Committee asks
LTD Board for
straight answers
The committee voiced concerns after the meeting,
saying LTD did not provide concrete information
BY MEGHANN M. CUNIFF
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
The LTD/ATU Community Committee
got its first chance to question the Lane
Transit District Board about the ongoing
controversial contract negotiations be
tween LTD and the Amalgamated TYansit
Union at a meeting at the Woodleaf Village
Community Center on Tliesday night.
The LTD Board agreed to the meeting
out of its concern for the community and
desire to avert a driver strike, board mem
ber Gerry Gaydos said.
“We’re hear to listen,” Gaydos said.
The meeting lasted about an hour, and
the committee members met afterward to
voice their concerns over what they said
was a serious lack of information and ade
quate answers from the board.
“I was expecting them to give us at least
some more concrete answers than ‘It’s on
the Web site,”’ committee co-organizer
Claire Syrett said, referring to the board’s
suggestion that anyone with negotiation
questions visit the LTD Web site.
Negotiations between LTD and ATU
have been going on since May, and ATU
was hours away from striking on Feb. 1 be
fore agreeing to adhere to a 35-day cooling
off period to allow the committee time to
review the negotiations.
LTD did not accept the cooling-off period
and implemented its final contract on Feb.
1, subsequently causing ATU to declare a
strike effective March 7, the first day after
the cooling-off period ends.
“This is a slap in the face,” ATU Vice
President Jonathan Hunt said in a
phone interview.
Committee members questioned the
LTD Board about its reason for implement
ing the contract and expressed their con
cerns that a body set up to serve the public
was not allowing the public to intervene in
something as important to the community
as the LTD negotiations.
“You are engaged in a public service,
and we feel it’s important the public under
stand what is going on at the bargaining
table,” committee member Margaret Hal
lock said.
Gaydos said the board members would
not have been there that night if they didn’t
care about the public, and he stressed that
LTD has the public in mind during the ne
gotiation process.
“There’s nobody on the board that has
an agenda,” Gaydos said. “We’re here to
serve the public.”
Tensions rose during the meeting as
committee members became frustrated
with what committee member Michael Re
gan said was the board’s lack of real an
swers to easy questions.
“We know the union isn’t going to get all
they want, but you have to know that you
aren’t going to get everything you want
either,” Regan said.
Curt Bylund, a committee member and
neighborhood activist, told the board he
was at the meeting to find answers to ques
tions his neighbors have been asking about
the reasons for the negotiation problems
and the specific details of what each side is
unsatisfied with.
“I want to be able to take back to my
constituents a real answer to what the
problem is,” Bylund said.
Gaydos said the board is not looking to
hide anything from the public but said
there are many things it must keep in mind
when discussing the contract negotiations.
“There’s a process in place that has to be
followed, and we are following that
process as best we can,” Gaydos said.
Committee members expressed their
concerns over the LTD Board’s refusal to al
low an outside mediator join the negotia
tions and demanded to know why their of
fer was refused and a contract
implemented after the union had already
agreed to enter the cooling-off period.
Gaydos did not elaborate on a specific
reason why but said: “The short answer is
we don’t think there’s a need for it.”
Board member Susan Ban agreed.
“It is not our job to mediate this con
tract,” Ban said. “That is the job of the me
diating team.”
The board was answering every ques
tion the best they could, Gaydos said.
“Our response has been and always
will be: We’re as open as we can be,”
Gaydos said.
Ban emphasized that the board has been
deeply concerned about the possibility of a
strike for quite some time and takes the
public’s concerns very seriously.
“I do want to put this in perspective; it
isn’t anything we take lightly,” Ban said.
The meeting ended after the committee
concluded that further discussion with the
board would get nowhere.
LTD Service Planning and Marketing
Manager Andy Vobora said after the
meeting that the board had done its best
to answer questions while still adhering
to the mediation process it is mandated
to follow. He is confident that when the
two parties are able to get back on the ne
gotiation table, an agreement could be
reached within 10 days.
The committee decided to meet Satur
day to discuss what further action is
needed and whether it might need to
reevaluate its method of intervention in
light of what members see as the board’s
less-than-informative responses.
“We’re not going away until we are sure
the buses are going to run and the drivers
are going to smile,” committee member
Joan Pierson said.
meghanncuniff@dailyemerald.com
Tim Bobosky | Photographer
Top: At the Woodleaf Village Community Center Tuesday night, LTD Board Chairman Gerry Gaydos, left, fields questions from
LTD/ATU Community Committee members.
Middle: Margaret Hallock, left, director of the Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics at the University, and Joan Pierson of Faith in
Action, wait for answers at Tuesday night's meeting.
Below: Curt Bylund, an LTD/ATU Community Committee member of the Jefferson/Westside neighborhood group, gets
agitated with members of the LTD board.