washingtonpolicy.org (206) 937-9691 LEGISLATIVE MEMO 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Key Findings Frost, Mariya By Director, Coles Center for Transportation and accountable to thepublic elected Board shouldbedirectly to run forto run positions. Board voice,a direct citizens ordinary and allow conflicts of interest,political people give The would promotebill democracy, end members. Board directly-elected with Transit accountable fully to thepublic House 1029)would Bill makeSound Senate 5001(and Bill its companion, agencies.both interest and theconflicting agendas of thepublic toExecutive objectively serve County Metro. It isnot for possible the of andCounty thehead Executive King The formerBoard chairman King also is are serious,built-in conflicts of interest. onin order there theBoard, to serve members must public be officials Because board. by voters elected directly to thetransit officials these are not misleading, because officials, but thisisinaccuratelocal and appointed members are elected already Defenders of theinsider system say the conflicts of interest. promises, project mismanagement, and to thepublic for cost overruns, broken insulates members from accountability This insider appointment structure controlled by theKing County Executive. members of the 18-member are board picked by threecounty executives. Nine its memberspublic are because hand- in taxes but isunaccountable to the Sound The billions TransitBoard collects

of the State Department of appointed members, including Secretary the Sound Transit is governed by aboard of 18 Background importance ofpower shifting back to citizens. abuse and accountability, and evaluates the legislation, concerns reviews about political members by directly elected citizens. Transit governance structure by making proposed legislation to improve Sound the and Representative Mark Harmsworth have public accountability, Senator Steve O’Ban and conflicts of interest. To creategreater public concerns about favoritism political Transit are Board appointed, leading to havethey to subsidize it for do. few who the or other Sound Transit but services, Sound Transitin the donot taxing district use for measure. the County, with only 44percent of people voting in Snohomish County, and inPierce failed in King County, abare 51percent approval measure with 58percent passed approval over next the 25years. ballot tax The $54billion to a result,collect expect they nationin the –Sound Transit 3(ST3). As of one of largest the rail-centric increases tax membersBoard pushed hard for passage the and other Sound Transit Introduction The regionaltransit authorityknown as paperThis theanalyzes proposed Currently, members of Sound the greatThe majority peoplethewho liveof In 2016,Sound Transit Chairman Board January 2017 January 1 Transportation (WSDOT). Fourteen of these they are dissatisfied with the decisions of the members are local elected officials who are Sound Transit Board.”2 hand-picked by just three people; the county executives of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Opponents of a directly-elected board counties. The majority (nine) of the board say the members are already elected to their member appointments are controlled by one local positions as councilmembers, mayors person; the King County Executive. and county executives. To say they are elected Sound Transit board members is not Major policy decisions about adoption of accurate. They are only directly elected to system plans (including the taking of homes their local offices, then appointed to the board and other private property), amendments, afterwards. annual budgets, annexations, board composition, and hiring of an executive More importantly, this does not create director require a two-thirds favorable vote.1 accountability because it is unlikely that a Sound Transit Board members serve four- local official will be voted out of office based year terms. on his or her decision on a transit measure. Serving on the Sound Transit Board is just Like any other legislative body, the Sound one of many roles an official may have. The Transit Board meets regularly, is subject to official still has to make decisions that are transparency and open meeting laws, has entirely separate from work on a single board. taxing authority, and makes policy and budget If the board members of a regional taxing decisions for the agency. Unlike a legislative authority, like Sound Transit, were directly body, however, the board is appointed and elected, voters could hold the members not directly accountable to voters. The accountable for decisions specific to their role practice of appointing board members to a that affect people living in the board’s taxing powerful public agency, especially when most district. appointments are controlled by one person, shields Sound Transit officials from the direct Political conflicts of interest accountability one might expect from a large government entity. The special insulation created by the appointment process has resulted in Sound The problem: appointed officials lack Transit Board members being selected for accountability for the decisions they their political loyalty to the county executives make as board members who makes the appointments, rather than to their constituents. Over its 22-year history, Currently, citizens do not know whether very few members have challenged or or not their local representative will sit on the criticized Sound Transit, and those who had Sound Transit Board when the representative the courage to do so, like former King County is first elected, a structural problem identified Councilmember Rob McKenna, were quickly by the State Auditor in 2012. The Auditor removed from the Board.3 noted that, “voters have no say regarding who will represent them and limited recourse if 2 “Sound Transit: Performance Audit of the Citizen Oversight Panel, Adjustments to Planned Investments, Construction Management and Ridership Forecasts,” 1 “Board appointments – Voting - Expenses,” Revised Washington State Auditor, October 25, 2012, at http:// Code of Washington 81.112.040, effective date June 9, portal.sao.wa.gov/ReportSearch/Home/ViewReport- 1994, Washington State Legislature, at http://app.leg. File?isFinding=f alse&arn=1008277. wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=81.112.040. 3 “Thank You Rob McKenna,” by Josh Feit, Met, July 20, 2009, at www.seattlemet.com/arti- cles/2009/7/20/thank-you-rob-mckenna. 2 Furthermore, because members must raised questions about their ability to be be public officials in order to serve on the objective and ethical. board, this can and has resulted in political conflicts of interest, as demonstrated by the The audit also found that the panel former Sound Transit Chairman who is also acted more in an advisory role rather the King County Executive overseeing King than as an oversight committee. In 2008, County Metro Transit. With a position on the Sound Transit’s former CEO stated, “[The] Sound Transit Board, the Executive promotes COP’s role has clearly been oversight and Sound Transit’s goal of expanding light rail. if members want to change that in ST2, This presents a conflict of interest because the they can recommend it; however, there is current light rail alignment has taken over the danger of losing [the] COP’s perceived many of Metro’s most productive and efficient independence” [emphasis added].5 bus routes. It is impossible for the Executive objectively to represent the interests of both The members of the unelected COP agencies without compromising or violating often focus on policy, a role that voters public trust. never approved, rather than measuring Sound Transit’s performance in meeting Although Sound Transit officials insist commitments the board made to the public. they have checks and balances in place that The Auditor noted that the COP “occasionally provide enough public accountability, those treated Sound Transit’s commitments as checks and balances actually insulate the policy areas that should be revised versus Board from the public, rather than increase promises that should be kept.”6 accountability. As a result of the composition of the One supposed check is the 15-member appointed panel by the appointed board, Citizen’s Oversight Panel (COP), which is the COP does not contain any substantial hand-picked by the Sound Transit Board. In diversity of views on Sound Transit ballot 2012, the State Auditor found many conflicts proposals like 2016’s large ST3 tax measure. of interest both within the Board and its Citizen Oversight Panel, which was packed In defending themselves, Sound Transit with former board members and individuals officials frequently cite financial audits and who worked for companies that profited from quarterly reviews by the Federal Transit Sound Transit contracts.4 Administration (FTA). However, these audits only measure whether or not financial One COP member was a Sound Transit statements are accurate. They do not measure Board member in the 1990s and seven whether the agency is being effective in members had submitted letters of interest managing finite tax dollars and are keeping to the Board that focused on their support their promises. The public, not auditors, of Sound Transit’s mission rather than any should judge the management of Sound interest in the oversight function of the COP. Transit. A directly-elected board would allow It is no surprise then that panel members voters to do just that. were found to have participated in “highly visible” pro-transit political advocacy, which

