At the upcoming SacRT board meeting on Monday, February 14, 2022, the board will consider a recommendation from the Board Composition and Voting Structure Subcommittee, and if adopted as a motion, will give the General Manager Henry Li the authority to work with our state legislator (Assemblyman Ken Cooley) to draft legislation to implement the recommendations. This is Agenda Item 4.1.

Our earlier posts are: STAR letter on SacRT board composition, SacRT board composition meeting #2 and SacRT board composition meeting.

The main part of the recommendation is:

1. Add one seat to the County of Sacramento and add one seat to the City of Elk Grove (total of 13 seats); or
2. Reduce the City of Sacramento by one seat and add one seat to the City of Elk Grove (total of 11 seats); or
3. Wait until Yolo/West Sacramento potential annexation and then add one seat to the City of Elk Grove

STAR does not object to any of these three options, but feels option 1 in the best.

Our concern, however, is with the additional language in the recommendation:

“The County of Sacramento will have an additional seat (four total) and the City of Elk Grove will have an additional seat (two total) on the SacRT Board of Directors. The City of Sacramento can appoint an alternate, but they must be an elected official. The Board must revisit seat allocation no less than every 10 years, but it must happen if/when Yolo/West Sacramento annex to SacRT or whenever a member jurisdiction has had a significant population increase or decrease or change to their landscape. The maximum size of the SacRT Board will be 13 members.”

“…but they must be an elected official“: This is inconsistent with SacRT legal opinion that board members can be non-elected people, if appointed by the respective agency, and it is a bald attempt to forestall the future possibility of members of the board who are non-electeds. This is anti-democratic. Transit advocacy organizations including STAR has long asked the board to consider membership by non-elected people, particularly highlighting the need for a disability community voice on the board, perhaps a representative from the Mobility Advisory Council. This is an attempt by the subcommittee, particularly Kerri Howell, to ensure that there will never be citizen representation on the board. STAR is absolutely opposed to this action.

“The maximum size of the SacRT Board will be 13 members.” This is unnecessary language. Though STAR supports the option to increase board membership to 13 at this time, there is no reason to handicap, through legislation, other options in the future. This language might well make it hard to solve board composition when West Sacramento and/or Yolo County are annexed to SacRT. Annexation has been talked about for many years, accelerating with the potential streetcar/light rail to West Sacramento. This should not end up in legislation.

Please see the SacRT Notice to the Public for information on how to participate in the meeting.

Added: PUC Code related to SacRT Board of Directors:

• SacRT
• SacRT Governance