Utah Transit Authority – http://michaelclara.com This space explores issues of education policy within the Salt Lake City School District and promotes a culture of high expectations for all students Wed, 25 May 2016 20:00:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= Public Comment to UTA Board of Directors http://michaelclara.com/public-comment-to-uta-board-of-directors/ Wed, 25 May 2016 20:00:08 +0000 http://michaelclara.com/?p=2991 Continue reading ]]> ClaraTransportationJustice

 

PDF Version of Letter

TEXT OF PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER TO THE UTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Dear Chairman Burton,

It was just brought to my attention that UTA has published their Title VI report on their web page. [1]

I am pleased to see UTA publish some version of its Title VI plan. As you are aware, I recently filed a complaint with U.S. Department of Federal Transportation [2] asserting that UTA, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) [3] and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) [4] were in violation of the Title VI provisions as neither agency could produce UTA’s Title VI Plan when I asked for it five months ago.  Looking at the UTA web page the report appears to be 6 slides of a power point presentation. Clicking on the “overview” tab I noted a 20 page document styled: “Title VI Overview”. It’s odd that the “overview” has more substance than the report itself. In glancing over the current data that UTA has provided, I have the following questions within the context of FTA, Title VI requirements: [5]

Notice of Rights under Title VI
The UTA overview states:

“The notice is posted on all busses, at train stations, and in public areas of UTA buildings that serve customers.”                                

Requirement: FTA recipients shall provide information to the public regarding their Title VI obligations and apprise members of the public of the protections against discrimination afforded to them by Title VI. Recipients shall disseminate this information to the public through measures that can include but shall not be limited to a posting on its Web site. Furthermore, notices will detail a recipient’s Title VI obligations in languages other than English, as needed and consistent with the DOT LEP guidance and the recipient’s LAP.

Questions:
Where can a member of the public locate a document that explains the “protections against discrimination afforded them”? Where can the public obtain information on UTA’s “Title VI obligations”? Moreover this notice is NOT posted at every station and in every bus as indicated in the overview.

How to File a Complaint, copy of complaint form
The UTA overview states:

“UTA follows the same corporate policy to deal with Title VI complaints that it uses for general customer complaints: Corporate Policy 5.1.1, Customer Communications. More specific procedures are set forth on Standard Operating Procedure 5.1.1-1: Customer Communication Process.”

Requirement: FTA recipients and subrecipients shall develop procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints filed against them and make their procedures for filing a complaint available to members of the public upon request

Questions:
Where can a member of the public locate a copy of the “procedures for investigating” Title VI complaint? Where can a member of the public locate a copy of the of the “procedures for filing a complaint”? Currently UTA Corporate Policies and Standard Operating Procedures are not post on UTA’s web page. Does UTA’s Title VI Plan include a copy of the agency’s Title VI complaint procedure? The complaint procedure and complaint form MUST be available on UTA’s website, where is it? Does the UTA complaint form specify the three classes protected by Title VI: race, color, and national origin? Does the form allow the complainant to select one or more of those protected classes as the basis/bases for discrimination?

Does UTA’s Title VI plan include the following required elements:

  • Where to file a complaint at UTA
  • Who to file a complaint with at UTA
  • Who at UTA will conduct the investigation
  • When to accept complaint i.e. how many days from the incident will a complaint be accepted
  • Investigation & resolution timetable
    • Is UTA required to notify any other agency i.e. UDOT, FTA etc. ?
    • How will UTA respond to the complaint?
    • How will UTA respond to the resolution of a complaint?
    • Are these procedures written in languages of passengers in UTA’s service area?
    • How will UTA provide language assistance?

    As you are aware, Title VI requires if ANY Limited English Proficient populations in your service area meet the threshold (Five percent or 1000 persons), then the Title Vi complaint procedure should be provided in English and “in any other languages spoken by LEP persons that meet the threshold”; As you are aware, Title VI requires a recipient to provide written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent (5%) or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of the total population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered, by the program/activity. What populations in UTA service area meet that threshold? Are they provided the information in their language as required?

    List of Title VI investigations, complaints or lawsuits
    The UTA overview states:

    “There have been no lawsuits and no investigations conducted by FTA or entities other than FTA. UTA did receive customer complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin in transit-related activities. A table of complaints for the 3-year period are summarized below.”

