Keeping State Policy Public: Meeting Accountability in Commission Governance by Scott S. Stauffer MPP Essay Submitted to Oregon State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy Presented April 29th, 2009 Commencement June 13th, 2009 i “The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.” ‐ Barack Obama, February 9, 2009 “Our goal is to make… government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy… We intend to redesign, reinvent, to reinvigorate… government.” ‐ Bill Clinton, March 3, 1993 “A governing board is a social invention developed in many times and at many places to provide control and sponsorship for a governmental or private function.” ‐ Cyril O. Houle, Governing Boards Stauffer ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction . 1 2. Literature Review . 4 2.1.1 Considering Corporate Board Best Practices . 7 2.1.2 Rise and Fall of the Chief Executive Officer . 10 2.1.3 The Corporate Board Re‐Emerges and Re‐Evaluates Itself . 12 2.2.1 Public Governance: A Critically Un‐Examined Issue . 16 2.2.2 The Transportation Commission . 20 2.3.1 The Board Meeting: Where Accountability Can Occur . 24 3. Methods . 29 3.1.1 The 2005‐07 OTC Agenda Analysis . 31 3.1.2 The Formal Meeting by ODOT Division and Action Type . 33 3.1.3 The Formal Meeting by Board Responsibility Categories . 34 3.2.1 The State Transportation Commission Survey . 35 4. Results . 39 4.1 The OTC Agenda Analysis: The Highway Division Steals the Show 39 4.2 The Literature Review: Mostly Corporate Best Practices . 48 4.3 The STCS: Despite Mobility, Commissions Lack Identity . 51 5. Discussion and Recommendations for Future Research . 58 5.1 Key Conclusions: State Policy Needs Our Attention! . 60 5.2 Key Recommendations: Who are We? . 62 6. Conclusion . 65 Works Cited . 68 References . 71 7. Appendices . 73 7.1 Appendix I . 73 7.2 Appendix II . 74 7.3 Appendix III . 82 7.4 Appendix IV . 84 Stauffer iii TABLE OF BOXES 1. Robert Moses of New York . 5 2. Glenn L. Jackson of Oregon . 6 3. ODOT Revenue Sources 2007‐2009 . 23 4. Oregon Transportation Commission Work Session Summary . 48 TABLE OF GRAPHS 1. Formal Meeting Time Spent (by Division) . 40 2. Time Spent by Board Responsibility Categories . 41 Stauffer iv ABSTRACT Despite their widespread use and presence at all levels of government, public commissions and boards are rarely given much attention, by the general public, academia, or surprisingly by public policy and agency experts. As a state infrastructure governing entity transportation commissions often deal with controversy, but do we really understand the roles and responsibilities of these important oversight mechanisms of typically massive state transportation agencies? And more importantly, do the usually volunteer members of these important policymaking and activity monitoring boards know what they are supposed to be doing? How would a transportation commission chair know her commission is carrying out their statutorily mandated duties in an efficient and effective way? To answer these questions, and to collect basic data about the current state of our transportation commissions nationally, this essay analyzes the time management practices of one state transportation commission, reviews existing literature on public and corporate governance, and considers the results of a nation‐wide survey of state transportation commission administrative assistants. The results support the prevailing conclusion that there is a lack of literature on public commission government and that because of their often un‐distinguished role in relation to the agency, a profound lack of independence and identity exists which ought to be corrected if the intent of these boards is to provide policy leadership and accountability to the citizens they represent and serve. By reconsidering how they run their regular meetings, focusing on the key agency‐commission relationships, and devoting time to consider their own performance and expectations, transportation commissions can better assert themselves in their necessary public duty of ensuring efficient and effective government. This essay sheds light on the present condition of our transportation commissions and considers how transportation commissions ought to manage their time for effective public policy creation and oversight. Stauffer 1 1. INTRODUCTION OF A PROBLEM: Transportation Governance and Leadership Popular depictions of public service seldom include the thousands of boards and commissions that do so much to shape daily life (Houle 1989). Although transportation agencies provide critical infrastructure we depend on, transportation commission meetings rarely gain attention unless a serious service failure has occurred. Despite repeated nationwide calls for significant financial investment in aging highways, bridges, rail lines, and seaports (Cambridge 2005; National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 2007; National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Committee 2009) the public response often lacks any sense of urgency, and more importantly, or new financial resources. The embarrassing reality is that we and our elected leaders generally only pay attention to the needs of our physical infrastructure, the domain of transportation departments and commissions, when something goes wrong; a fact sadly supported by the tragedy of the Minneapolis, Minnesota Interstate 35 bridge collapse, which during rush hour plunging unsuspecting commuters into the Mississippi River below (Sherman 2008). Despite the very real threat to our way of life, as we go scurrying from home to work or school we place an incredible amount of faith in pivotal infrastructure agencies, and their associated oversight bodies – our state transportation commissions. And yet, these vital mechanisms of accountability continue to be critically under evaluated by public administration and governance paradigms that are increasingly outdated for modern circumstances (Carver 1997; Frederickson and Smith 2003). Without a crisis, and aside from the groans of Stauffer 2 constant road maintenance projects, the needs and behavior of transportation agencies do not capture the attention of most Americans, and that’s a tragedy. This graduate essay grew from a series of self‐assessment work sessions conducted in late 2007 and early 2008 by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). As a result of these exercises the OTC members found it not only helpful to identify what state law required them to do, but what unspoken assumptions each commission member held about their time management practices, relationships, and policy goals (Oregon Transportation Commission 2008). The only readily available reference on best practices for the OTC’s self‐assessment was a 2005 report prepared by the University of Kentucky’s Transportation Research Center (KTC), which provides the findings of an analysis of all 50 state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the form of a Roles and Responsibilities outline (O’Connell et al. 2005, see Appendix I). The University of Kentucky outline helped the OTC in its discussion by providing an adaptable framework for defining the unique characteristics of the OTC (Oregon Transportation Commission 2008) as the oversight arm of major infrastructure service agency. Other research to assess public oversight entities, specifically in the field of public transit agencies, have recently been published and hold promise for providing tools for public boards to evaluate their performance (AECOM 2004). The work sessions and exercises conducted by the OTC in 2007 and 2008 provide the key question my graduate work addresses. Finding literature on transportation governance, specifically at the state level, is not an easy task, although there have been moments in the last century when the Stauffer 3 formal structure and behavior of transportation government were front and center in the minds of public administration researchers (Shafritz et al. 2005), as evidenced by the aging work of W. L. Haas, who in 1947 examined state highway organization. There was also, at least in Oregon, a more recent period of administrative reform when the body known as the State Highway Commission was reorganized in 1969 into the Department of Transportation (Merriam 1992). Today because of work by the Transportation Research Board and other industry and academic groups there are encouraging signs of renewed attention in transportation administration research, but despite periodic attention there has just not been much consistent focus on transportation commissions as governance bodies (O’Connell et al. 2005). Because of this lack of attention, there has been little scrutiny of the oversight system that governs public transportation, creating a status quo atmosphere with little accountability by public transportation agencies. In a world that demands cost effective, responsive service from such agencies, what practices can public boards and commissions employ to manage their agency’s resources for effectiveness and accountability? How can commission members know they are doing what they are charged to do: to oversee vast agencies that provide critical services every day? This essay examines current time management practices of transportation commissions, reviews the existing literature on public and corporate governance,