FPPC Regulation 18420.1 Complaint Against Bay Area

Home , East Bay Times

FPPC Regulation 18420.1 Complaint Against Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Concerning Illegal Use of Public Resources to Promote Passage of November 2016 Measure RR, a $3.5 Billion Bond Measure, in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco Counties.

This is to serve as a complaint under FPPC Regulation 18420.1 and Government Code sections 8314 and 54964 against the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (hereinafter “BART”), a public agency, for illegal use of public resources to promote passage of the $3.5 billion Measure RR bond measure on the November 2016 ballot in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties.

This complaint is further substantiate the allegations made in an FPPC complaint filed by State Senator Steve Glazer in October 2016 concerning illegal use of public resources by BART to promote Measure RR. That complaint was publicized in an online East Bay Times newspaper article, “Sen. Steve Glazer files complaint against BART alleging public money used on bond campaign,” by reporter Erin Baldassari published on October 27, 2016 at 6:30 a.m. See: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/27/sen-steve-glazer-files-complaint-against-bart-alleging- public-money-used-on-bond-campaign/ A version of Ms. Baldassari’s article appeared in the print edition of the East Bay Times on October 28, 2016.

Complainant asks that the FPPC find that BART should file campaign statements and reports, pursuant to Regulation 18420.1(f), “A … local governmental agency that qualifies as a committee under Section 82013 shall file campaign statements and reports pursuant to Chapter 4 and any other relevant provisions of the Act.”

The key fact is that the BART Board of Directors voted to place Measure RR on the November 2016 ballot at its June 9, 2016 meeting. Soon after that vote on the morning of June 9, 2016, BART hosted a news conference to promote passage of the BART bond measure (ultimately designated “Measure RR”). After the BART Board of Directors reached a “single view” on the bond measure on June 9, 2016, advocacy by BART of the pro-bond measure position, undertaken at public expense, in an effort to influence the electorate was improper. In League of Women Voters v. Countywide Crim. Justice Coordination Com. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529, the Court of Appeal held, “It is only at the point the activities … [a public entity] cross the line of improper advocacy or promotion of a single view in an effort to influence the electorate that the actions of elected officers or their deputies, undertaken at public expense, likewise would become improper.” The June 9, 2016 BART news conference, seen in this 26-minute YouTube video posted by BART https://youtu.be/24h6zasmiVU, and the related BART-produced “news” article, “BART approves $3.5 billion capital reinvestment bond measure” (posted to the BART website at http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160609 - text is included with this complaint as an appendix), were improper advocacy or promotion of the Yes on RR view in an effort to influence the electorate by BART officers (Board President Tom Radulovich) and BART employees (Maisha Everhart), undertaken at public expense, as this complaint explains.

I. FPPC Regulation 18420.1 Violations: the June 9, 2016 Post-BART Vote News Conference, the Related YouTube Video and the BART-Produced “News” Article Concerning the June 9, 2016 BART Board Vote and Post-Vote News Conference Were BART Public Communications That Constitute “Contributions” and/or “Independent Expenditures” Benefiting the Yes on RR Campaign.

FPPC Regulation 18420.1 (Payments by State or Local Agencies for a Campaign Related Communication) says in part that a “payment of public moneys by a … local governmental agency, or by an agent of the agency, made in connection with a communication to the public that expressly advocates … the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly indentified [sic] measure, as defined in Regulation 18225(b)(1), or that taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election” is either a “contribution” or an “independent expenditure.”

Regulation 18420.1(c) defines “payments of public moneys by a state or local governmental agency made in connection with a communication include payments for both the direct and indirect costs of the communication. Indirect costs of a communication are costs reasonably related to designing, producing, printing, or formulating the content of the communication including, but not limited to, payments for polling or research; payments for computer usage, software, or programming; and payments for the salary, expenses, or fees of the agency's employees, agents, vendors, and consultants.” (emphasis added).