    Requirement: FTA recipients shall prepare and maintain a list of any active investigations that allege discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. This includes investigations conducted by FTA and other entities other than FTA; Lawsuits, complaints naming UTA. This list shall include the date that the transit-related Title VI investigation, lawsuit, or complaint was filed; a summary of the allegation(s); the status of the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint; and actions taken by UTA in response, or final findings related to the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint.

    Questions:
    Where can a member of the public locate a copy of the complaint log with the elements listed above? The one that UTA has provided in the overview does not come close to meeting the requirements set forth in federal regulations.

    Public Participation Plan
    The UTA overview states:

    UTA corporate policy 1.1.28 Title VI Compliance Policy, coordinates with the public participation plan and serves as the disparate impact policy. See also UTA Corporate Policy 1.1.6 Public Input Opportunities.

    Requirement: FTA recipients should seek out and consider the viewpoints of minority, low-income, and LEP populations in the course of conducting public outreach and involvement activities. An agency’s public participation strategy shall offer early and continuous opportunities for the public to be involved in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts of proposed transportation decisions.

    Questions: Where can a member of the public see a copy of UTA’s  written plan which engages the public with the opportunity to provide input on the decision making process for Federal Aid transportation projects and services?  Where can a member of the public view a description of strategies, procedures, and outcomes for UTA’s ongoing public participation activities?

    Where can a member of the public view the educational highlights UTA’s Title VI components?  Where a member of the public find the disparate impact analysis for any the Sugarhouse streetcar project? Where would a member of the public find disparate impact analysis on UTA bus stop amenities program and the associated public engagement process? Where can a member of the public find examples of where UTA promoted inclusive public participation to include low-income, minority, and LEP populations?

    LEP Plan
    The UTA overview states:

    UTA created a Language Assistance Plan in 2011 to meet DOT and FTA guidelines, and to describe how employees will provide language assistance to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

    Requirement: FTA recipients shall take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to all benefits, services, information, and other important portions of its programs and activities for individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).

    Questions: UTA created a plan in 2011 –Really? Is there an updated plan? As you are aware, Title VI and its implementing regulations require that recipients take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are Limited English Proficient.

    In order to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities, UTA is required to use the information obtained in their Four Factor Analysis to determine the specific language services that are appropriate to provide. The Four Factor Analysis is an individualized assessment that balances the following four factors:

    1. Number of LEPs eligible or likely to be encountered by your Federally funded program
    2. Frequency that LEPs come into contact with program
    3. Nature & importance of program to LEPs
    4. Resources available and costs to program

    FACTOR 1
    Number of LEPs eligible or likely to be encountered by your federally funded program will be program-specific. In addition to the number or proportion of LEP persons served, the recipient’s analysis should, at a minimum, identify:

    • How do LEP persons interact with the recipient’s agency?

    • Who are the LEP communities? How many are there?

    • What is the level of the literacy skills of LEP populations in their native languages? Will translation of documents will be an effective practice?

    • LEP persons are underserved by the recipient due to language barriers?

    Factor 2
    The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. Recipients should survey key program areas and assess major points of contact with the public, such as:

    • The use of bus and rail service;

    • The purchase of passes and tickets through vending machines, outlets, websites, and over the phone;

    • Participation in public meetings;

    • Customer service interactions;

    • Ridership surveys; and

    • Operator surveys

    Factor 3
    The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people’s lives. Generally speaking, the more important the program, the more frequent the contact and the likelihood that language services will be needed. The provision of public transportation is a vital service, especially for people without access to personal vehicles.

    Factor 4
    The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach. Resource and cost issues can often be reduced by:

    • technological advances,

    • reasonable business practices, and the

    • sharing of language assistance materials and services among and between recipients, advocacy  groups, LEP populations and Federal agencies.

    As you are aware, after completing the Four Factor Analysis, UTA must use the results of the analyses to determine which language assistance services are appropriate. UTA must then develop an assistance plan to address the identified needs of the LEP population(s) it serves. Where might a member of the public obtain a copy of UTA’s Four Factor Analysis Plan?

    As you are aware, UTA’s language assistance plan must:

    • Include the Four Factor Analysis results, with a description of the LEP population(s) served;
    • Describe how language assistance services are provided by language;
    • Describe how notice is provided to LEP persons about the availability of language assistance;
    • Describe how the Language Assistance Plan is monitored, evaluated, and updated; and
    • Describe how employees are trained to provide timely and reasonable language assistance to LEP populations.

