D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) on Tuesday called on Metro’s board members to resign to make way for a smaller, temporary “reform board” recommended by former U.S. transportation secretary Ray LaHood as a way to swiftly usher in change for the troubled system.
But there was no indication that any of panel’s 16 members planned to leave their posts, and the board reception to LaHood’s proposal was lukewarm.
“I’ve just been reappointed, so I’m not tossing in the towel,” said board member Michael Goldman, who recently was reappointed to a four-year term by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R).
“None of us that I’m aware of have any plans to resign,” added Metro Board Chairman Jack Evans, who represents D.C.
LaHood made the recommendation Monday during a summit with Hogan, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).
In his first public report on work he began in March heading a panel that is developing a plan to reform Metro, LaHood proposed to establish a five-member reform board for three years.
The District, Maryland and Virginia would each appoint one member; a fourth would be appointed by the U.S. transportation secretary. Those four would then select a chairman, who would be the fifth member.
The current board members’ terms would be suspended.
[McAuliffe, Hogan, Bowser agree with LaHood that Metro board should shrink]
Bowser, McAuliffe and Hogan agreed with the goal of shrinking the board, but wanted more details before making specific commitments.
Norton argues, however, that members’ swift resignations — or at least a commitment to resign — would signal the region’s willingness to make major reforms at Metro, potentially restoring confidence with Congress as it weighs whether to restore $150 million in annual grant funding for the agency when it expires in 2018.
There have been numerous studies on how to overhaul the system, but Norton endorsed LaHood’s approach, she said, because he’s “an honest broker who has done a deep study.”
“Resignation by board members would entail some sacrifice for the good of the region and Metro, and would avoid a new, lengthy dispute on the size of the board, which has been criticized for being unwieldy and parochial,” Norton said in a statement.
LaHood’s panel is expected to submit its final report in October. Asked why the call for resignations preceded LaHood’s final recommendations, Norton said the debate over how to reform Metro is at a “stalemate” and she saw committing to LaHood’s recommendation as a sign of progress.
“I had to ask myself, what is the quickest way out of this stalemate?” she said. “Is there any urgency to it? I see one urgency that stares me in the face is Congress comes back into session next week, and that is the region wants renewal of the $1.5 billion that we won 10 years ago.”
In addition to the broad support from the region’s political leaders, LaHood’s proposal drew strong applause from a trio of influential business groups in the Washington region on Tuesday.
“We are deeply encouraged by the consensus that emerged yesterday, and are hopeful that this week marks the beginning of an agreement on a package of reforms to put America’s transit system back on track,” read the statement from the Federal City Council, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and The 2030 Group. “In particular, we are supportive of Secretary LaHood’s proposal to establish a short-term reform board that would provide a platform for sound decision-making.”
The groups called for a board with the power to bring operational and structural changes, with members who retain an “unbiased fiduciary capacity” to Metro and the region.
The Federal City Council previously urged an emergency control board for Metro but abandoned its call amid concerns it would send a message that the region couldn’t solve Metro’s problems on its own. In June, the three business groups joined dozens of chambers of commerce and employers’ groups in signing a letter calling for Metro to “right size” its governing board.
Goldman and Evans, two of the board’s most vocal members, appeared caught off guard by the request.
[New dispute over cost of fixing Metro pits District against Virginia, Maryland]
Both said they wouldn’t stand in the way of a proposal for a new board, provided it led to progress on the issue of governance. Evans himself has criticized the board as unwieldy and overly cumbersome because of its 16-member structure, where voting and alternate members have dual loyalties to Metro and the jurisdictions they serve.
But Evans argued Tuesday that a five-member panel, as outlined by LaHood, would maintain the status quo.
“Reducing the Metro board from 16 to five is of no moment, a meaningless exercise, without the money,” Evans said, referring to the $15.5 billion over 10 years Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld has said the agency needs.
“If LaHood is suggesting that any of the five members be appointed by any of the jurisdictions, you’re still going to have the parochial problems that you have today,” Evans said.
Goldman questioned the wisdom of LaHood’s focus on governance rather than the system’s financial problems.
“I don’t think the issue’s going to be solved by rearranging the deck chairs on the Metro board,” he said. “It’s a matter of dollars and cents. And it’s disappointing that Secretary LaHood decided to focus on these tangential issues rather than the dollars and cents issues.”
Norton said she was surprised by board members’ pushback.
“By the way, they’re the ones that are calling it the Titanic,” she said, referring to Goldman. “So don’t come running to members of the House and Senate for $1.5 billion when you don’t have anything to [show] for changes while retaining your seats on the Titanic.”