Therefore, BART must publicly report as “contributions” or “independent expenditures” benefiting the Yes on RR campaign the direct and indirect costs of planning, producing, documenting and publicizing its June 9, 2016 news conference relating to the BART bond measure, including the salaries and expenses of BART employees and consultants related to production of the news conference, production of the BART “news” article about the news conference, and production of the video of the news conference placed on YouTube.

A. The June 9, 2016 Post-BART Vote News Conference and Related YouTube Video Violate FPPC Regulation 18420.1 Because They Expressly Advocate the Passage of the BART Bond Measure (Later Designated “Measure RR”).

BART engaged in illegal express advocacy for passage of the BART bond measure (Measure RR) through its planning, production and publicity of the June 9, 2016 post-BART vote news conference. The YouTube video of the June 9, 2016 post-BART vote news conference is found on the world wide web at: https://youtu.be/24h6zasmiVU

The publisher of the video on YouTube is “BARTable.” The “BARTable” YouTube channel appears to be controlled by BART. The video title is “Bond Measure Announcement.” It was published on June 9, 2016. Duration is 26 minutes, 10 seconds (26:10).

June 9, 2016 BART News Conference Promoting BART Bond Measure Was a BART Production Illegally Using Public Resources.

This news conference clearly was a BART production, using BART public resources. BART planned and produced this news conference, as evidenced by the pictorial and audio contents of the YouTube video. A BART officer, BART Board President Tom Radulovich, delivered the opening and closing remarks at the news conference. A BART employee, Local Government and Community Relations Manager Maisha Everhart, served as host or emcee of the news conference. Ms. Everhart identified herself with her BART title within the first ten seconds of the video, “My name is Maisha Everhart. I’m the Manager of Local Government and Community Relations.” Ms. Everhart introduced each speaker. The video shows all of the news conference speakers together in front of a backdrop that bears many iterations of images of the BART logo along with many iterations of the text “www.bart.gov”. This BART-logo backdrop appeared behind all of the speakers as they spoke. Each news conference speaker appeared to have the official imprimatur of BART literally behind them, as if BART endorsed their express advocacy for the BART bond measure. Furthermore, all of the speakers spoke from a podium that had a BART logo on its front. A BART administrator, Maisha Everhart, introduced each speaker.

Speakers indicated during their news conference remarks that BART had either invited them or allowed them to appear at the news conference. Evelyn Torres, co-president of the Latino Young Democrats of the East Bay said from 11:52 to 11:59, “I want to thank BART for allowing me to be here today” and from 13:41 to 13:44, “Thank you again for the Board for allowing me to be here.” Renee Rivera, executive director of Bike East Bay said from 19:43 to 19:48, “Thank you to BART and Director Radulovich for inviting us to be part of this today.” BART officers and/or BART employees clearly coordinated planning and production of this news conference.

BART cannot legally use public resources to line up supporters for a bond measure “for building the broadest possible coalition in support of the measure,” as California Attorney Generals have repeatedly ruled. Attorney General Bill Lockyer in 2005 ruled in Opinion 04- 211, “In preparation for submitting a bond measure to the electorate for approval, a [public entity] may not use district funds to hire a consultant to develop and implement a strategy for building the broadest possible coalition in support of the measure and the financial support for a campaign by, for example, assisting [public entity administrators] in scheduling meetings with civic leaders and potential campaign contributors in order to gauge their support for the bond measure if the purpose or effect of such actions serves to develop a campaign to promote approval of the bond measure by the electorate.” See: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/04-211.pdf Attorney General Kamala Harris re-affirmed this position in Opinion No. 13-304 in January 2016, stating that a public entity “violates prohibitions against using public funds to advocate passage of a bond measure by contracting for services related to a bond election campaign if those services may be fairly characterized as campaign activity.” See: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/13-304_0.pdf

Therefore, if BART used any consultants or contractors to plan, produce, or publicize the June 9, 2016 news conference, any public funds used were illegally spent and must be reported on FPPC reports as campaign activity. For example, if the news conference camera operator was a BART contractor or employee, his or her time must be reported as campaign activity. BART engaged in illegal coalition-building when it coordinated bond measure supporters to participate in the June 9, 2016 news conference. The purpose or effect of such actions served to develop an illegal campaign to promote approval of the Measure RR bond measure by the electorate.