    Where might a member of the public locate these elements of UTA’s language assistance plan?

    Racial Breakdown of Non-elected Advisory Councils
    The UTA overview states:

    There are two non-elected committees or advisory councils at UTA. Following is the breakdown of the members of each the committee by race.

    Requirement: FTA recipients shall not deny an individual on the basis of race, color, or national origin the opportunity to participate as a member of a transit-related, non-elected planning, advisory, committee, or similar body. FTA recipients shall provide a table depicting the racial breakdown of the membership of those bodies, and a description of the efforts made to encourage the participation of minorities on such committees.

    Questions: The stats the UTA provided are terrible! Does UTA select the members f these committees? Id do, who at UTA does the selection?

    Title VI Equity Analysis
    The UTA overview states:

    The only facility constructed during 2013 to 2015 was a natural gas fueling station that went into operation in December 2015. The Environmental Assessment for the fueling station was included in the analysis for the Central Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility done in May 2012. Funding was obtained to build the fueling station, but the rest of the project is still on hold while funding is sought. The Environmental Justice section of the Environmental Assessment is included in the Title VI plan.

    Requirement: FTA recipients that operate 50 or more fixed route vehicles in peak service and are located in urbanized areas (UZA) of 200,000 or more people, or that otherwise meet the threshold, must conduct a Title VI equity analysis whenever they plan a fare change and/or a major service change.

    Questions: As you are aware: Equity analyses are required regardless of whether proposed changes would cause positive or negative impacts to riders. Accordingly, UTA must conduct an equity analysis for all fare changes and for major service reductions and major service expansions. Financial exigencies and other special circumstances (e.g., economic hardships, size of transit provider’s service area or staff) does not exempt UTA from the requirement to conduct equity analyses. Equity analysis must be completed during the planning stage with where the project will be. It must engage in outreach to person potentially impacted by the siting of facilities Compare the equity impact of alternative sites.

    Where might a member of the public find a copy of the equity analysis for the Sugarhouse streetcar project? Where might a member of the public find the equity analysis for UTA bus stop amenities program?  Where might a member of the public find the equity analysis for the BRT project in UTA County?

    Where might a member of the public find the methodology and date UTA used to conduct an equity analysis on the following:

    • Service Standards
    • Vehicle load for each mode
    • Vehicle headway for each mode
    • On time performance for each mode
    • Service availability for each mode

    In conclusion, I call into question UTA’s methodology in determining what parts of its service area, within Salt Lake City limits are in defined Title VI low income or ethnic minority areas. There are numerous reasons why I pose this question. I shall here mention one: In the map that UTA provided in their overview, it shows a white spot in the middle of Salt Lake City, indicating that there is a 0%-22% ethnic minority population in that area. That is the area where I live and use the 516 often. The census tracts for my community show that area averaging a 75% ethnic minority population, not the below 22% threshold indicated by the UTA map. Needless to say I noted many other discrepancies on the map. I would suggest that UTA recalculate their service area and comport themselves the standards set forth by FTA.

    Shalom,

    J. Michael Clára
    Board of Education, District 2

    cc: UTA Board of Trustees
    Mayor Biskupski, Salt Lake City
    Mr. Lee Davidson, Salt Lake Tribune
    Open Letter

     

     

     


[1] See UTA Web Page: http://www.rideuta.com/-/media/Files/Board-Agenda-PDFs/Title-VI/8a3TitleVIPlanOverview.ashx

[2] Complaint Alleges UTA Discrimination Against Poor Areas, Salt Lake Tribune 04/07/16

[3]  Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) serves as the Association of Governments organized under the Interlocal Cooperation Act of Utah State Law. WFRC also serves the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which is required by federal statue. See Also MAP-21§§ 1105, 1201; 23 USC 104, 134; 23 CFR Part 450

[4] Each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is required, under 49 U.S.C. 5303(j) , to develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be developed in cooperation with the State and public transit providers. The TIP should include all regionally significant projects receiving FHWA or FTA funds, or for which FHWA or FTA approval is required, in addition to non-federally funded projects that are consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which authorized federal highway and transit funding programs, significantly expanded the role of MPOs in the transportation planning process. Under current legislation, MPOs receive federal funding and state transportation officials are required to coordinate with MPOs on project prioritization.

