Reform of the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) will likely be headed to the ballot this November. The question now is how deep this reform can go. Supervisor Tom Ammiano recently took a strong stance on the need for MTA Board reform, stating publicly that he’d be willing to lead an effort to change the appointment process to allow Supervisors to make some appointments. However, voters would likely approve even more.
The MTA Board possesses immense power over how public transportation in the City operates. It hires the MTA’s Executive Director, helps develop and ultimately approve the MTA’s budget, and maintains responsibility and accountability for good service, fare hikes and service cuts.
Currently, the Mayor appoints the entire MTA Board, an ability many believe caused the current financial and labor mismanagement plaguing Muni. Anyone who considers granting Supervisors the ability to appoint some members of the MTA Board a power grab can be countered with two simple arguments – for one, it’s an equalization of power between each neighborhood’s elected representative and the Mayor, providing more community input into the operation of public transit. In addition, previous reforms of agency boards, including the Planning and Police commissions, have proven successful beyond even opponents’ wildest expectations.
But reform can go beyond just allowing Supervisors more appointment power. Seats could be designated for certain constituencies. As it currently stands, Board Members do not represent most San Francisco transit riders. Only four of the seven must be considered “regular” riders of Muni, though the charter leaves the definition of “regular” ambiguous. The rest of the Board must ride public transportation a mere one day a week, rather than as their primary mode of transportation. The latter would likely drastically increase their belief in the need for cheap, reliable buses and trains.
Possibilities for designated seats include at least one for a person who uses Muni as their sole source of transportation. Seats could also be earmarked for a variety of constituencies, including a disabled Muni rider, a Muni operator or retired operator, a senior rider, a youth rider, or a bicyclist.
Another serious flaw with the MTA Board lies in its ability to increase fares and cut services as part of their budget process. Once completed, two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors must vote to reject the entire budget to stop the MTA from taking such measures.
Reform could allow the Board of Supes more of a say in the budget, including allowing them a line-item veto over the budget. At the least, activists could require a two-thirds vote on the Board of Supes to approve any hikes or cuts.
The portion of the City Charter that addresses public transportation begins with some general language letting the MTA know what residents desire from Muni. Reliable service, clean vehicles, and accountable management are listed.
However, no demands exist to ensure that the MTA make every effort to keep fares low. Such a request could be added to the charter. A demand could also be made to require that under-served areas in low-income communities receive service proportionate to the rest of the city.
Caution should be exercised when activists choose which and how many reforms they should push for. It may be possible that only a very simple charter change would pass this year, as many expect extremely low voter turn-out, especially if no state-wide election occurs. Extensive reform might confuse voters, as well as lose some of the more centrist supporters of such a ballot measure.
Whatever we push for, the MTA must be reformed, if only to the extent that the Supervisors be given the power to appoint some members of the MTA Board. How far activists wish to push the envelope past that remains to be seen, but it should be debated now, before we begin to organize a campaign to assure that voters pass whatever does end up on the ballot.
