a 501(c)(4) organization serving taxpayers

 The mission of Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association [ACTA] is to achieve accountability for local taxes in Alameda County.  

We seek to inform voters on tax purposes and cost.  

We advocate for efficient and effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Alameda County, California – In its 2021-2022 annual report to the public, the Independent Watchdog Committee reported it “… continues to be deeply concerned about the Alameda (County Transportation Commission),” but the Commission – for the second year – does not mention these concerns in its press release on the IWC report.

The IWC report continues, “Last year, we reported that, ‘Given the limited performance measures that have been reported by the Commission, the IWC finds it difficult to offer an opinion as to the effectiveness of the (direct local distributions) program expenditures … without assessing the benefits of these expenditures, we won’t know how useful these projects are to our residents and communities.[i]”

However, the Commission’s press release makes no mention of the IWC’s findings.[ii]

BACKGROUND

“Alameda CTC plans, funds and delivers transportation programs and projects that expand access and improve mobility to foster a vibrant and livable Alameda County.  Alameda CTC coordinates countywide transportation planning and delivers the expenditure plan for the Measure B sales tax approved by 81.5 percent of county voters in 2000 and the expenditure plan for Measure BB, approved by more than 70 percent of voters in November 2014.

“The IWC is made up of 17 members, all of whom must be a resident of Alameda County.  IWC members are not elected officials at any level of government, nor individuals in a position to benefit personally in any way from the sales tax.

“Each year, the IWC reviews and analyzes Alameda CTC’s Measure B and Measure BB expenditures to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with the voter-approved measures. For additional detail, see the full report at the link provided above[iii]” (Highlighting added; without readers going to the web site, there is no way to know that any concern exists from the press release.)

The IWC was a significant element of the Commission’s 2014 promise to the Alameda County electorate that Measure BB taxpayer funds would be well utilized, including being mentioned eighteen times in the 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan that detailed how the money would be spent – and the taxpayers protected[iv].

IMPACTS

“Beginning last year, when IWC members have asked why the press release does not mention their concerns, Commission staff responded that the press release was the Commission’s document, not the IWC’s.” said Tom Rubin, Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association VP and the ACTA representative on the IWC. “When I moved to have the IWC issue its own press release, the motion failed on a two to four vote – with some of the nay voters expressing that they did not want to enter into a conflict with the Commission.”

Mr. Rubin continues, “IWC is supposed to be an oversight committee, responsible to the public, including the residents and taxpayers of Alameda County, as well as all those with an interest in the movement of people and goods in and through the County. ‘Independent’ is literally our first name, but, in my opinion, there is something less than a total commitment to allowing the IWC to actually do its work in an independent manner on the part of the Commission.”

The IWC is supposed to have 17 members, including one appointed by each of the five County Supervisors, five appointed by the mayors in each Supervisory district, and seven from stakeholder organizations: Alameda County Labor Council, Alameda County Paratransit Advisory and Planning Committee, Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association, Bike East Bay, East Bay Economic Development Alliance, League of Women Voters, and Sierra Club.[v] However, the IWC currently has only ten active members – and only six of these attended the July 13th meeting.

Mr. Rubin continues: “I’ve been in the government service transportation sector for over four decades as an auditor and consultant to well over 100 transit agencies, regional planning agencies, and the Federal and State departments of transportation, and as the chief financial officer of two of the largest transit agencies in the U.S. I’ve designed or reviewed performance measurement system for dozens of these. The Commission actually adopted a good performance measurement system as Measure BB[vi]was kicking off and did a pretty good job of reporting performance measures in the early years[vii]. However, in recent years, the reports are far shorter and less detailed and many of the required performance measures have not been reported at all – and many of the ones that are reported are inaccurate, misleading, or meaningless – as I have pointed out on in multiple occasions at IWC meetings[viii]– without much success in seeing even simple improvements made.[ix]”

“In the Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for the 2014 election when Measure BB was approved by the voters, the Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure BB – which I co-signed – stated, ‘The “watchdog” committee will be comprise of favored stakeholders and Measure BB supporters. That’s political payback, not independence, transparency or accountability![x]” reported Mr. Rubin. “Unfortunately, history makes it appear that our 2014 concerns were well justified.”

