New Transit Board May Get Second Legislator, Possibly Tied to Brown

The struggle for power in Los Angeles’ proposed transit super-agency took a sharp and controversial turn Thursday when it was revealed that a second state legislator--this one likely to be a representative of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown--may be added to the new agency’s governing board.

After a private meeting Wednesday evening including members of both houses of the Legislature and authors of the super-agency bill, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti on Thursday confirmed that one amendment in the works would revise the makeup of the new 11-member transit board to ensure that two slots are filled by legislative appointees.

Earlier--over the objections of many local elected officials--state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), a co-author of the bill, had added a Legislature-controlled board seat for the San Fernando Valley. Robbins has said that he wants to fill that seat himself.

‘Carving Up the Pie’

The second state appointee ostensibly would represent the interests of the county’s small municipal bus companies, who fear that their funding may be threatened by the reorganization.

Both appointments would be made by a joint House-Senate rules committee, meaning that the leadership of each house would effectively have one appointment.

“They’re carving up the pie in Sacramento,” said one Los Angeles City Hall official who has been tracking the legislation.

The measure is scheduled for a final vote on the Senate floor next week, possibly on Tuesday or Wednesday. A final vote by the Assembly is expected by the end of next week.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), the bill’s other author, who opposed Robbins’ effort to create a seat for himself, insisted Thursday that neither Brown nor any other member of the Assembly had sought the second legislative appointment.

“This is essentially a Robbins amendment that the Senate is backing,” he said. Katz added that he is “getting a little frustrated with the tinkering . . . and private agendas people are imposing on something that was designed to solve traffic problems.”

‘Protection’ From Critics

Asked why Robbins would seek an additional legislative appointment to the transit board, Katz said it may “give some protection” to Robbins from critics who charge that he plans to use the new agency to boost his political career.

Robbins said he sought the amendment to “line up support and to fulfill a commitment that had been made earlier to the Speaker.”

“I don’t need any protection,” Robbins said, adding that the only person who is critical of his effort to get on the board is Katz.

Roberti had another view. “I think Sen. Robbins wanted it more than the Speaker,” he said. “The Speaker wanted it, too, though.”

Brown was unavailable for comment. His press secretary, Susan Jeton, said it is not surprising that the Speaker would want an appointment to the powerful board. “That would not be out of line,” she said.

Great Influence on Transit

The new super-agency board would have unprecedented control over the future of transportation decisions in the county. It would consolidate the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and, over the next two decades, control billions of dollars in contracts on already planned subway and light-rail projects. In addition, the new board--to be called the Metropolitan Transit Authority--would determine placement of future highways and commuter rail projects in the county.

Only elected officials could serve on the new board, and the struggle for representation among various cities and the county has been intense.

The so-called Robbins seat on the board would have to be an elected official or state legislator from the Valley. The second legislative appointee would be either a City Council member or a state legislator representing a city with a municipal bus system.

The loser under the new amendment would be the Los Angeles County chapter of the League of California Cities, which previously could have named two members of the transit board but now would have one appointee. The league, which already opposed the reorganization bill, is dominated by small cities, most of which do not have municipal bus lines.

Greater Opposition Promised

“Our opposition would be hardened,” said Ken Emanuels, the league’s legislative director.

He said that while the small cities have 44% of the county’s population, one seat would only give them 9% of the representation on the transit board.

The new amendment, though, could pick up strong support from cities with municipal bus lines--generally the larger of the suburban cities--and help the measure by giving suburban lawmakers in the county a reason to support it. “It eliminates a good chunk of the current opposition in the Legislature,” said Roberti.

But Roberti added that there are “rumblings of new outside opposition” and that the reorganization measure is “not out of the woods yet.”