[5] See FTA Circular C 4702.1B; The purpose of this Circular is to provide recipients of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financial assistance with guidance and instructions necessary to carry out U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT” or “the Department”) Title VI regulations (49 CFR part 21) and to integrate into their programs and activities considerations expressed in the Department’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (“LEP”) Persons (70 FR 74087).

 

 

]]>
Cease and Desist Letter From Utah Transit Authority http://michaelclara.com/cease-and-desist-letter-from-utah-transit-authority/ Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:33:41 +0000 http://michaelclara.com/?p=2910 Continue reading ]]> From UTA Web Page under TRUST

From UTA Web Page under TRUST

I filed a GRAMA Appeal with UTA Board Chairman Burton as set forth in UTA Corporate Policy 1.1.10 -Records Access and Management Policy. In response to my GRAMA appeal Chairman Burton has the UTA attorney send me a CEASE and DESIST letter. Yet UTA wants the public to trust them.

TEXT OF MY GRAMA APPEAL LETTER:

15 January 2016

SENT USPS CERTIFIED/RESTRICTED DELIVERY:9590 9401 0065 5071 7975 58
Mr. H. David Burton, Chair – Board of Trustees / Utah Transit Authority
℅ Ms. Rebecca Cruz, Board of Trustees Support Manager
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

 

Re: GRAMA APPEAL NOTICE OF DENIAL & DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION

Dear Chairman Burton,
The purpose of this letter is twofold:

1. GRAMA Appeal Notice of Denial [1]
2.  Demand for Preservation of Documents [2]

GRAMA APPEAL NOTICE OF DENIAL

Pursuant to Utah Government Access Records Act (GRAMA), [3] I am appealing Mr. Benson’s denial of my GRAMA appeal:

On December 21, 2015, I submitted a GRAMA request to UTA. I was seeking information surrounding the circumstances of my unjustified and wrongful termination by Mr. Matt Sibul, Chief Planning Officer.

On January 7, 2016, I submitted a GRAMA notice of appeal to Mr. Benson. On that same day I received a reply from Ms. Larsen, UTA GRAMA officer. Ms. Larsen stated that UTA required an additional five business days in order to respond to my request.

On January 15, 2016, I have received no response to my request. Accordingly I am filing this appeal for your review and response. Three months ago, I was notified that my earned vacation days were converted to “job abandonment” for the purposes of employment discharge; the devious termination of my twenty year career with UTA was orchestrated by Matt Sibul, Chief Planning Officer. [4]

Following my unexpected and hasty termination, I asked for copies of UTA policies governing terminations and due process. My request was denied and in the absence of those polices, I filed an internal termination appeal letter; I also attended a subsequent appeal hearing on December 14, 2015 without the benefit of the policies that governed my termination and subsequent due process procedures.

Additionally, I filed for unemployment benefits with the Utah Department of Workforce Services. UTA management is now contesting my application for those benefits. The information I am seeking in my December 21st GRAMA request will afford me the opportunity to better defend myself against the false accusations leveled against me by Mr. Matt Sibul, Chief Planning Officer.

I have also requested that UTA pay my wages for the week of October 26, 2015. [5] Last week, HR Generalist, Camille Glenn advised me that UTA management authorized the payment of those contested wages. Two days ago, I received correspondence [6] from Ms. Glenn, advising me that UTA management has now reversed their decision to pay the wages owed me. Ms. Glenn stated that the reversal was due to the fact that I filed a Whistleblower complaint the U.S. Department of Labor.

I now am forced to file my unpaid wage claim in Third District Court. Furthermore, I have also filed a retaliation complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, due to the fact that UTA management is now retaliating against me in the form of withholding earned wages because I filed a complaint. The information I requested in my December 21st GRAMA request will allow me the opportunity to better defend myself against the false accusations from Mr. Matt Sibul as I present my case to the Courts and investigators with the U.S. Department of Labor.