June 9, 2016 BART News Conference Promoting Bond Measure Occurred AFTER BART Board Voted to Place Bond Measure on November Ballot.

The news conference clearly was held after the BART Board voted to place the $3.5 billion bond measure on the ballot (BART Board Resolution Nos. 5321 and 5322, adopted on June 9, 2016). See: http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/minutes/06-09-16%20Minutes.pdf The minutes of the June 9, 2016 BART Board meeting state that after that vote, “President Radulovich and Director McPartland exited the Meeting.” (p.3). At 24:44 of the news conference video, Jon Spangler of the BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force said that he was happy that the BART Board had voted that morning to support the BART bond measure unanimously. At 25:39, BART Board President Tom Radulovich said that he had to return to the BART board meeting. The June 9, 2016 BART Board meeting minutes indicate on page 4, “President Radulovich re-entered the Meeting.” These facts tend to prove that the BART Board had already voted to place the bond measure on the ballot before the news conference.

Statements of Express Advocacy for Bond Measure at BART’s June 9th News Conference

The news conference clearly concerned the BART bond measure, as evidenced by BART’s own title for the YouTube video, “Bond Measure Announcement.” See: https://youtu.be/24h6zasmiVU

Several of the speakers at the June 9, 2016 news conference engaged in express advocacy supporting the BART bond measure. Matt Nichols represented Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf. Mr. Nichols said at 7:32 through 7:34, “We hope that everyone will support the bond.” As Mr. Nichols engaged in express advocacy at 7:32 through 7:34, the camera shot included not only the BART logos on the backdrop behind him, but also the BART logo on the front of the podium. BART Board President Tom Radulovich stood directly behind Mr. Nichols. Neither Board President Radulovich nor BART Manager Maisha Everhart (the BART officer and the BART employee who addressed the news conference) stopped Mr. Nichols or any of the other speakers from engaging in express advocacy. Neither Mr. Radulovich nor Ms. Everhart immediately took to the podium to discredit the statements of express advocacy or to warn other speakers not to engage in express advocacy. Their silence and acquiescence constituted endorsement of the statements of express advocacy by BART.

Jason Elliott, Deputy Chief of Staff to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, also engaged in express advocacy for the bond measure at the June 9, 2016 news conference. Mr. Elliott said from 7:51 to 7:58, “Mayor Lee is proud to join Mayor Schaaf and the BART board in supporting this $3.5 billion bond.” Mr. Elliott again engaged in express advocacy for the bond measure from 9:10 to 9:20, “This bond could not come soon enough. So we are very happy to join the BART directors, the BART staff, Mayor Schaaf and all of these community leaders to support this bond for the November ballot.”

Kristen Connelly of the East Bay Leadership Council said from 14:24 to 14:28, “I want to join the chorus of support for the leadership demonstrated today by BART in putting this before voters” and said from 14:53 to 14:56, “I just really want to support the BART leadership here.”

George Perezveles of the East Bay Stonewall Democratic Club engaged in express advocacy for the bond measure from 17:24 to 17:33, “So I applaud this – this – this, this effort and it’s the best thing that the BART can do to move the BART system forward.”

Stuart Cohen of the TransForm group engaged in express advocacy from 18:20 to 18:29, “We need this measure not just for traffic relief, which it will deliver, but we need to keep this Bay Area more affordable.” Mr. Cohen continued his express advocacy from 18:40 to 18:47, “There are very few funding measures that you can get behind that will so benefit your quality of life.” Mr. Cohen said from 19:11 to 19:30, “If we don’t have a system that works for us, we’re going to be both killing the Bay Area’s economy, our quality of life and hurting our climate. So we are thrilled that that the BART leadership has taken on this very strategic approach to make BART safe, reliable and affordable.”