5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 4 “Sound Transit: Performance Audit of the Citizen Oversight Panel, Adjustments to Planned Investments, Construction Management and Ridership Forecasts,” Washington State Auditor, October 25, 2012, at http:// portal.sao.wa.gov/ReportSearch/Home/ViewReport- File?isFinding=false&arn=1008277. 3 Broken promises taxpayers were told these lines would provide seven years ago in 2010. The politically protected nature of Sound Transit’s appointed board has resulted in The solution: shift power to citizens numerous broken promises with no real recourse for the voters. Proposed Senate Bill 5001 (the companion bill is House Bill 1029) would For example, when Sound Transit officials create a Sound Transit Board with 19 wanted voters to expand the regional public accountable, directly-elected, non-partisan transportation system in Sound Transit 2, members.11 The Secretary of the Washington they told voters that with the new expansion, State Department of Transportation would light and would carry 310,000 continue to serve as a nonvoting member. passenger trips per day by 2030.7 Voters agreed and raised sales taxes in 2008. Later The bill resolves conflicts of interest by the public learned that passenger rail would providing that the board members would only carry about 164,000 trips per day, half not be able to hold any other public office of what Sound Transit officials told voters.8 and would be elected from 19 districts with Yet Sound Transit officials kept the money nearly equal populations “in accordance they gained from higher taxes and voters with the one person, one vote principle.”12 A were effectively disenfranchised, because five-member districting commission from they could not vote any of the members each of the five subareas, appointed by the responsible for the broken promise off the governor, would define the boundaries of Sound Transit Board. the 19 districts. The districting commission would then be reappointed every decade as More recently, Sound Transit officials new census data becomes available. promised that Seattle and Tacoma light rail together would carry 32.6 million trips per This proposed arrangement would year, or 107,000 per weekday, by 2010.9 The have the added benefit of allowing ordinary public learned that as of October 2016, Seattle citizens to serve on the Sound Transit Board, light rail had an average weekday ridership which would facilitate a more collaborative of only 68,387 and Tacoma Link ridership approach to future decisions. Residents was just 3,617 per day.10 Together, these two within the Sound Transit district would gain light rail lines provide about 72,000 trips per much-needed oversight of an agency that weekday, which is only 67 percent of what has shown a pattern of disrespect to voters by overpromising benefits, underestimating costs, and unilaterally reducing the scope of 7 “Mass Transit Guide: The Sound Transit 2 Plan,” their services without a public vote. Sound Transit, 2008, at www.washingtonpolicy.org/ library/docLib/stinfomailer10-08.pdf.

