Sound Transit’s CEO Replacement Competency Problem.

The previous post detailed how two items in the Sound Transit CEO Selection Committee April 8th meeting’s agenda prompted interest.  First, what was the CEO Selection Committees response to RCW 42.30.110.(1).(g) requiring the hiring or firing of a public employ “shall be taken in a meeting open to the public”? The post pointed out Sound Transit’s decision to fire CEO Rogoff was hardly in public. Of more importance was the result of CPS HR Consultants efforts to find that replacement. The January 6th committee meeting had indicated “active recruitment” ended on March 16th     

However, my attempt to view the meeting was “blocked by the host” and the April 8th meeting video wasn’t released until April 14th.  The video didn't include any mention of the need for an “open meeting to hire or fire any public employee.” CPS-HR presented a CEO Recruitment Selection Committee Briefing of what they had done, what Stakeholders wanted from a candidate, what CPS-HR considered an "Ideal Candidate", and the responses to “Recruitment Efforts."

   

CPS-HR ended up recommending 8 of the most qualified candidates for the Selection Committee Interview Process. They listed the questions they used to select the candidates and showed diversity of candidates. Their presentation concluded with plans for “Candidate Screening in executive session;” Selection committee Interviews (late April): and Final Interviews (in April/May). The executive session, initially scheduled for 60 minutes, was followed by two 15-minute extensions.  The meeting concluded with no discussion of the results and with plans for another meeting on April 21.  That meeting was subsequently cancelled so it’s unclear what happens next regarding candidate interviews.   

The CPS-HR presentation also raised concern.  Their need for the “Ideal Candidate” to be “Authentic, Passionate, Collaborative, and Committed, made no mention of the need to be “Competent.” None of the questions dealt with whether the candidate had experience leading any complex organization let alone a public transit system expansion. 

  

Sound Transit’s problem may be that one or more of the 8 CEO candidates had the modicum of transit system experience needed to recognize the futility of attempting to use 4-car light rail trains to reduce multilane freeway congestion.  That the alternative to 10-or-more-car subway trains was BRT routes on a limited access lane into Seattle. However, that conflicted with Sound Transit’s decade-long claim for delusional light rail ridership and ignored BRT benefits.  

That commuters need access to transit by living near stations or having parking near stations or near bus routes to stations.  Yet Sound Transit had spent a decade refusing to add parking with access to either light rail trains or buses. Thus, any candidate who recognized that need faced Sound Transit rejection. 

The October debut of Northgate Link demonstrated light rail car trains need access for riders. Sound Transit’s Northgate Link website had predicted 41,000 49,000 riders by 2022. The Seattle Times had heralded the debut as “Transit Transformed” with 42,000 to 49,000 riders added by the 3 stations. Yet Sound Transit still refuses to release Service Performance Report Q4 2021 that would have detailed ridership. 

The March 25th release of Sound Transit’s December 2021 “2022 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget” includes 2022 Link Statistics. That “Service Consumed,” “Average Weekday Boardings” was 43,000 for 2022 budget, “suggesting” that the ridership added by $2 billion Northgate Link was a tiny fraction of their website's 41,000 to 49,000 projections.  

 

The bottom line is the question remains whether any of the 8 CEO candidates recognized Sound Transit’s decade long failure to recognize light rail limitations and need for access and whether the CEO Selection Committee acknowledges that failure, and accepts his or her competency for candidacy.  If not the debacle continues.