Growls

Today’s Washington Examiner and Washington Post both report on a new report from Congress’ General Accountability Office (GAO). The Examiner reported:

“Metro's board of directors has been too concerned with day-to-day operations such as picking train seat colors and hiring non-management-level workers instead of pursuing multiyear strategic plans, according to a new federal report.

“The Government Accountability Office report released Thursday said board members and senior officials "described a culture in which there is a lack of clarity about the roles of the board and individual board members, which has resulted in their overreach into management responsibilities. (link to the summary of the GAO report added; access available via Adobe to the "highlights" and "full report")

[ . . . ]

“The report detailed how some board members had "excessive contact with midlevel managers" rather than working through established channels, asking for changes to board presentations before meetings.

“The board also meets more than nearly all of its peer agencies, the report said. From the end of April 2010 to May 2011, the board met 84 times in committee meetings, executive sessions and full board meetings. Only New York City's transit authority met more frequently of the six other agencies the GAO reviewed. Such frequency can indicate that the board is too involved in day-to-day operations, board members told the GAO investigators. And, the report noted, preparations for the meetings eat into staff time better spent running the agency.

“The board has had no way of assessing its own performance or procedures for investigating its own members, the report said. The agency suffered from a lack of formal orientation for new board members and a chairmanship that rotated annually, with board procedures changing alongside. It also hasn't been involved in long-term strategic planning.”

In their reporting, the Washington Post also wrote:

“The GAO interviewed Metro’s senior management, current board members and officials from oversight agencies and local jurisdictions.

“The audit credited the 14 members on the Metro board with implementing some improvements, such as creating bylaws. GAO called the bylaws a “good first step” toward addressing some of the agency’s concerns about governance. But it noted that the new policies will have to be “effectively implemented to achieve their desired effect.”

“The report also said that some of the metrics Metro uses to judge its rail and train performance are outdated and that the lack of compensation for the federal board seats — two principal members and two alternates — is a deterrent to recruiting qualified candidates. The General Services Administration has appointed two principal federal members to the board and one alternate.”

I’m not sure either newspaper fully captured the depth of GAO’s concerns with the ability of the Metro board  to effectively govern the system. In the conclusion of their report, GAO wrote in part:

“WMATA faces challenges in many areas, including projected shortfalls in meeting long-term capital costs, increases in ridership levels, and plans for system expansion. In addition, following the fatal June 2009 rail accident, WMATA board members and management have been tasked by NTSB and other stakeholders with making WMATA a safer system. However, the absence of a clear delineation of the board’s roles and responsibilities for providing oversight of management as well as the absence of a board- driven strategic vision raise concerns about WMATA’s ability to systematically and effectively confront its many challenges.

“WMATA currently has some elements of effective governance in place. However, board members and WMATA senior officials described a culture in which there is a lack of clarity about the roles of the board and individual board members, which has resulted in their overreach into management responsibilities. Such a culture limits the ability of the board to provide leadership, direction, and a strategic vision to management. Without a long-term strategic vision, board members approve priorities such as new technology and capital needs during the annual budget process rather than proactively prioritize needs over the long term.”

GAO’s conclusions seem a lot more serious than the picture drawn by either news organization, which focused more on the Metro board’s involvement in daily minutiae rather than governing the Metro system. While the news media's reporting provides a flavor of Metro's problems, reading the GAO is necessary to obtain a full understanding of the problems facing the Metro board.