Top 10 ways to improve transparency at AATA, according to Ted Annis
Ted Annis, treasurer of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, submitted a report to the agency's board of directors tonight with 10 recommendations for improved transparency of financial information.
Annis advocated that 10 items of information be added to the AATA Web site:
Ted Annis, left, at a board meeting earlier this year.
1. The complete AATA check register for the previous full year.
2. The names, titles, and actual calendar year compensation of all personnel starting in January 2010 with 2009 payroll data.
3. The aggregate overtime for the previous two full years.
4. The travel and expense reports for the previous two years.
5. The newly developed "Report to the Treasurer - Financial Statements."
6. The union contract.
7. The MRide contract.
8. All purchase of service agreement charges.
9. The cost per bus service hour for the last two years with comparative data for transit systems in Bay City, Mich., Knoxville, Tenn., Bakersfield, Calif., and Reno, Nev.
10. The monthly report by route showing ridership, including MRide.
Annis said increased transparency is important as the agency potentially looks to go before voters with a request to expand services countywide.
"Transparency ... is very important to having the rest of the world understand what we're all about," he told fellow board members.
Board Chairman Paul Ajegba said he had concerns that posting salary information on the Web site would be "not good for morale." He said the agency already is transparent because all of that information is available through the Freedom of Information Act.
"The public, the press, anybody can FOIA any documents in here," he said.
After some discussion, Ajegba and other board members agreed to have CEO Michael Ford evaluate the 10 recommendations and have them evaluated by the agency's various committees.
Annis' report also calls for improving and reconfiguring the agency's cramped board room to accommodate more people and allow CTN to broadcast meetings.
Prior to tonight's meeting, AATA staff worked to arrange a makeshift board room in the agency's offices that accommodates 12 more people, but that may be only a temporary measure. Audience members said they had a hard time hearing board members speak due to the configuration.
AATA officials are considering constructing a new board room with accommodations for up to 100 people when the Blake Transit Center downtown is demolished and rebuilt. The board approved a resolution tonight to move forward with the process of selecting a firm to design and build a new facility to replace the 1987-era bus station.
As for Annis' call to televise AATA board meetings, board member David Nacht said he has long supported that idea, but it has been voted down before. Board member Jesse Bernstein said it makes sense to discuss the idea again now since the agency has a new CEO and is looking to expand services countywide.
"I think there's a change in the environment and we'll take a look at it and see," he said.
Ford announced tonight he'll be bringing a recommendation to the board in January to get support for hiring a consultant to help the agency develop a countywide service plan.
Board member Sue McCormick said she hopes to see the agency go out to each of the communities and population segments in Washtenaw County to find out exactly what services people want and build the countywide service plan around that.
Annis noted toward the beginning of tonight's meeting that it was nice to see a one-page summary of the agency's year-to-date operating statements and balance sheet included in the board packet.
"This report makes a flinty eyed treasurer a happy guy," he said. "This is the kind of information I think a treasurer should have."
Reports show AATA's operating expenses have increased by about 6 percent this year. The cost paid by riders is up despite a continued ridership decline due to a bus fare increase.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
millermaple
Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 4:27 p.m.
1)Stop the practice of "straight lining". AATA forces riders to make one or more transfers -so each one way trip is actually counted as two trips. Transit authorities do this everywhere to inflate the ridership. 2)have more buses run more often. I ride the bus round trip 5 days a week, do any of the board members (or the people on those absurd bus station shelter ads)actually ride the bus? If the meters hours are lengthened, then AATA should extend the hours of operation. 3)More shelters, why so cheap with the shelters? It would be great to have more in neighborhoods going into town. Of course one was installed on Washington near Google, I've never seen anyone use it!
Matt Hampel
Sat, Dec 19, 2009 : 1:58 p.m.
Audit reports wold be nice, too.
Tom Bower
Thu, Dec 17, 2009 : 2:52 p.m.
Just make it easy for someone to get information about how to get from point A to point B without having to go to downtown A2 and transfer from one bus to another.
Mumbambu, Esq.
Thu, Dec 17, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.
My OPINION is that the salary info should only be instantly available on the website for those making more than, maybe 75k per year. If someone really wants to know what somebody lower on the totem pole is making they can go through the "time-consuming, frustrating, bureaucratic process". These aren't elected officials and they already work thankless jobs.
local guy
Thu, Dec 17, 2009 : 9:26 a.m.
Interesting concept and parts may have some merit. Pay information may be one of them. Maybe the union contract. I'm real curious as to why some of the items are listed, though. Is there some other agenda at issue? Picking and choosing as to what's relevant to disclose and not disclose is suspect in and of itself. It seems that if information is needed, it should be based on objective considerations and include the background. Giving out some info without the background is misleading and will cause lots of misinformation and speculation. People will think they have information, but all they have is data -- there's a difference. Rather than folks asking questions and getting complete answers, they will leap to conclusions. Mr. Annis - be careful what you ask for. For instance, how is the public to understand travel expenses without knowing the need/purpose for the travel. It's easy to be critical just looking at bland numbers without the rationale. How can the public just analyze overtime figures? It's easy to say that overtime is up, but is that always bad or are there legitimate reasons for the figures? Why two years? Why not last week? Why not the decade? Why is this the important analytic measure? Can everyone understand the check register? Are mere checks/payments significant? Frankly, the public doesn't know what those checks are for -- that's the Board's job to really oversee. Giving out raw data can be distracting. It's not information until it's meaning is provided. And why compare ourselves to those communities? Are their transit systems really the same as ours? Do they really provide comparable service for comparable populations for comparable hours under comparable laws and economic circumustances? Are those the communities we want to be like? Seems like arguments could be made to make dozens of other communities our comparables? Does AATA have the staff to constantly provide these analyses and answer questions to not only the Board to every person who wonders why a certain check was written or pay raise given? I'm all for open government and transparency. But just throwing things out for people to see without support or rationale is misleading. It is giving us only half the story. Post the board minutes. Post an annual report. Post budget information and expense reports. Give us information upon which we can make general observations and then, if we need the detail, we can ask. Post vetted studies. Don't think that just innundating us with data is a public service. Do your duty and communicate with us in a sound way. Transparency is not having the public micro-manage public bodies. Sure there should be checks and balances. But I caution any agency to put half-the-story out there and then have the time to do their jobs instead of explaining every detail to everyone. Those who are interested can still read the reports and minutes, see the major contracts, and FOIA information and attend open meetings. People with concerns are free to use the system and raise concerns. You should want to inform the public and not be distracted from distortions caused by lack of background, etc. Again, I'm not critical of transparency, but the public should want the public officials to do their duty and we should monitor the public officials. Are they giving us information? Are they setting good policy? Are they able to explain their budgets? Some of what is proposed is worth consideration, but is it all approporiate?
Rod Johnson
Wed, Dec 16, 2009 : 9:22 p.m.
I'm still trying to encompass the idea that Ajegba thinks his organization is transparent because it can be FOIA'd. No need to attempt to serve your constituents, if people want to know they can go through a time-consuming, frustrating, bureaucratic process! Who could be deterred by that?