In the U.S. Congress, action on the transportation bill is stalled. The Senate has passed a bill (called MAP-21) but the House has major differences. It is not on the House summer calendar. SAFETEA-LU, the current bill under which public transit measures are funded, expires July 1. More information here: [link]

In my opinion, AATA should guard its finances carefully. It should not continue to expend additional money on the assumption that a new revenue source will soon be available. Given their recent history, I am concerned about the creation of a new, less accountable Act 196 authority at a time when transportation policy at both state and national levels is in such a flux.

There’s nothing new in the case history as of this morning. As we reported previously as a part of April 19, 2012 board meeting report, there was no ruling from the bench on the April 19 motion hearing. Since then, there was a status conference on May 10.

The roughly $80,000 per year as net ad revenue is accurate. From back in February, when we looked at this, it appears that the use of taxpayer funds is limited to the $50,000 deductible. At that time AATA controller Phil Webb wrote the following:

[As of Feb. 21, 2012 ]AATA has paid one invoice for $5,963.90 to the legal firm of Maddin Hauser Wartell Roth & Heller of Southfield for services up through December 31, 2011. This firm was selected by the Chartis Insurance Company. We have a “Public Official and Employment Practices Liability Policy” with an aggregate liability of $2,000,000 and a deductible for $50,000 with Chartis. Therefore, our exposure is the $50,000 deductible.

So it appears to me that the waste-of-taxpayer-money argument centers on the $50,000 deductible. That’s not a trivial amount of money. I don’t have a ballpark number for AATA bus driver compensation, but I’d guess that $50,000 translates to salary and benefits for a bus driver for the better part of a year. The same observation applies, though, to the $80,000 in bus ad revenue. It’s a drop in the bucket in a $30 million annual budget. Still, it’ll pay for some non-trivial amount of transportation.

In any case, I think the board has essentially already made its decision – it’s willing to spend the $50,000 to get a decision from the courts. And the ACLU, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t pick cases to resolve specific disputes, but rather to make broader, precedent-setting points. In other words, I don’t think the ACLU is involved because they’re interested in getting a resolution only to this specific AATA dispute on bus advertising. They’re looking to establish a precedent, that would guide future advertising practice for transit agencies and other public entities across the country. So my best guess is that it’ll just grind its way through the legal process.

Is their any update on the ACLU lawsuit against the AATA over the “Boycott Israel” ad?

I noticed earlier there was a quote in a prior article as to the legal fees and costs being incurred by the AATA as of the end of December 2011 to defend this proceeding in United States District Court. Is there an updated amount?

I understand the AATA only realizes about $80,000.00 per annum from bus advertising and am aware that two outside private law firms have been retained as well as a U-M business professor expert witness to help the city keep “Boycott Israel” off city buses.

I see the AATA’s defense of this suit as a colossal waste of taxpayer monies and ascetaining the level of current expenditures for outside legal services is material in determining at what point the general public will concur that spending further taxpayer funds in defending this suit is not in the public interest.