structure of the VTA board which was
too large, too political, too dependent on staff, too inexperienced in some
cases, and too removed from the financial and operational performance of VTA.”
Berman
proposes reducing the board from 12 to nine members and excluding elected
officials from the board.
Instead
of elected officials, he proposes the board be comprised of one resident
selected from each of the five supervisorial districts, two residents of San
Jose and two residents from among VTA’s other cities. Each would serve
four-year terms—versus the current two—and be appointed by their respective
nominating county Board of Supervisors or City Council. The nominating authorities
shall ensure that expertise, experience or knowledge relative to the fields of
transportation, infrastructure or project management, accounting or finance and
executive management are represented on the board.
The
CGJ report states: “Year after year, VTA operates one of the most expensive and
least efficient transit systems in the country.” Yet, as elected officials, VTA
board members have pressing duties in their primary role as city or county
officials and, with only two-year terms, often fail to gain sufficient
understanding of the complicated issues facing the VTA, the report notes.
The
report, issued in June 2019, recommended VTA and its constituent cities study
changes to the existing governance structure. VTA did commission a study and
implemented some minor governance changes, few of which addressed the concerns
of the CGJ.
The
CGJ’s report—the product of eight months of intense research by a non-partisan
group of 19 county citizens—articulated the need for such changes after
studying the board structures of several California and non-California transit
authorities. It states: “Despite the serious ongoing structural financial
deficit, the VTA board has been unwilling to review and reconsider decisions
made years or even decades ago regarding large capital projects (and their
attendant operating costs) that are no longer technologically sound or
financially viable, based on their costs and projected ridership.”
Along
with the demands of governing a large enterprise such as VTA with part-time board
members, the current board makeup often results in parochial decisions. The
current ranking process that sets priorities for congestion management highway
project funding is one example.
Robin
Roemer’s op-ed in San José Spotlight discusses how VTA staff and a committee
made up of representatives of four cities ignored the board-approved grading
system that would establish project priority, instead giving priority to
projects within those four cities.
May’s
mass shooting at a VTA rail yard, resulting in 10 deaths, made 2021 the darkest
year in the organization’s history. As VTA rebuilds from that tragedy, now
might be the best time to consider structural changes.
As
shown by the CGJ report, we as taxpayers must support the governance changes
initiated by Berman. It is time a dedicated and professional board takes
control and rethinks the current state of transit in Santa Clara County. AB
1091 can begin to address long-standing inefficiencies in VTA operations, as
well as its financial future.
San
Jose Spotlight
By Dean Duffy, John Klobe, Michael Krey and Harry Oberhelman, members of the Santa
Clara County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association.
December 24, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment