|
Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee Report
Mr. Evanhoe reported that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee met on September 4, 2003, and directed attention to the distributed September 4, 2003 Agenda Packet.
Mr. Evanhoe introduced three founding members of VTA who actually crafted the existing Board structure and noted they would provide an historical overview: 1) California Transportation Commissioner (CTC) Diane McKenna, former Santa Clara County Supervisor, 2) Shirley Lewis, former City of San Jose Council Member, and 3) Joanne Benjamin, former Council Member of Town of Los Gatos. Mr. Evanhoe noted that Member Dixon would provide an overview on the City of Milpitas proposal to restructure VTA Board of Directors.
Mr. Evanhoe reported that the next Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee is scheduled for November 6, 2003, and noted that Member Dixon, would present the City of Milpitas proposal to restructure VTA Board of Directors. The Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee would report their findings to the Board of Directors at their December 4, 2003 Meeting.
Chairperson Risch noted that the action tonight is listed as to receive a report and queried if PAC would be making a recommendation. Mr. Evanhoe suggested that the Committee make a recommendation at the November 13, 2003 PAC Meeting, noting that Member Pirzynski, who sits on the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Committee would provide a report back to the PAC.
Member Kennedy took his seat at 5:15 p.m.
Ms. McKenna reported that she was one of the many people involved in the founding of the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and subsequent creation of VTA, and noted that the structure was given considerable thought when going through the process. One of the first issues to be dealt with was that the CMA was going to be receiving federal dollars and one early consideration of the Board composition was the one person, one vote criteria. The basis of this criteria was the result of a then recent lawsuit, which validated the one person, one vote stipulation when receiving federal monies. Ms. McKenna noted that persons from different walks of life have served on City Councils, Board of Supervisors, and then larger agencies, and, experience was that the larger the agency became, the more of a problem it became for decision-making. She cautioned size consideration when contemplating Board composition, noting that large governing bodies can easily become grid locked.
Ms. McKenna indicated that the Traffic Authority had pulled itself together and chose not to have representation, but group representation. One reason that the Traffic Authority chose group representation was because there was an Inter-Governmental Council, as the County Charter was changed from must have an Inter-Governmental Council to may have an inter-governmental council. Basically, it was a 21-member body, representative of all the cities and the County with weighted voting. Over the years, members became frustrated, because it never was able to function and respond in an efficient and timely manner.
Ms. McKenna noted that the one vote criteria was significant because Santa Clara County, aside from Los Angeles County, was the only County in California where one city had more than the majority of the population, the City of San Jose had 50 percent plus. If there was a weighted vote, the City of San Jose could vote as a block and the rest of the cities would not have to vote. Subsequently, the rest of the cities vote would not count, because City of San Jose had 50 percent plus on the scale. As a result, the task was to bring everyone together. In order to deal with equal representation issues, San Jose had 5 representatives, the cities 5 representatives, and the County 2 representatives. This meant that even if the City of San Jose voted together, the rest of the representation could still out weigh the City of San Jose.
Ms. McKenna noted that they went to every city in Santa Clara County that invited them and talked about the Board composition and how it would be put together. Finally, after talking with all members (each city in Santa Clara County), the current VTA Board composition was established.
Ms. Benjamin noted that there were two things that were important, transit service and land use without a connection nor link. Ms. Benjamin noted that Ms. McKenna was one of the people who brought leadership to the Golden Triangle Task Force, which was in the northern region of the county, being developed by the business community to deal with congestion on Route 237. She noted that there was consensus to connect the cities that had the land use with the transit. Ms. Benjamin noted that Ms. Lewis was also a part of the Golden Triangle Task Force.
Ms. Lewis noted that it took almost a year to come to a consensus on the composition of the Board. In looking at the City of San Jose, in fairness, it was quickly realized that the governing Board would not be dominated by any member. She noted in looking at the numbers of population today, the distribution remains balanced.
Ms. McKenna indicated that the development of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was to balance representation, as it was realized that everyone was not going to sit on the Board. The PAC sat everyone equally and was a way to address the question of the senate versus the assembly. The vision really was that the cities that had never had a voice in transit before would now have a voice in transit, especially involving land use. Ms. McKenna noted there is no other group in the country that has city and county representatives addressing transit and roads and links land use. Ms. McKenna referred to land use and noted this is why everyone was brought together and really why the organization was formed.
Mr. Evanhoe referred to vision and regionalism and noted at times when programming projects throughout the county whether the projects are rail, bus or roadway, it seems like a lot of money is being put in one place. Looking at the other eight counties, they are beginning to follow the County of Santa Claras lead about how to program. He noted that the leadership of the founding Board instilled equity in the staff.
Ms. McKenna referred to county and regional plans and noted those that are most successful tend to bring consensus, get a major project done and then move to another major project.
Ms. Lewis stated one of the things that was anticipated was that the city groupings would meet on a regular basis. Ms. Lewis noted that regular meetings might help ensure all members involvement.