DUTY TO PRESERVE [7]
Due to the moral deprivation I have witnessed within the ranks of UTA administration, I predict further denial and delay of the requested information. I also anticipate that the need will arise for me to take further legal action in order to help bring into focus the incompetence camouflaging corruption at UTA. To that end, this letter will also serve to give UTA notice: NOT to destroy, conceal or alter any paper or electronic files and other data generated by and/or stored on UTA computers and storage media, or any other electronic data. If it is determined that further legal action against UTA is required, as part of my initial discovery efforts, I will include interrogatories and requests for documents and things surrounding the programs and projects I worked on as well as the circumstances surrounding my wrongful termination. UTA’s failure to comply with this notice can result in severe sanctions being imposed by the Courts for spoliation of evidence or potential evidence. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Shalom,

 

J. Michael Clára
Former: 20 Year Employee of UTA


Enclosures:
Official Claims UTA Fired Him for Warning it Violated Safety Rules, Salt Lake Tribune 01/11/16
cc: Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees



[1] Utah Transit Authority Amended Corporate Policy 1.1.10 Section XI (E)

[2] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 26 Duty to Disclose & Rule 37 Failure to Make Disclosure

[3] Utah Code § 63G-2-701

[4] Official Claims UTA Fired Him For Warning it Violated Safety Rules, Salt Lake Tribune 01/08/16

[5] Michael Clára intent to Sue Letter to Jerry Benson, UTA CEO 12/31/15

[6] Camille Glenn email to Michael Clára – Intent to Sue Letter 01/12/16

]]>
Public Transit Justice (letter) http://michaelclara.com/public-transit-justice-letter/ Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:10:30 +0000 http://michaelclara.com/?p=2879 Continue reading ]]> UTA Social Media

UTA Social Media

TEXT OF LETTER TO Utah Transit Authority:

28 December 2015


Delivered via electronic mail

Ms. Ruth Hendricks, Title VI Compliance Officer
℅ Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

 

Re: Transit Amenities Equity Analysis

 

Dear Ms. Hendricks,

 

I am writing to request a copy of UTA’s most recent Title VI – Transit Amenities Equity Analysis. [1] I am also interested in obtaining a copy of the associated policy on transit amenities distribution. If these documents are already on line, can you please provide me the link?

Last year, I was asked by members of the Glendale Middle School Community Council to reach out to UTA and request that the bus stop located at 1245 W. California Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah, be upgraded to include a bench and shelter. [2]

I passed on the request to Mr. Chesnut in the UTA planning department, at the time, I understood him to say the bus stop location would be upgraded. As of this writing, no such upgrade has occurred.

Earlier today, I noted that UTA posted an article on its social media touting bus stop enhancements on Salt Lake City’s eastside: “The stops will facilitate transportation to places like… Hawthorne and Whittier Elementary schools and local shops at 17th South and 500 East.”. [3]

The article goes on to state that bus stops on 1700 S., 200 S. and 500 E. will be improved to include new benches and bus shelters. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of recent upgrades are isolated to one part of town. This is problematic in that the 2010 census tracts reveal a 70% on average ethnic minority population in the area of Glendale Middle School, in contrast to an average 10% ethnic minority population around the schools mention in the UTA media propaganda. [4]

“Transportation, education, and housing make up the three-legged stool that continues the vestiges of previous illegal (and legal) segregation.” [5]

As you are aware, unlike suburban commuters who use public transit for work purposes but also have the option of using their cars, many in my community are dependent on UTA’s various modes of transportation to get to work, school, grocery stores, health and social services, and other essential destinations. Simply put, bus service is the transportation safety-net for many communities of Color; Transportation Justice must be the order of the day!

At first glance, it appears that UTA is not placing amenities in an equitable manner throughout Salt Lake City. Yet, I remain hopeful that UTA’s equity analysis will demonstrate the Authority’s commitment to ensuring that no person shall be excluded from equal access to its services and associated amenities because of race, color or national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

cc: Glendale Middle School Community Council
Mr. Randy Sorenson – Chair, Glendale Community Council
Ms. Marti Woolford – Chair, Poplar Grove Community Council
Councilman Johnston – Salt Lake City Council, District 2
Representative Angela Romero
Senator Luz Escamilla
Salt Lake City Chapter of the NAACP
Utah Coalition of La Raza
Crossroads Urban Center
PDF Version of Letter

 

 



[1] Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; FTA Circular C4702.1B

[2] See attached photo of eastbound bus stop

[3] UTA News and Events: UTA and Salt Lake City Partner to Improve Bus Stops Along 1700 S. 12/28/15

[4] Salt Lake City’s Changing Demographics: A Brief Overview by Dr. Pam Perlich 04/2014

[5] Transportation Inequality in the United States by Marc Brenman

]]>