Shuffle May Give Transit No More Accountability

What is to be done to put Los Angeles’ public transit system back on the track of accountability, efficiency and quality?

The leading proposal making its way through the Legislature would reorganize one or more of the major agencies now empowered with the authority to conduct transit planning and operate the area’s transit systems. The legislation, which has passed the Assembly and is under consideration by the Senate, would abolish the Southern California Rapid Transit District and transfer its 9,000 employees to work under the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which currently employs about 100 persons.

A key question is: Who should direct this new superagency?

Initially the reorganization plan called for an elected board of directors, similar to the governing bodies of our school districts. It was reasoned that an elected board would be accountable to the public and could perform better than the political appointees who serve on the RTD and County Transportation Commission boards. The plan was for the board to be chosen at the next regularly scheduled countywide election in 1990, or at a special election before then.

Now the legislation has abandoned the elected-board concept, and instead calls for a board composed of political officeholders--the mayor of Los Angeles, the five county supervisors and other elected officials from Los Angeles and the other 83 cities in the county. This list would be nearly identical to the composition of the current transit boards, except that the elected officials would not be allowed to appoint alternates.

If the officials who are already holding public office run the county’s transportation projects, meeting only once a month, public accountability will remain one step removed. This is not a reasoned approach at a time when the multimillion-dollar Metro Rail project is under construction and 1.4 million persons use bus services each day. Political officeholders can never be expected to devote their full energies to the transit board. Yet present RTD board members invest an average of 20 hours each week in district activities.

The county Transportation Commission proposed amendments to the state legislation to address the seeming impossibility of a superagency being governed by a board that would meet less frequently than do the boards that it would replace. One amendment now in the Assembly version of the bill would allow the elected officials sitting on the new agency board to appoint advisory boards consisting of non-elected officials. They would meet weekly to decide the day-to-day issues facing the new transit agency.

Now we have come full circle--from the present board appointed by elected officials, to an elected board, to a board of elected officials overseeing advisory boards composed of appointees.

Accountability and leadership can come only from a full-time board of either elected officials or their appointees, or a board directly elected by the voters. The current legislative proposals offer neither.

A part-time advisory board of appointees should not make the day-to-day decisions of the transit agency. This closely mirrors the present board system. The proposed legislation envisions an advisory board for each of the superagency’s functions: bus operations, planning and construction. If the new superagency has a profusion of boards and appointees, accountability may fall through the cracks.

If putting elected officials on the board is a real solution, there is no need for legislative action to make it happen. Nothing prevents each supervisor from removing his representative and attending the next scheduled meeting of the RTD board. Another five members of the RTD board are elected officials from the cities of Long Beach, Glendale, Rolling Hills, La Puente and Bell. If the supervisors attended the next RTD board meeting, only two board members would be non-elected officials. Even the recent county Grand Jury report on the RTD concluded that the Board of Supervisors has the authority and responsibility to oversee its appointees’ actions and participate in developing policy for the district.

Still, even if this did happen there is no assurance that public transit would improve.

The problems facing the RTD require more than a shuffling of board members. Any reorganization plan must establish clear decision-making authority and remove duplication and improve coordination between all agencies involved in the delivery of transportation service.

Public accountability will be best ensured by a board that has the time and commitment to tackle the Los Angeles area’s transit problems. Nothing is more important to the future of Los Angeles than public transportation. A reorganization plan that does not make sense would simply hasten the nightmare of a once-great Los Angeles having been ground to a halt.