“The mission of Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association [ACTA] is to achieve accountability for local taxes in Alameda County. We seek to inform voters on tax purposes and cost. We advocate for efficient and effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars.[xi]”

“We are becoming increasingly concerned about how well the Alameda County Transportation Commission is deciding how $7.8 billion of sales tax revenues[xii]from Alameda County taxpayers will be allocated, and how productively it is actually being expended,” said Marcus Crawley, ACTA President. “Effective independent oversight is key, and this simply does not appear to be a very high priority of the Commissioners or the Commission staffers. The Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association will continue to work to see how such much-needed oversight and reporting can be improved.”

[i] 21st Annual Independent Watchdog Committee Report to the Public FY2021-22, page 2, first paragraph, 4.2_IWC_Annual_Report_FY21-22_Handout_20230713.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[ii] ACTC press release presented at July 13th IWC meeting (“Press Release”), Press Release: GFOA Award (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] ACTC, 2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan-2.pdf (alamedactc.org)

[v] Press Release

[vi] FY 2021-22 Direct Local Distribution Program Compliance Summary Report Update, July 6, 2023, 8.4A, (pdf) pages 7-10, 8.4_IWC_DLD_Compliance_Summary_20230713.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[vii] ACTC, 2016 Performance Report, AlamedaCTC_2016_Performance_Report-1.pdf

[viii] ACTC, 2021 2021-Performance-Report.pdf (alamedactc.org)

[ix] Tom Rubin, “A Motion for the Consideration of the Alameda County Transportation Commission from the Independent Watchdog Committee to Improve the Reporting of Mass Transit Program Performance Measures,” IWC meeting February 13, 2023, item 6.3B, (pdf) pages 13-19, 6.3_IWC_Issues_Identification Process_Transit_Performance_Measures_20230213.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[x] (pdf) page 362, november-4-2014-composite-vig-eng.pdf (acvote.org)

[xi] ACTA Web Site, Alameda County Taxpayers Association - Taxpayers, Alameda County (actaxpayers.org)

[xii] ACTC, page 2 (pdf page 6), 2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan-2.pdf (alamedactc.org)

Alameda County, California – In its 2021-2022 annual report to the public, the Independent Watchdog Committee reported it “… continues to be deeply concerned about the Alameda (County Transportation Commission),” but the Commission – for the second year – does not mention these concerns in its press release on the IWC report.

The IWC report continues, “Last year, we reported that, ‘Given the limited performance measures that have been reported by the Commission, the IWC finds it difficult to offer an opinion as to the effectiveness of the (direct local distributions) program expenditures … without assessing the benefits of these expenditures, we won’t know how useful these projects are to our residents and communities.[i]”

However, the Commission’s press release makes no mention of the IWC’s findings.[ii]

BACKGROUND

“Alameda CTC plans, funds and delivers transportation programs and projects that expand access and improve mobility to foster a vibrant and livable Alameda County.  Alameda CTC coordinates countywide transportation planning and delivers the expenditure plan for the Measure B sales tax approved by 81.5 percent of county voters in 2000 and the expenditure plan for Measure BB, approved by more than 70 percent of voters in November 2014.

“The IWC is made up of 17 members, all of whom must be a resident of Alameda County.  IWC members are not elected officials at any level of government, nor individuals in a position to benefit personally in any way from the sales tax.

“Each year, the IWC reviews and analyzes Alameda CTC’s Measure B and Measure BB expenditures to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with the voter-approved measures. For additional detail, see the full report at the link provided above[iii]” (Highlighting added; without readers going to the web site, there is no way to know that any concern exists from the press release.)

The IWC was a significant element of the Commission’s 2014 promise to the Alameda County electorate that Measure BB taxpayer funds would be well utilized, including being mentioned eighteen times in the 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan that detailed how the money would be spent – and the taxpayers protected[iv].

IMPACTS

“Beginning last year, when IWC members have asked why the press release does not mention their concerns, Commission staff responded that the press release was the Commission’s document, not the IWC’s.” said Tom Rubin, Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association VP and the ACTA representative on the IWC. “When I moved to have the IWC issue its own press release, the motion failed on a two to four vote – with some of the nay voters expressing that they did not want to enter into a conflict with the Commission.”

Mr. Rubin continues, “IWC is supposed to be an oversight committee, responsible to the public, including the residents and taxpayers of Alameda County, as well as all those with an interest in the movement of people and goods in and through the County. ‘Independent’ is literally our first name, but, in my opinion, there is something less than a total commitment to allowing the IWC to actually do its work in an independent manner on the part of the Commission.”

