BART’s new inspector general, describing a Trumpian “culture of suppression,” says transit agency directors and labor unions are hindering her ability to conduct independent oversight mandated by Bay Area voters.
Harriet Richardson, in a report released Friday, details how she must haggle with district board members over access to people and information. The obstruction, she writes, “is not unlike the dismissal in 2020 of five federal inspectors general by the White House Administration for the direct interest of that administration.”
It’s time for BART directors to stop this childish behavior and allow Richardson to do her job. The board, staff and workers — and Bay Area residents — would greatly benefit from legally required independent oversight to ensure that the district spends tax and fare money efficiently and effectively.
The district is a mess, with a history of broken promises to voters, excessive salary and benefit costs, and inappropriate use of taxpayer money for campaigns — all exacerbated by plunging ridership during the pandemic.
Yet, BART directors and staff, who consistently prioritize labor union concerns over those of riders and residents, repeatedly demonstrate that they are more focused on public image than transparency.
For years, the district’s intemperance has been costly to San Francisco and East Bay riders and taxpayers. Now that BART also serves Santa Clara County, South Bay residents also pay for BART’s profligacy.
Some BART directors, led by Robert Raburn of Oakland, last month directed the general manager to broker between the unions and Richardson “mutually agreed-upon procedures” for how the inspector general interacts with workers. In essence, unions would influence how the auditor functions.
So much for independence. Understandably, Richardson has balked. This would “remove our ability to conduct our work without undue influence,” she writes.
Some directors also pressed Richardson to agree to BART’s employee code of conduct that requires that she not bring “reproach or discredit upon the district.” That is an absurd condition to place upon an independent auditor whose work, by its very nature, could shed unfavorable light on the district.
“In our profession, we expect to sometimes be disliked and unwelcome,” Richardson writes. “What we do not expect is for those in public service to actively work against our goals for transparency rather than for the public who fund the services that they are entrusted to protect.”
It was district officials’ misplaced loyalty to the labor unions that prompted state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, in 2018 to insist on an inspector general to oversee the transit agency’s expenditures and operations.
At the time, Bay Area voters were being asked to approve bridge toll hikes to help fund transit agencies’ capital projects and operation expenses. The biggest beneficiary of capital money under Measure RM3 is BART, which will receive $1.1 billion, including $500 million for new cars and $375 million to help extend the system to San Jose.
To keep Glazer from opposing the measure, RM3 backers agreed to his demand that it include the new oversight position. After the measure passed, the question was whether BART officials would let the inspector general they never wanted do her work. So far, the answer is no.
Richardson, who started work in August 2019, came with stellar auditing credentials that include three decades working for the federal government; Atlanta, Ga.; King County, Wash.; Washington state; San Francisco; Berkeley and Palo Alto. She is a member of the U.S. Comptroller General’s Government Auditing Standards Advisory Council.
The state law enacted by passage of Measure RM3 calls for her office to be independent. But the law’s provisions weaken that. The inspector general is appointed by the governor from a list of three names submitted by the BART board. And she can be fired by a vote of six of the nine board members with the governor’s approval.
Today, with seven of nine BART board members elected with union support and Gov. Gavin Newsom counting on labor leaders to fight against his recall, Richardson is in a tenuous position. Which helps explain why BART management, directors and labor leaders have consistently tried to tie her up in bureaucratic knots.
To her credit, Richardson has plowed ahead anyhow. She is nearing completion of a districtwide review that will determine the most critical problem areas for deeper examinations. And she and her two investigators have completed seven probes addressing allegations of fraud and noncompliance, with five more in the pipeline.
All she seeks is board support to let her do her job “ethically, independently, and without undue influence.” That’s not too much to ask.
