AB 1091, VTA Board governance overhaul bill, shelved for the year—but opportunities remain
Earlier this year, Assemblymember Marc Berman (CA-24) introduced Assembly Bill 1091, which proposed major reforms to the structure of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) board of directors. Though the bill was tabled earlier this month and will not move forward during this legislative session, it is worth discussing the potential benefits of restructuring the VTA board, as well as opportunities for future reform.
The VTA Board is responsible for overseeing both the local transit network (VTA light rail and buses) and congestion management for Santa Clara County. Currently, the VTA Board is an 18-member board—made up of 12 voting members with six alternates—consisting of locally elected officials and county supervisors from Santa Clara County who serve 2-year terms. AB 1091 proposed transforming the VTA Board into a 9-member fully appointed board with no elected officials, with one board member for each of the five county supervisor districts, and four resident representatives from San Jose (2) and Santa Clara County cities (2) who serve 4-year terms.
Asm. Mark Berman’s AB 1091 proposed significant reforms to VTA’s Board. The bill included a number of good practices for transit board governance, including appointed expert board members and longer service terms that provide stability and institutional knowledge transfer. (Photo: VTA)
The proposed bill includes a number of good practices for transit board governance including appointed expert board members and longer service terms that provide stability and institutional knowledge transfer. These key features of the bill should continue to be part of ongoing discussions about reforms to the VTA Board.
Since 2004, there have been three Civil Grand Jury investigations examining the financial deficits and declining operating performance of VTA, all of which identified the need to restructure the VTA board to improve oversight. The Civil Grand Jury findings attributed VTA’s poor performance to the structure of the VTA Board, stating that it 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.”
In addition to the three Civil Grand Jury calls for the overhaul of the VTA Board, Seamless Bay Area’s research of global transit case studies also finds that boards that include appointed professionals with relevant experience is a best practice.
Accordingly, any future versions of this legislation should require that a restructured VTA board include members with expertise in transportation, accounting or finance, infrastructure or project management, and executive management.
A second benefit to appointing professional board members that represent the five county supervisor districts is an ability to consider the entire service region’s needs and not be overly tied to local politics. The existing VTA Board includes 12 voting members and 6 non-voting alternates made up of city council members and county supervisors. While some view the proposed 9-member board as providing a fair distribution and representation from the geographic region that is served by VTA, some opponents of the bill claim that the change will dilute the influence of transit riders, which are more concentrated in San Jose than in other cities. In general, Seamless Bay Area research supports board representation and votes that correspond to relative population.
Given the breadth of VTA’s current authority and complexity involved with overseeing the County’s highways as well as light rail and bus network, the current VTA board member term of 2-years is too short, leading to frequent, counterproductive changes in leadership. A longer 4-year board term, as proposed in AB 1091, would enable board members to develop more robust institutional knowledge and lead to better oversight.
It is a positive sign for the future of VTA that AB 1091 followed a number of transit governance best practices when proposing an alternative structure to the VTA Board. Here are some suggestions for consideration in future discussions and revisions of the bill:
Hybrid board member model: Instead of a fully appointed 9-member board, the bill could propose a hybrid board member model that includes some elected officials. One international example of this hybrid approach is Transport for London, which is chaired by the mayor of London while the other board members are appointed. This would provide an opportunity for strong coordination between the cities, county, and transit riders throughout the service region. Under this model, a restructured VTA Board might include two elected officials, one from Santa Clara County and one from the City of San Jose, and seven appointed board members. Instead of using the existing 5 supervisorial districts and City boundaries to determine the appointed board members, 7 new equal-sized custom districts across the VTA service area could help ensure the appointed board members are sufficiently independent from County and City politics, as their districts may bridge multiple municipalities. A transparent, impartial appointment process could help build trust in the qualifications and legitimacy of board appointees.
Representation for transit riders: Another transit governance best practice that should be incorporated is the inclusion and representation of regular transit riders. VTA riders from a variety of backgrounds and communities should be represented on the board since riders are familiar with, and care deeply about, the service that is provided. To ensure that VTA is truly equitable, constituents from throughout the county need to be represented, particularly from groups representing transit-dependent riders. A future VTA governance reform bill should strongly consider embedding language to include a transit rider advisory committee and requirements that board members be regular transit users. A case study to model after may be LA Metro, which has their own rider advisory board.
Transition period: If AB 1091 had been passed this year, it would have been slated to take effect in 2022. A future bill could give consideration to some transition period that will enable the restructuring to take place in stages, giving new board members an adjustment period to to onboard more effectively.
Despite AB 1091 being tabled for the year, It is refreshing to see a bill proposing to restructure the VTA Board after 17 years and three Civil Grand Jury findings that VTA’s governance has continued to deteriorate and that “the VTA Board is in need of structural change to enable it to better protect the interests of the County’s taxpayers and address the many complex challenges presented by emerging trends in transportation, rapidly evolving technology and the changing needs of Silicon Valley residents.”
Aspects of this bill, which Asm. Berman has indicated he will re-introduce “after additional engagement with stakeholders and the public,” can and should be updated to be more inclusive and equitable. The introduction and continued discussion of a VTA governance bill reflects real progress, and we look forward to an improved bill next year that can improve transit service and better serve South Bay transit riders.
Finally, improving governance is just one part of improving VTA service and decision-making that can contribute to a more effective transit system. As our recent report explores, additional funding for transit operations and more transit-supportive land uses are also essential for increasing transit ridership and expanding access.