Update 2: The agenda and presentation were moved, so I’ve linked them here. https://star-transit.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sacrt_boardcomposition_2022-01-24_agenda.pdf
https://star-transit.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sacrt_boardcomposition_2022-01-24-presentation.pdf

Update: The meeting has taken place. The slide presentation for the meeting was posted during the meeting. I don’t know if I was the only transit advocate in attendance, but I was the only one who spoke. My comments for the meeting are below. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday, January 31, 5:00PM

---

A SacRT ad hoc committee on board composition is meeting this afternoon. SacRT has not publicized the meeting, and we would not have known about it if not for Ridership for the Masses noticing. The brief agenda is on the SacRT website.

The Ad Hoc Board Composition and Voting Structure Subcommittee agenda is brief:

1. Discuss the possibility of changing SacRT’s Board Composition
2. Other, Future Discussion Topics Related to the Board’s Composition, Next Meeting Date

STAR has long been concerned that the SacRT board structure and membership is less effective than it could be at creating a great transit system and service. These concerns include:

• the board is composed of elected politicians who do not have the time, due to all their other commitments, to really understand transit and the issues facing transit operations
• the board does not effectively represent either the riders or the areas of greatest ridership

There is a lot more to say about board composition and voting, but in hopes people might attend the meeting, this is it for now.

---

Comments by Dan Allison on behalf of STAR:

1. If a single measure for board composition is to be used, population is the best since it comes closest to the democratic ideal of one-person one-vote. Funding, alone, is not a good criteria because it changes so much over time, whereas population would change only with every census.
2. If population were the current criteria, board membership would actually be Sac City six, Sac County seven, Elk Grove two, Rancho Cordova one, Citrus Heights one, and Folsom one. We believe that is fair representation.
3. We support increased board representation for Elk Grove.
4. Consideration should be given to voting representation on the board for non-elected people, including representation of regular transit riders. This can also be solved by some of the entities appointing non-elected members in place of some of their elected members. Linda Budge shared that the board used to have other representation in the 1980s.
5. Any solution to the current issues should be robust enough that it can handle expansion to West Sacramento, Yolo County, or any other potential expansion, without having to go back to the legislature to modify PUC code every time it happens. There is a potential for SacRT to eventually be a regional transit agency.
6. All of these issues should be addressed at one time in legislation, not piecemeal over several legislative sessions.

A board could be either population determined, so that each entity would receive at least one board position, but more positions for more population, or it could be population weighted, so that a board member’s votes would represent the proportion of population. For example, if the city had only one member but their vote was 33% of the total, population would still be represented without requiring more board positions. The problem with this approach is that smaller entities get the same voice in speaking about board business, even though their votes count less. Too many public boards are weighted towards rural and low density voices by this method.

An idea just now thought of, so not presented, is that if the city went to six and the county to seven board members, it would allow and encourage those two entities to appoint non-elected to the board, including riders, disability advocates, and perhaps business interests.

The subcommittee members seem to be leaning towards a model where one board position would be added for the county, and one for Elk Grove, bringing the total to 13 members. However, that solution does not address the other questions.

Current (2020 census) numbers are:

Entity	pop	percent	current board	possible board
City of Sacramento	524,943	33%	4	6
County of Sacramento (unincorporated, Galt, Isleton)	636,651	40%	3	7
Elk Grove	179,119	11%	1	2
Citrus Heights	87,583	6%	1	1
Folsom	80,454	5%	1	1
Rancho Cordova	76,305	5%	1	1
total	1,585,055		11	18

STAR has often commented that the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento have too small a voice on the SacRT board, not too large a voice. The possible board representation shown above would bring this into balance.

• SacRT