Pittsburghers for Public Transit have given the Port Authority a list of recommendations regarding the hiring of a new CEO.
And what a list it is. They want labor, riders, community groups, foundations, and policy advocates to be involved in the initial screening process. They want finalists to participate in public forums and answer questions. And then they want the new CEO to be someone who “recognizes that mass transit is first and foremost a public good, and not a business out to make a profit.” And the new leader in addition to knowing how to run the transit agency should, “show transparency by including community voices in all decisions; work toward reducing the negative impact that transportation and housing policy can have on low-income communities; have demonstrated skills working with other government leaders and community groups.”
Tack that on to the qualifications that PAT listed in its announcement for the full-time position.
First of all, mass transit is not a public good. It is a heavily subsidized and publicly supported service. In the case of PAT, it has never made a profit and cannot ever do so. It struggles to stay out of the red even with massive taxpayer support. To raise the issue of profit making is a red herring and a specious talking point. Indeed, the opposite is true. It is very important for CEOs to be cost conscious and work diligently to improve efficiencies while maintaining adequate, timely service. Failure do so in the past produced a disastrous financial situation for PAT.
As noted in the news article yesterday, a foundation has provided a grant for helping to defray the costs of the search, which based on an April article was close to $92,000 for the search and $20,000 for expenses. The Authority board accepted the grant at its June 30th meeting.
Ironically, the decision to take foundation money was with the bottom line in mind. The article notes that the Authority applied for the foundation grant so it did not have to spend its own money on the search. Hopefully PAT plans on paying the salary and the benefits of the executive once hired out of fare revenues and operating assistance it receives. What will PAT do with the money it would have spent on the search had it not secured foundation funding?
The Port Authority’s cost of providing service has long been one of the highest in the nation, especially on accost of living adjusted basis.
Perhaps the “Pittsburghers for Public Transit” might want to look at Turnpike Toll rates that are being raised continuously to provide subsidy for mass transit. Perhaps they might want to consider the costs and work rules induced inefficiencies that exist because of the right of transit workers to strike. Having labor involved in selecting the new CEO is an absurd recommendation.
There is a board of directors whose job it is to select the new CEO. Ability to please a diverse audience made of multiple interests by serving up platitudes that make everyone happy is not what PAT needs. Promising to include all community voices in all decisions would cripple the CEO.
The CEO working with the duly appointed board will set goals and strategic plans. Where public input is relevant on large, significant service changes, it will no doubt be sought. But for all decisions to go before community groups would be time consuming, controversy inducing disaster.
The basic problem with the Pittsburghers for Public Transit group is that they are concerned only with being made happy and forget that the public transit they want must be paid for and that fares cover less than half of operations costs. Some concern for the people being taxed and tolled should be in their thoughts as well. But sadly, that is unlikely to happen.
