When the Lord closes a door in Jacksonville, He opens a window in Dallas.
Nat Ford, Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s outgoing CEO, is set to become the head of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), but we are not supposed to know that yet.
Ford abruptly resigned as CEO of the JTA on the July Fourth weekend after years of controversy surrounding spending, executive perks, and questions over the agency’s autonomous vehicle program.
With a 9-6 vote during a late-night closed-door meeting, DART board members selected “Candidate A” as their next CEO just 10 days later.
Three candidates were considered for the top spot. Two women with years of public/private transit experience in Texas, and Ford.
So, of course the board chose Ford, er, I mean, “Candidate A.”
Despite using male pronouns, the board is keeping Candidate A’s identity a closely guarded secret until July 21.
The holdup is to allegedly iron out Candidate A’s employee contract. That would seem totally reasonable to anyone who hasn’t watched the recording of the closed-door portion of the board’s July 14 late-night meeting.
Randall Bryant is DART’s current board chair and owns his own political consulting firm. Bryant began by calling for a vote on selecting Candidate A as the next DART CEO.
After only two supporting votes, a motion to delay was put forth by a virtual board member seen on a screen.
The room was stunned. One woman even gasped aloud.
The proposal opened the floor for comment.
In-person Board Member Nathan Barbera stated he supported the motion to delay because the fast-tracked CEO application process seemed just as checkered as Candidate A’s professional past.
As Barbera was explaining why he wanted more time to vet Candidate A, another board member dramatically threw his hands up in disagreement, slamming them back down on the table loud enough for the mic to pick it up.
Barbera wasn’t fazed.
“I do not feel that based on history of this candidate’s tenure at other organizations that it’s fair to ask this board to make a vote in two business days. And would support this motion until the next board meeting to review that information,” he said.
Uh oh. That was not in the script.
Sensing trouble, Bryant called for backup.
He summoned DART’S Senior VP & Chief of Human Resources Rosa Medina-Cristobal, to the podium facing the board.
Rather than addressing the concerns board members raised about Candidate A’s record, Bryant focused on the length of the CEO search process, repeatedly asking HR to confirm it lasted longer than the previous CEO search.
“The process was longer than the last CEO process,” Cristobal affirmed.
“Okay. I just wanted the general public to hear what the process actually was for this CEO search. And that all applicants were in the original pool that we originally reviewed on June 9 the first time we did as a board,” Bryant said.
Another board member argued Candidate A deserved support because he “appeared before many folks” during a public meeting and was also allegedly vetted by outside sources. Those two “unprecedented” steps were reason enough to hire Candidate A.
The motion to delay failed 10-5.
And that is how the game is played.
Bryant never addressed the concerns board members raised about Candidate A’s professional record. Instead, he pivoted back to the search process.
Remember who the players are. Bryant isn’t a transit operator. He’s a political consultant.
Bryant resumed the vote.
It’s a no from the first guy. Too many questions. Not enough time.
Board Member Doug Hrbacek added to the dissent with the first WTF? moment of the discussion.
“At the beginning of this search a process was laid out and there was consensus amongst the board regarding that process. Then last week 4 of the 15 board members changed that process. And as a result, a candidate bypassed the process and became a finalist on Friday July 10th. That’s two business days ago. Two business days later we are being asked to vote on that candidate. Since Friday, red flag after red flag after red flag has been uncovered and as a board member, we should be able to have the appropriate amount of time to do our research and do our due diligence before we take a vote. So, for those reasons I am voting no,” Hrbacek said.
“Anyone else,” Bryant asked.
The second WTF? moment came next, courtesy again of Barbera: “I will join my colleagues in my vote – no. We were told that the person we are being asked to vote for had taken his name out of consideration, and then, this chairman, Hrbacek just mentioned, we were told, that four members of the board decided to make him a candidate again and ironically on the exact same day the candidate resigned from his current job… his current agency. I think there is… time is needed to do due diligence on the fact that every single agency that the candidate has left from has left in a cloud of spending controversies. And I simply do not want that to happen at DART in two years from now.”
This time, Bryant summoned legal counsel for backup.
Bryant, who is sitting within whispering distance of Gene Gamez, asked: “Mr. General Counsel, just wanted to confirm with you to the best of your knowledge, was this process fair to all the candidates?”
Gamez leaned into the mic – “I’m not sure that I can give that answer because I wasn’t involved in all of it. Has been consistent with other executive searches that we’ve done? From what I’ve seen, it has. And that’s the extent I can say. It was posted. It’s still open today. But I’m not sure I can say that last part because I’ve not been involved in all the process of it.”
Damn.
Rosa!
Bryant summoned Cristobal to come back to the podium for this delicious word salad deflection.
“As far as all the candidates that we reviewed up to this point, and of candidates that have moved forward to the finalists, and all the candidates, do you believe that there was any unfairness or impartiality to the candidates,” Bryant asked.
“No. Once the third candidate was brought back in, my um, ask of the board was that they undergo the same process that the other two candidates underwent. – And that did happen. So, in my opinion all three candidates went through the same process. So that, um, made the process fair for all three,” Cristobal stammered.
An unknown board member asked Cristobal, “And did that process happen two days ago with one of the candidates?”
“He rejoined the candidate pool on Friday. Yes sir,” Cristobal answered.
The board member asked again. “Two business days ago?”
“Yes,” Cristobal said. “On Friday.”
Bryant then gave the guy who threw his hands up earlier, Board Member Enrique MacGregor, the floor to close out the discussion enforcing the majority’s ‘who gives a #### attitude’ regarding Candidate A’s professional past.
“I will of course be supporting this particular candidate. I think that the concerns that have been raised both about the process and about unearthing certain facts makes it all look very suspicious and, and macabre. But the fact is that those concerns are preposterous to me. Uh, they are all issues that can easily be resolved… Sorry… They are all questions that can easily be answered before or during the contract negotiation process with that candidate. So, I don’t see any reason to delay, or I don’t see any reason why the candidate selected should not be included,” MacGregor said.
With that, the board voted.
The motion passed 9-6.
Congratulations, Candidate A.
We promise not to tell anyone.
