In the end, I don't really expect much from the Transportation
Commission. I expect them to hire a really top-flight manager and
provide only very high-level oversight. I think an elected body might
well try to micromanage the agency from the commission, which would
scare off any manager worth having.
Muni is high-profile enough that a mayor's feet will get held to the
fire over it (just as is happening today). And, with this charter
amendment, the mayor isn't going to have any excuses for failing to find
a good manager.
The mayor gets to appoint a majority of the commission after a year in
office; generally, term commissions aren't much less accountable to the
mayor than at-pleasure commissions. Members still want to keep the
mayor happy. What the term provision provides is some stability.
There's a steep learning curve with Muni and transportation policy
generally. Bringing an all-new commission up to speed is something I'd
like to avoid.
As for missouts being a "safetly valve," or the right to collectively
withhold labor, I think that's just bizarre. The initiatives don't take
away their right to call in sick, after all, or even to negotiate for
gobs of sick time.
-- Daniel
Tom Wetzel <tom.wetzel@beasys.com> writes:
>
> Looking over the proposed RM charter initiative, the thing
> I find most dubious, I guess, is the appointed commission itself.
> With fixed terms, inability for the mayor to remove them "at will",
> and being unelected, it seems this would be clearly an unaccountable
> entity.
>
> I presume that the motivation is to somehow insulate Muni from "politics."
> But control of public policy is inevitably "politics", since wherever
> there are issues of social control or policy, there is politics.
> Politics is about power. Where there's power, there will be politics.
> (Graft and wheeling and dealing is a form of politics.)
>
> I'm particularly doubtful about the quality of representation likely
> on such a commission. People appointed to city commissions tend to
> be cronies of, or contributors to, the mayor. These positions tend to be
> given out as perks to influential people. Read: people with money (with
> an occasional token union official thrown in).
>
> As such, it is almost guaranteed that the profile of the commission
> members is likely to be at odds with the profile of Muni ridership,
> who tend to be skewed more towards the middle to lower portion of the
> income scale.
>
> Requiring confirmation by the Board of Supes means virtually nothing.
> When was the last time a mayoral appointee wasn't "confirmed"?
> I'm skeptical that requiring "regular Muni riders" will make
> much difference. What is a regular Muni rider? Someone who rides
> five times a year? (It might be more relevant to require the members
> of the commission to actually ride Muni on a regular basis while they're
> commissioners.)
>
> I personally think an elected commission would be a better idea. In
> either case, elected or appointed, it is likely that the majority
> of members will be deadwood. But it may be sufficient if there are
> at least a couple of knowledgeable and committed people, who can
> keep a critical eye on this beast and maybe drive changes.
> I suspect it would be more likely for this to happen if the commission
> were elected.
>
> The problems with the BART board, it seems to me, are in part
> structural, due to the nature of BART (a capital-intensive,
> empire-building octopus) and also due to the sectional politics
> that comes from single-member districts in a farflung area where
> there are locational conflicts of interest. As such, I'm not sure
> that it would be a valid comparison for an elected S.F. trans.
> commission.
>
> I also think it is unwise to write into the charter a prohibition
> as to the content of any negotiated union contract. I'm referring
> to the clause banning the unexcused absences provision in the current
> TWU contract. I realize that missouts are a key contributing factor to
> Muni's unreliability, and that needs to be discouraged. However,
> I personally consider the right to strike to be a basic human right.
>
> Wasn't there a provision added to the city charter in
> the '70s making strikes illegal? I assume there is a "no strike"
> clause in the TWU contract. At present it is only the unexcused absences
> clause that actually provides this right -- to collectively withold
> their labor to protest possible mistreatment --- to Muni employees.
> Even if that is not how it is actually used at present -- it seems
> mostly a safety valve for excessive overtime and work stress -- it does
> actually give them that right.
>
> Tom Wetzel