8 “Transportation 2040, Chapter 4 Transportation,” 11 Senate Bill 5001, Washington State Legislature, Puget Sound Regional Council, March 2010, page 71, introduced December 5, 2016, at http://lawfilesext. at www.psrc.org/assets/3677/04-Transportation.pdf. leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20 Bills/5001.pdf and House Bill 1029, Washington State 9 “Sound Move – Appendix C: Benefits, system use Legislature, introduced December 8, 2016, at http:// and transportation impacts of Sound Move,” Sound lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/ Transit, May 31, 1996, at www.soundtransit.org/sites/ House%20Bills/1029.pdf . default/files/documents/pdf/news/reports/sound- move/199605_soundmove_appendixc_benefits.pdf. 12 Senate Bill 5001, Washington State Legislature, De- cember 5, 2016, at http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienni- 10 “Sound Transit Operations: October 2016 Service um/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5001.pdf. Performance Report,” Sound Transit, October 2016, at www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/20161201-oc- tober-2016-service-performance-report.pdf 4 Directly-accountable boards in other system delays, unreliability, and errors in states management caused by the decisions of the transit board. Two examples of large, multi-county regional transit districts with accountable Conclusion elected boards are the Regional Transit District in Denver and Bay Area Rapid The state of Washington has long had a Transit (BART) in San Francisco. reputation for clean, honest local government. That image is put at risk when a powerful and The Denver Regional Transit District well-funded public agency like Sound Transit Board of Directors is governed by 15 directly- is controlled by the political allies of three elected members who serve four-year country executives, and when the majority of terms. The members include a director of a its board members are personally appointed transportation management association as by one elected official. well as a real estate consulting firm, a health care consultant, a public relations expert and A directly-elected Sound Transit Board, musical instrument dealer. Also serving as proposed by Senate Bill 5001 and House on the board are a former transportation Bill 1029, would create a significant public planner and employee of an electric and benefit for the people of Washington state, natural gas utility supplier, an architecture especially since Sound Transit is now set and cognitive science expert who is also blind to collect an amount of money that is over and permanently transit-dependent, a former three times the size of the state’s two-year mayor and councilman, an urban planner, transportation budget. and others. This change is supported by Governor The BART Board of Directors is Gary Locke’s recommendations in the comprised of nine members from nine 2000 Blue Ribbon Commission.14 This was districts. They serve four-year terms.13 These also echoed by Regional Transportation elected members include a former mayor and Commission’s (RTC) co-chairs, former Seattle probation officer, a public transit advocate mayor Norman Rice and business leader John and governmental affairs manager, a former Stanton, in the RTC’s final report to Governor chair of a transit watchdog committee, a Christine Gregoire in 2006. The report former BART safety specialist and chief promoted a directly-elected model for the officer of a fire department, a retired engineer, transit authority, that would be “nonpartisan a civil rights and racial justice executive, and a and have an independent authority, such renewable energy power plant entrepreneur. as the Washington State Redistricting Commission, to establish and maintain Neither transit agency is perfect, of boundaries.”15 course, but their boards of directors honor voters by allowing the people a choice in board composition. As a result, members 14 “The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation,” of both transit boards face election every Washington State Legislature, November 29, 2000, at http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/BlueRibbonCom- four years and run the healthy, democratic missionFinalReport.pdf. risk of being removed from the board for 15 “Regional Transportation Commission Final Report,” Puget Sound Regional Transportation Commission, December 31, 2006, at www.bettertransport.info/cats/ 13 “BART board: Trust trumps system’s aging infrastruc- RTC.pdf. ture in 2016 election,” by Erin Baldassari, Bay Area News Group, at www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/25/ bart-board-trust-trumps-systems-aging-infrastruc- ture-in-2016-election/. 5 A new governance structure for Sound Transit would reduce favoritism and special interest influence, be more democratic and would enable citizens to have a greater voice and equal representation on the Board. For these reasons Senate Bill 5001 and House Bill 1029 represent good public policy that would promote ethics and enhance Washington’s reputation for clean and honest local government.

Mariya Frost is Washington Policy Center’s director of the Coles Center for Transportation.

Nothing here should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation before any legislative body.

Visit washingtonpolicy.org to learn more.

6