Memo Leak Illustrates Rampant Paranoia at MTA

It doesn’t require dynamite to cause an explosion at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority these days. Eight harmless-looking pieces of paper can do the job just as well.

That’s what happened a few weeks ago when somebody leaked a memorandum proposing that as of July 1, another 65 bus lines be turned over to private companies or local municipal operations, which pay lower wages to drivers and mechanics. It was just a proposal, written by an MTA planner, but some trickster slipped it to the bus drivers union just as labor negotiations were starting.

What followed illustrates the paranoia that grips the beleaguered MTA. Transit bosses ordered an inspector general’s investigation of the leak, and disciplined the memo writer, suspending him for two weeks, according to the agency spokesman. His pay continued during his suspension, but, as any employee of a big organization knows, the reprimand in his personnel file can last a working lifetime.

*

I heard of the memorandum a couple of weeks ago when an informant called with a hot tip. We met in a nearly deserted restaurant. We had a cup of coffee, and I took a folder containing the memo and other material and hurried back to my desk.

The memo, written by Andy Galindez, an MTA planner, was even more interesting than I had expected, for it offered a clear, logical solution to the MTA’s great dilemma. The agency is under a court decree to improve the terrible bus service in poor Los Angeles neighborhoods dependent on public transportation. At the same time, it is building an expensive rail network. There’s not enough money to do both.

The memo’s suggestion of signing contracts with private companies, or with small municipal lines, such as Santa Monica’s, would save the MTA $155 million over three years, the memo said. That’s because the small munis and private companies generally pay drivers lower wages. The savings, the memo said, could be used to improve service by buying more buses to run in poor neighborhoods, as required by the court order.

All planner Galindez had done was expand upon broad privatization concepts that have been long discussed by MTA top brass. He used the usual bureaucratic form, putting out his research under the names of his bosses up the chain of command. His immediate boss, Jim McClaughlin, felt Galindez had come up with interesting data. “There was never any belief the MTA would . . . in one fell swoop change the way we are doing business,” McClaughlin told me. He said he marked the memo a draft and passed it on to his boss.

When they learned the document had become public, the top bosses exploded, as I found out when I called them for comment.

“It is a noncredible, nonfactual document,” said Ellen Levine, an MTA executive whose name appeared, to her dismay, at the top of Galindez’s memo. “It was an unsanctioned memo.”

Levine said she had not seen it until a bus drivers union representative showed it to her.

Linda Bohlinger, the transportation authority’s acting CEO, said the memo “was premature. It had no authority sign-off from anyone. It was one staff person’s product. . . . He put it in a format that was not authorized. What the staff person should have done is put together a concept paper and not put it in board report format.”

I think what really upset the MTA brass was not the content of the memo but the fact that it was made public.

The idea of privatizing part of the bus system is already MTA policy.

Thirteen lines are now under contract. Mayor Richard Riordan, an enthusiastic privatizer, is scheduled to become chairman of the MTA board in July and is expected to insist more lines be turned over to private operators.

So what was the big deal about Galindez putting some of this down on paper? Why was he disciplined for insubordination?

Because the MTA worries more about public relations, about spin control, than it does about running reliable, clean and on-time buses.

For example, the authority has hired a public relations company, Rogers and Associates, to shape the news during upcoming labor negotiations with the bus drivers union.

Why can’t the MTA media relations department, already on the public payroll, do the job?

The blood relative of this PR obsession is the MTA’s equally intense preoccupation with secrecy.

Major policy decisions and severe transit system failures are dealt with in secret, with bureaucrats hoping that nothing will seep beyond closed doors.

Contract awards are decided in back rooms, with little or no discussion by the board. So are major personnel changes. Subway defects have been hidden--until disclosed by this newspaper.

*

Now Andy Galindez’s musings are public.

The wraps are off a subject of daily interest to the hundreds of thousands who ride the bus.

Anti-privatization bus drivers can vent their outrage. The Bus Riders Union, a grass-roots passengers group, can debate it. Gadflies can question board members at the next meeting. Transit experts can weigh in, as can political leaders.

I tried to call Galindez to thank him for the public service he performed.

But, apparently knowing the vindictiveness of his bosses, he didn’t return my call.