# Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region *Subject record: the structure of the body that plans regional transit in the Twin Cities region, as evaluated by the Office of the Legislative Auditor in 2011 and taken up again by a legislative task force in 2023–24.* In January 2011 the [[Office of the Legislative Auditor (Minnesota)]] issued an evaluation titled *Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region*. The evaluation examined the regional transit planning role of the [[Metropolitan Council (Minnesota)]] in [[Minnesota]].[^1][^2] Its summary finds that this role "has been hampered by how members are appointed." It recommends a Council made up of both appointed and elected members serving staggered terms.[^1] The summary also states that "the structure of the Met Council must be addressed before other aspects of transit governance can be corrected."[^1] In 2023–24 the [[Metropolitan Governance Task Force]] took up the Council's structure again. It forwarded six proposals to lawmakers without selecting one by consensus.[^3][^5] The task force's 2024 minority report refers to "the latest example of many previous reports to the legislature that failed."[^4] The sources cited here do not establish whether any of the 2011 recommendations was enacted.[^3] ## Who The Office of the Legislative Auditor wrote the 2011 evaluation.[^1] The body it evaluated is the Metropolitan Council, which holds the regional transit planning role.[^1][^2] The summary also reports a view held by the stakeholders it consulted on accountability.[^1] The Metropolitan Governance Task Force was the body that, in 2023–24, considered changes to the Council's structure.[^3] It produced six proposals and a minority report.[^3][^4] ## What The 2011 summary makes three findings and recommendations on the Council's governance. - **Appointment.** The summary finds that the Council's regional transit planning role "has been hampered by how members are appointed."[^1] - **Accountability.** It reports that stakeholders "did not think that Met Council members are sufficiently accountable for their decisions."[^1] - **Composition.** It recommends that the Council include both appointed and elected members on staggered terms.[^1] A House Research memorandum quotes further language from the evaluation. As quoted there, the evaluation states that "The Met Council's lack of credibility stems from the governance structure of the Council itself." It also states that "The Legislature should restructure the Metropolitan Council."[^2] The task force's materials and news accounts describe its work as a range of ideas to change the Council's structure.[^3][^6] It presented these ideas to lawmakers as six options.[^5] ## When - **January 2011:** The Office of the Legislative Auditor issued *Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region*.[^1][^2] - **2023–24:** The Metropolitan Governance Task Force met and forwarded six proposals without a consensus selection.[^3] - **January 2024:** MinnPost reported on the range of ideas before the task force.[^6] - **2024:** The task force's minority report was issued.[^4] ## Where The evaluation's scope is transit governance in the Twin Cities region, as its title states.[^1] The body it examined is the Metropolitan Council.[^2] ## Why The 2011 summary traces the difficulties in the Council's transit planning role to two causes. The first is how its members are appointed. The second is whether those members are accountable for their decisions.[^1] The record shows these as the Auditor's findings. It does not establish the full range of causes.[^1] ## How The evaluation sets out a sequence. It states that the Council's structure "must be addressed before other aspects of transit governance can be corrected." It proposes a mixed membership of appointed and elected members on staggered terms as that structural change.[^1][^2] The 2023–24 task force did not adopt a single structure. It forwarded six proposals to the [[Legislature]] without a consensus selection.[^3][^5] Its minority report places the task force's work within a series of "previous reports to the legislature that failed."[^4] ## How many The task force forwarded six proposals.[^3][^5] It also issued one minority report.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, *Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region*, Summary (January 2011) — findings that the Council's transit planning role "has been hampered by how members are appointed" and that stakeholders doubted members' accountability; recommendation of appointed and elected members on staggered terms; statement that the Council's structure must be addressed first. https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2011/transitsum.htm [^2]: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, *Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region* (January 2011), report PDF — the evaluation's findings and recommendations on Metropolitan Council structure, including the language quoted in a House Research memorandum. https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/transsum.pdf [^3]: Metropolitan Governance Task Force, *Metropolitan Governance Task Force* official page and materials (2023–24) — the task force's work; six proposals forwarded without a consensus selection. https://www.lcc.mn.gov/mgtf/ [^4]: Metropolitan Governance Task Force, minority report (2024) — "the latest example of many previous reports to the legislature that failed." https://www.lcc.mn.gov/mgtf/report/Met-Council-COG-Minority-Report-2024.pdf [^5]: [[Star Tribune]], account of the task force's six options (undated in the record) — the task force offered lawmakers six options for reforming the Metropolitan Council. https://www.startribune.com/group-tasked-with-reforming-met-council-offers-lawmakers-six-options/600340230 [^6]: MinnPost, account of the task force's range of ideas to change the Metropolitan Council's structure (January 2024) — the task force's proposals and the level of support for them. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2024/01/task-force-has-a-range-of-ideas-to-change-met-council-structure-but-is-there-enough-support-for-any-of-them/