The IWC is supposed to have 17 members, including one appointed by each of the five County Supervisors, five appointed by the mayors in each Supervisory district, and seven from stakeholder organizations: Alameda County Labor Council, Alameda County Paratransit Advisory and Planning Committee, Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association, Bike East Bay, East Bay Economic Development Alliance, League of Women Voters, and Sierra Club.[v] However, the IWC currently has only ten active members – and only six of these attended the July 13th meeting.

Mr. Rubin continues: “I’ve been in the government service transportation sector for over four decades as an auditor and consultant to well over 100 transit agencies, regional planning agencies, and the Federal and State departments of transportation, and as the chief financial officer of two of the largest transit agencies in the U.S. I’ve designed or reviewed performance measurement system for dozens of these. The Commission actually adopted a good performance measurement system as Measure BB[vi]was kicking off and did a pretty good job of reporting performance measures in the early years[vii]. However, in recent years, the reports are far shorter and less detailed and many of the required performance measures have not been reported at all – and many of the ones that are reported are inaccurate, misleading, or meaningless – as I have pointed out on in multiple occasions at IWC meetings[viii]– without much success in seeing even simple improvements made.[ix]”

“In the Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for the 2014 election when Measure BB was approved by the voters, the Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure BB – which I co-signed – stated, ‘The “watchdog” committee will be comprise of favored stakeholders and Measure BB supporters. That’s political payback, not independence, transparency or accountability![x]” reported Mr. Rubin. “Unfortunately, history makes it appear that our 2014 concerns were well justified.”

“The mission of Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association [ACTA] is to achieve accountability for local taxes in Alameda County. We seek to inform voters on tax purposes and cost. We advocate for efficient and effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars.[xi]”

“We are becoming increasingly concerned about how well the Alameda County Transportation Commission is deciding how $7.8 billion of sales tax revenues[xii]from Alameda County taxpayers will be allocated, and how productively it is actually being expended,” said Marcus Crawley, ACTA President. “Effective independent oversight is key, and this simply does not appear to be a very high priority of the Commissioners or the Commission staffers. The Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association will continue to work to see how such much-needed oversight and reporting can be improved.”

[i] 21st Annual Independent Watchdog Committee Report to the Public FY2021-22, page 2, first paragraph, 4.2_IWC_Annual_Report_FY21-22_Handout_20230713.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[ii] ACTC press release presented at July 13th IWC meeting (“Press Release”), Press Release: GFOA Award (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] ACTC, 2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan-2.pdf (alamedactc.org)

[v] Press Release

[vi] FY 2021-22 Direct Local Distribution Program Compliance Summary Report Update, July 6, 2023, 8.4A, (pdf) pages 7-10, 8.4_IWC_DLD_Compliance_Summary_20230713.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[vii] ACTC, 2016 Performance Report, AlamedaCTC_2016_Performance_Report-1.pdf

[viii] ACTC, 2021 2021-Performance-Report.pdf (alamedactc.org)

[ix] Tom Rubin, “A Motion for the Consideration of the Alameda County Transportation Commission from the Independent Watchdog Committee to Improve the Reporting of Mass Transit Program Performance Measures,” IWC meeting February 13, 2023, item 6.3B, (pdf) pages 13-19, 6.3_IWC_Issues_Identification Process_Transit_Performance_Measures_20230213.pdf (legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com)

[x] (pdf) page 362, november-4-2014-composite-vig-eng.pdf (acvote.org)

[xi] ACTA Web Site, Alameda County Taxpayers Association - Taxpayers, Alameda County (actaxpayers.org)

[xii] ACTC, page 2 (pdf page 6), 2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan-2.pdf (alamedactc.org)

The Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association joins with the rest of the Alameda County communities and people of color in supporting the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd.  This is the way that the American legal system can – and must – work.  Unrestricted and unaccountable police violence has been allowed to exist for far too long and must be stopped.  This case showed that the change must begin with the large numbers of true and faithful sworn police officers who publicly called out such behavior as totally unprofessional and unacceptable.  We support peaceful demonstrations calling on elected officials to insist on changes in training and police accountability to the public they serve and in holding public officials, including public safety officers, responsible for their actions.  There is much that needs to change throughout our society and our legal system; this is an important start, but we recognize that this is just the beginning of many changes that are long overdue.”