Member Waltonsmith referred to the vision that PAC represents all of the cities and that PAC would be a voice that would affect the Board. Ms. McKenna indicated that her vision for PAC was that PAC would get material before the Board and have the opportunity to make comment and recommendations to the Board. The other side is that when cities go back to their respective bodies and they only have one representative who is speaking to them, that there would be other representatives with a voice. Ms. McKenna noted that she thinks there are so many important things that PAC should be providing input on.
Member Kennedy noted he was here when VTA was created and indicated that he has seen the structure work well and not work well. He noted that the structure worked well when PAC had more of a role and was able to more quickly respond, get the information and provide meaningful input to the Board. He noted that one of the problems that he has seen in the last several years is that both PAC and subgroups have been left out.
Member Kennedy referred to the issue of VTAs financial situation and noted that the way the Board addressed the issue was to appoint an Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee. He referred to the restructuring and noted that PAC could have done it, but for some reason the Board chose to create an Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee.
Member Ojakian introduced himself as Alternate Member for Supervisor Kniss. He noted that everything boils down to service, service for the whole sub-region, not necessarily for any particular area. He queried when formulating the composition of the Board was there talk about the fact that something got skewed at some stage or service ended being in one area and not the other, that there would be some way to sort of balance it out or take a look at that again. What happens when there is a majority of the voting members concentrating on a single group of people? Ms. Lewis noted when starting the Golden Triangle Task Force the whole thing was about Route 237, which needed to be upgraded. It was the priority and that was what the cities came together for. As we expanded to become a different type of body and then went to the ballot to fund projects, the first phase of projects approved included Route 237, but it no longer was number one. This came out of looking at the projects based on need, not on the pressure of what certain cities or certain individuals wanted; it really came out of a process of looking at where was the greatest need.
Member LeZotte noted she was curious about what this Board was supposed to be and how the other cities were supposed to form a coalition. She noted that she has attended West Valley Cities Mayors/Manager meetings and that VTA issues have not been agendized. Ms. Benjamin noted that the intention of this group was at the time not to tell each grouping how to rotate and how to vote, but to let them decide.
Member LeZotte noted that she has never understood the role of the groupings, how they in regional sense brought the other cities that they represented even to the Board for discussion. Ms. Lewis noted the intent was that each grouping would decide how they would communicate on an ongoing basis, receive information, and keep everybody up to speed.
Member Mahan indicated that the historical perspective is really helpful and noted that the criteria that existed ten years ago might not be suitable for what is going on with VTA and the cities today. She thinks that there is a lot of frustration among all of the cities and among the constituents. There seems to be a real disconnect among information and liaison activities between the cities and the Board, which may be resolved with having a city representative.
Member Dixon commented on her involvement with the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee, noting 100 plus hours of time spent. As a result, became very frustrated, and her frustration was raised to an all time level sitting on PAC. She pointed out the vital role each PAC Member has to their respective cities, noting the many time consuming responsibilities each member has. She expressed concern regarding VTAs financial situation and noted she is looking for a solution. VTA needs an additional revenue stream and it will only happen if everyone is together, on the same page, all 15 fifteen cities along with the County. She noted that she believes PAC has the wealth of knowledge to come up with some type of conclusion towards a solution.
Member Dixon referred to the restructuring proposal and noted that the City of Milpitas never intended to cause controversy. The City of Milpitas just put out the issue of maybe one city, one vote, with San Jose still having weighted vote. She commented that whether we look at re-districting, re-grouping, or going back and giving some real authority to this body, do we want to be more efficient; is the most efficient thing one city, one vote?.
Member Furtado noted that we are in terrible economic times and there are a lot of problems and solutions are not easy. He referred to the discussion about the Board and the composition of the voting, and noted he is not sure that changing those things would necessarily change the reality of the economic state.
Member Furtado noted just speaking as a member of the West Valley Cities, from his point of view, the set-up that the West Valley Cities has had actually worked fairly well. He noted that they have found it easy to either have their staff or one of their elected representatives talk to whomever the representative is from their area to the Board Member to get input from them or to give information to them.
Member Pirzynski noted that he thinks the discussion is very important and timely. He talked about the West Valley Cities Mayors/Managers monthly meetings and the issue of not having VTA agendized. He noted that there are other issues with transportation in the West Valley Cities that need to be addressed and recommended that West Valley agendize VTA.
Member Pirzynski expressed concern regarding the role of PAC, stating he thinks this is an opportunity for PAC to sit down and decide how PAC functions. He noted he would like to see the discussion continue.
Member Kishimoto took her seat at 6:14 p.m.
Vice Chairperson Sandoval expressed concern about the communication process with regards to the West Valley Cities. She expressed concern about the lack of information she has received regarding City of Milpitas restructuring proposal and recommended that restructuring proposal issue be agendized again for the November 13, 2003 PAC Meeting.
Member Kennedy requested that the issues of PAC to consider the restructuring and possible action on the restructuring proposal be agendized for the November 13, 2003 PAC Meeting.
Chairperson Risch requested that the November 13, 2003 PAC Meeting begin at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the Board of Directors issue.
On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, a report on the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee was received.
| 
Rider's Links 