Emily Loper of the Bay Area Council engaged in express advocacy from 22:51 to 23:02, “The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy organization representing hundreds of employers throughout the Bay Area and we are very pleased to support this BART bond measure.” She again engaged in express advocacy from 23:19 to 23:26, “A big part of this solution is this bond measure that will address crucial safety, reliability and crowding concerns.”

In his news conference closing remarks, BART Board President Tom Radulovich acknowledged the express advocacy of the speakers and admitted to engaging in “promotion” of the bond measure at this news conference. From 25:28 to the video’s end, Mr. Radulovich said, “That’s all our speakers. You know, there’s a saying that says, ‘It takes a village.’ So this is our village. [Radulovich turns back to the panel of speakers.] Thank you, villagers, for coming out today and supporting capital improvements in your village … At this point, you know, we get out of promotion mode. You know, we can answer factual questions, but there will be a campaign, and on campaign-related questions you should definitely talk to them.” Mr. Radulovich was well aware that he and BART were in “promotion mode” during this June 9th news conference. // //

B. The June 9, 2016 Post-BART Vote News Conference, Related YouTube Video and BART-Produced “News” Article Concerning the June 9, 2016 BART Board Vote and Post-Vote News Conference Violate FPPC Regulation 18420.1 Because They Unambiguously Urge a Particular Result in the BART Bond Measure Election.

FPPC Regulation §18420.1(b) says in part, “a communication paid for with public moneys by a state or local governmental agency unambiguously urges a particular result in an election if the communication meets either one of the following criteria …[w]hen considering the style, tenor, and timing of the communication, it can be reasonably characterized as campaign material and is not a fair presentation of facts serving only an informational purpose.” FPPC Regulation §18420.1(d) says, “when considering the style, tenor, timing of a communication, factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, whether the communication is any of the following: (1) Funded from a special appropriation related to the measure as opposed to a general appropriation. (2) Is consistent with the normal communication pattern for the agency. (3) Is consistent with the style of other communications issued by the agency. (4) Uses inflammatory or argumentative language.” (emphasis added).

The June 9, 2016 news conference, the video of that news conference and the BART-produced “news” article unambiguously urged a particular result in the BART bond measure election. All three of these communications support passage of the bond measure by voters. All three also had the style, tenor and timing of campaign materials. The news conference and its video had the style and tenor of a campaign publicity event. Only supporters of the bond measure were featured; no opponents spoke at the news conference. None of the speakers provided an objective analysis of the bond measure, especially its costs, including who paid the costs, when and how. No one discussed the property tax increase. No one explained the increased tax rate or the fact that the new property tax increase would be paid until the year 2065. The timing of the news conference was akin to campaign material; Board President Radulovich even admits at the end of the video, “At this point, you know, we get out of promotion mode.”

The BART-produced “news” article may be viewed on the internet at: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160609 The text is an appendix to this complaint. The article includes a web link to the news conference YouTube video. The article specifically mentions bond measure supporters, but says nothing about opponents, “At Thursday’s press conference following the crucial board vote, over a dozen Bay Area leaders appeared in support of BART’s decision to go to the ballot. Many told stories of what BART means to them, and how it plays an increasingly important regional role.”

The BART-produced “news” article uses argumentative language and therefore unambiguously urges a resulted in the election. It says in part, “If voters choose to pass the measure in November, great care will be taken to ensure the public’s money is protected and spent wisely. An independent audit committee will be commissioned to publish regular, transparent reports on how the money is being spent, with open, frequent and public meetings. BART has proven itself to be a prudent and effective steward of public bond funds in the past,

6 executing its 2004 Earthquake Safety and Retrofitting effort under budget with better and more robust results than expected. Public transportation continues to be at the intersection of many of the great issues facing cities in the 21st century - and voters were wise in choosing to build such an extraordinary work as BART back in 1962.” (emphasis added).

