Click here to see the press coverage.

For Immediate Release: October 16, 2008 Contact: Margaret Okuzumi (650) 269-4109

DAMAGING REVELATIONS ABOUT VTA AND THE YES ON MEASURE B TAX CAMPAIGN UNCOVERED

SAN JOSE, CA– Documents released by the No on Measure B sales tax campaign show that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has been withholding crucial information about the cost of the proposed BART extension. This project, which already would be the most expensive public project in the history of the Bay Area, is certain to become substantially more expensive when updated numbers are finally released.

Highly damaging revelations about VTA and its relationship with the Yes on Measure B tax campaign were uncovered as a result of a Public Records Act request of VTA made by former mayor of Monte Sereno, Mark Brodsky, who also is a former member of the VTA Policy Advisory Committee.

An August 25, 2008 email from VTA staff member Brandi Childress to SVLG/Yes on B staffer Bena Chang, stated, “On your second request, staff is actually working on a 2008 Draft 65% Engineering cost…actual costs in 2008 dollars based on the design thus far.” The following day, she sent an email stating, “The VTA Exec Team is working on numbers based on 65% design engineering costs but we need to really vet them with [VTA General Manager] Mr. Burns which won’t be ready by tomorrow.” The fact that the project cost has still not been released nearly two months later, and it is less than 3 weeks before the election, can only mean one thing: the project doesn’t work financially with a 1/8-cent sales tax.

The documents also show that VTA has been illegally collaborating with the Yes on Measure B tax campaign: (page numbers refer to attached extracts from the response to the Public Records Act request)

- VTA staff arranging meeting with SVLG on the campaign (p. 183)
- VTA staff meeting with SVLG to discuss developing materials for campaign uses (p. 299)
- VTA creating graphics for the campaign (p. 271)
- VTA thanks SVLG for assistance in campaign-oriented Letter to the Editor signed by the VTA General Manager (p. 346) (see also pp. 175-176 of the complete set of documents posted at http://www.novtatax.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/Brodsky%20PRA%20packet.pdf )
- VTA helps Yes on B campaign develop campaign literature (p. 17-18)
- VTA to SVLG: We have updated project costs but won’t release them now (p. 337)

Other bombshells within the documents include an admission by VTA staff that the gasoline savings that would result from the BART project are “not very impressive”, and an acknowledgement by San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo that the terms of the agreement that VTA made with BART to pay for the train line’s operating costs, are not very favorable to VTA.

” County residents should be told the true cost of the BART project before the election, not the day after. How many more taxes will be needed? It’s unacceptable for VTA to hide this key piece of information from the public,” said Doug McNea, President of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association.

“VTA is withholding updated cost numbers for the project until after the election, because otherwise it would be readily apparent they plan to make cuts to Caltrain, bus and light rail service to fund this BART train,” said Margaret Okuzumi, a VTA watchdog. “VTA Measures C and D are equally deceptive, and if passed would let VTA continue to break its promises to the voters.”

“I’m personally appalled that VTA staff would conduct themselves in a way that not only brings dishonor and discredit to the VTA, but also contradicts the ethics training that VTA staff received at Santa Clara University at the beginning of this year,” David Casas, VTA board member. “Their actions call into the question the validity of the Yes on B campaign in its entirety.”

“VTA made a terrible deal with BART. VTA knows it’s a bad deal. I don’t see why VTA’s in such a rush to further bind us to a bad deal,” said Greg Perry, a former VTA Board member.

The troubled agency was the subject of a scathing Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report in 2004, which indicated that VTA lacked financial and management oversight. In March 2007, the VTA-commissioned HayGroup Assessment issued another scathing critique of the agency, citing problems with VTA’s governance, its lack of focus, and “inconsistent application of fiduciary responsibilities.” A July 2008 audit of VTA by the Bureau of State Audits found that “VTA risks pursuing projects that it may not be able to financially support in the future.”