These communications were not “a fair presentation of facts serving only an informational purpose” because none of these communications mentioned the property tax increase that would be triggered by the bond measure’s passage by voters. Stanson v. Mott says, “But a fair presentation of the facts will necessarily include all consequences, good and bad, of the proposal, not only the anticipated improvement …, but also the increased tax rate and such other less desirable consequences as may be foreseen.” (emphasis added). Neither the news conference nor the news conference video mentioned the increased tax rate or other less desirable consequences of passage of the BART bond measure. The BART-produced “news” article mentioned the increase tax in vague terms, “Estimates show the bond will cost Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco county homeowners less than a pack of gum a week - an investment that will show enormous returns in terms of improved safety, reliability, and decreased traffic.”

Stanson v. Mott says, “A fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not "take sides" in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office … the selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.” (emphasis added). BART has disrespected Stanson by taking sides in the BART bond election and bestowing an unfair advantage on the Yes on RR side. BART has selectively used public funds and improperly distorted the democratic electoral process.

II. Government Code §54964 Violation

Furthermore, the use of BART personnel, a BART microphone, a podium bearing the BART logo and a BART-logo backdrop for the June 9, 2016 post-BART board vote news conference appears to be illegal use of public resources under Government Code section 54964(a), “An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure, or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the voters.”

Many of the speakers in the half-hour video state in the video that they were invited by BART to be there and speakers engaged in express advocacy supporting the BART bond measure. At the time of the news conference on June 9, 2016, the BART bond measure was a “ballot measure” as defined by Government Code section 54964 because it was a “measure submitted to the voters by the governing body at a regular … election of the local agency.”

BART’s June 9, 2016 news conference, its BART-produced “news” article about the June 9th board vote placing the bond measure on the ballot and its video of the news conference do not fall under the 54964 safe harbor for permissible “informational” activities because the news conference, the “news” article and the news conference video do not satisfy this safe harbor requirement, “The information provided constitutes an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the voters in reaching an informed judgment regarding the ballot measure.” None of these materials mentioned the property tax increase that would be triggered by the bond measure’s passage by voters. Stanson v. Mott says, “But a fair presentation of the facts will necessarily include all consequences, good and bad, of the proposal, not only the anticipated improvement …, but also the increased tax rate and such other less desirable consequences as may be foreseen.” (emphasis added.) Neither the news conference nor the news conference video mentioned the increased tax rate or other less desirable consequences of passage of the BART bond measure. Therefore, none was “an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the voters in reaching an informed judgment.” They were all biased campaign materials produced illegally at public expense.

III. Government Code §8314 Violation

BART and its agents also violated Government Code §8314 by using public resources for pro- Measure RR campaign activities, “It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.” Government Code §8314(b)(3) defines “public resources” as “any property or asset owned by the state or any local agency, including, but not limited to, land, buildings, facilities, funds, equipment, supplies, telephones, computers, vehicles, travel, and state-compensated time.” BART used public resources to promote Measure RR by allowing (1) a BART building to host the June 9, 2016 post-vote news conference, (2) BART equipment, including a BART-logo podium, a BART-logo backdrop and a BART microphone to be used for the June 9, 2016 post- vote news conference, (3) BART-compensated time of BART employee Maisha Everhart to serve as emcee for the June 9, 2016 post-vote news conference, (4) BART-compensated time for writing, posting and publication of the “news” article about the June 9, 2016 news conference and (5) BART-compensated time for production of the video of the news conference, including the camera operator, editing to place captions to identify speakers and posting the video to a BART-controlled YouTube channel.

IV. Federal Hatch Act Violation (5 U.S.C. §1502)

BART officers and employees apparently violated the federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §1502) by inviting partisan political organizations (Latino Young Democrats of the East Bay and East Bay Stonewall Democratic Club) to participate in its June 9, 2016 post-Board vote news conference. BART is a major recipient of federal funds, especially for its capital projects.

The Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 1502, says in part, “(a) A State or local officer or employee may not (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office; (2) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise a State or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes.” BART Board President Tom Radulovich is a “local officer.” Maisha Everhart, the BART employee who served as emcee of the June 9, 2016 news conference, is a “local employee.” Other BART officers and/or employees likely participated in the illegal activities associated with the June 9, 2016 news conference, in setting up the news conference, in inviting Measure RR supporters to speak, in editing the news conference video to place titles, etc. These officers and employees used their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of the Measure RR election [5 U.S.C. §1502(a)(1) violation] as the style, tenor and timing of the news conference, the BART-produced “news” article and the related YouTube video appear designed to be campaign materials to influence voters to support Measure RR and partisan political organizations associated [the June 9, 2016 news conference featured two speakers associated with Democratic partisan organizations, the (1) Latino Young Democrats of the East Bay and (2) East Bay Stonewall Democratic Club, but no speakers identified with any other political party]. There possibly was “coercion” [5 U.S.C. §1502(a)(2)] involved within BART to command or otherwise cause employees to contribute to plan, produce, execute, promote and publicize the June 9, 2016 news conference, including the related “news” article and YouTube video.

V. Conclusion

As BART has engaged in campaign activity, pursuant to Regulation 18420.1(f), the FPPC should require BART to file the necessary campaign finance reports for the direct and indirect costs of its campaign activities relating to promotion of Measure RR on the November 2016 ballot in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties. BART needs to publicly disclose the value of public resources that it expended for campaign activities supporting passage of Measure RR as either a contribution to Yes on RR campaign or as an independent expenditure supporting Measure RR.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jason A. Bezis JASON A. BEZIS State Bar No. 225641 3661-B Mosswood Drive Lafayette, CA 94549-3509 (925) 962-9643 (landline) (925) 708-7073 (cell/mobile) [email protected]

Appendix: Text of BART “news” article dated June 9, 2016. See original at: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160609 ------

06.09.2016 BART approves $3.5 billion capital reinvestment bond measure

On Thursday June 9th, the BART Board of Directors voted 9-0 to approve an historical $3.5 billion general obligation bond measure that will fund BART’s plan to improve safety, increase train reliability and reduce traffic. The bond will be on the November general election ballot.

The bond measure is a key funding component of BART’s plan to rebuild and renew its aging system, which faces increasing problems as various physical parts of the 44-year-old railway reach the end of their useful lives. The plan replaces and repairs 90 miles of deteriorating tracks and other aging infrastructure in order to maintain BART's excellent safety record and protects our environment by keeping thousands of cars off the road.

“This bond measure is practical; it’s dedicated to fixing what we have,” said Board President Tom Radulovich. “We have a responsibility to keep our system safe and reliable while getting the maximum value out of taxpayers’ investment.”

Bond Press ConferenceOver the past year, BART’s community outreach department has held over 230 community meetings with local stakeholders and civic groups to ensure widespread understanding of BART’s needs, and to hear the public’s thoughts about its capital reinvestment program. At Thursday’s press conference following the crucial board vote, over a dozen Bay Area leaders appeared in support of BART’s decision to go to the ballot. Many told stories of what BART means to them, and how it plays an increasingly important regional role.

Thanks to record-breaking ridership, BART has been able to find funding for many of the solutions needed to increase capacity, meet modern demand, relieve crowding, and upgrade the system. That includes the newly arriving Fleet of the Future, the Hayward Maintenance Complex, and some of the groundwork for a cutting-edge train control system.

However, the cost of the capital projects needed to repair, fix, and replace worn rail, leaking tunnels, unreliable track circuitry, and failing power transmission equipment outpaces revenue growth. BART’s plan is to dedicate funds from the bond measure solely to fixing what we have first - without earmarks, pet projects, or frills. Estimates show the bond will cost Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco county homeowners less than a pack of gum a week - an investment that will show enormous returns in terms of improved safety, reliability, and decreased traffic.

If voters choose to pass the measure in November, great care will be taken to ensure the public’s money is protected and spent wisely. An independent audit committee will be commissioned to publish regular, transparent reports on how the money is being spent, with open, frequent and public meetings.

BART has proven itself to be a prudent and effective steward of public bond funds in the past, executing its 2004 Earthquake Safety and Retrofitting effort under budget with better and more robust results than expected.

Public transportation continues to be at the intersection of many of the great issues facing cities in the 21st century - and voters were wise in choosing to build such an extraordinary work as BART back in 1962. Since then, BART has been a staple of this region’s culture, workforce, and values. As both riders and service providers, BART appreciates and is deeply grateful for the opportunity to connect residents to the people and places they care about.

Complete details of what is in the bond and how it relates to safety, reliability, and relief of traffic congestion can be found at bart.gov/betterbart.

Here are some of the comments made by members of the public today during the Board meeting or at the press conference:

Emily Loper, Bay Area Council: “Without BART, the Bay Area doesn’t move. It is the backbone of the Bay Area economy. This bond will help address crucial safety and reliability and crowding concerns. It will help fix BART.”

Alyssa Kies, SPUR: “We support the ‘fix it first’ approach to the bond.”

Evelyn Torres, Latina Young Dems of East Bay: “Many Latino communities, including my own, use BART as an engine to get us to work, to get us to school, and to get us to our families. I want to thank the Board members for… creating preventative measures… for those communities getting displaced. Now more than ever BART is important to get them back into Oakland and surrounding cities and allowing them to go back and forth.”

Barbara Leslie, Oakland Chamber: “Our businesses rely on a safe transportation system. BART has literally woven together our city and our region in a way that has allowed our community to grow and our economy to flourish. We look forward to a safe and reliable infrastructure in the future.”

Gilbert Gong, Lincoln Child Development Center: “We have seniors using our facilities as well as children. We take kids ages 4-13 on field trips on BART. Without BART we wouldn’t be able to show children our Bay Area surroundings. We are vested in the use of BART.”

CJ Hirschfield, Fairyland: “Our location is a convenient walk from BART and many of our underserved families rely on BART to get to us. A highly functioning BART is important to our local businesses. I like that the bond is for capital projects only and that it includes an independent audit committee.”

Matt Nichols on behalf of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf: “BART is very important to Oakland. We see a long history of working with BART and growing together. We are glad to see BART is moving away from deferring its maintenance.”

Jason Elliott on behalf of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee: “67% of BART trips begin or end in the downtown San Francisco Stations so truly a healthy economy in sf requires a healthy BART system, they are interlinked. This bond is exactly what the system needs because it invests in safety and reliability….and plans for the future of BART with discussion and planning on a second crossing.”

Stuart Cohen, TransForm: “BART is heading in the right direction. This measure will help with traffic and cleaner air. We all know that when BART stops, the Bay Area stops as well. By focusing on safety and reliability, this measure will help keep BART and the Bay Area on the fast track.”

Janet Magleby, Cal Shakes: “We share the same goal of making the wonders of the Bay Area affordable and accessible. BART is responsible for getting 2000 underserved students every year to our matinée performances.”

Kristin Connelly, East Bay Leadership Council: “BART is essential to our economy and our employers. We support taking advantage of new technologies. We appreciate your leadership and thinking ahead, and we support making this process very accountable and exactly what we need to make our region thrive.”

George Perezvelez, Member of East Bay Stonewall Democratic Club, “It is time for the Bay Area to engage in a solid investment in its regional transportation system. System safety, environmental sustainability, congestion relief plans and access improvements are the benchmarks of this proposal.”

Amy Worth, MTC Commissioner: “There are huge needs across our region and BART’s leadership in bringing this bond before the voters is a significant step in ensuring that BART can continue to be a reliable central element in mobility for our region. It provides for the most essential capital investments.”