The Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) announced on Wednesday that it had reached a “tentative agreement” with the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners “regarding the dispute around BATA’s board expansion and the removal of two BATA board members appointed by Grand Traverse County.” BATA’s board is set to “formally consider the potential agreement” at its upcoming meeting, scheduled for Thursday, August 10.

The dispute between BATA and the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners began more than four months ago. At a March 1 meeting of the Grand Traverse County Commission, commissioners added a “discussion of BATA board’s recent actions” to their agenda. Brad Jewett, who serves as vice chair of the Grand Traverse County commission – and as one of the four Grand Traverse County appointees to the BATA board – said at the meeting that he was frustrated by the actions of two other county BATA board appointees, Chairperson Richard Cochrun and Secretary Robert Fudge. In February, Cochrun and Fudge voted in favor of expanding the BATA board from seven members to nine. That motion passed, and BATA put things in motion to fill the new board positions.

Since 1999, BATA’s board structure has called for four representatives appointed by the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners, two appointed by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners, and one “at-large” member, selected by the BATA board. When board members voted to expand the board in February, they created two new at-large seats, which BATA’s board would also have been responsible for filling.

Jewett characterized the BATA board expansion as a “scheme” that would allow BATA to start “cherry picking” its board members because the transportation authority isn’t happy with certain county appointees. He also argued that Cochrun and Fudge, by supporting the board expansion, had diluted Grand Traverse County’s oversight of BATA expansion. Commission Chair Rob Hentschel agreed, suggesting that BATA’s decision to expand the board was a move “away from accountability” to the taxpayers it is meant to serve.

The Grand Traverse County Commission ultimately voted to charge both Cochrun and Fudge with “willful neglect of duty” and to “consider recalling these appointees for violating their fiduciary duty to the voter.” Cochrun and Fudge were initially advised to be ready to respond to the charges at the commission’s April 5 meeting. But drama heated up further on March 8, when Grand Traverse County commissioners convened a special meeting to move the Cochrun/Fudge hearing up to March 15. However, after Cochrun and Fudge hired an attorney and sought emergency intervention in court, BATA and Grand Traverse County reached an agreement to enact a 60-day pause on further action.

That initial agreement meant that Grand Traverse County would not take any action on efforts to remove appointees for two months, nor would BATA appoint or select new board members. BATA also agreed not to change its bylaws without the county’s consent during the 60-day window.

Now, the two entities have reached a more final agreement. BATA has agreed to keep its “board makeup at seven members,” which means the transportation authority will “not expand to nine seats with two new at-large members at this time.” The Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners, meanwhile, “has agreed to withdraw its plans to remove two county-appointed BATA Board members for willful neglect of duty.”

“Although the BATA Board of Directors had good intentions to expand its board to achieve a more comprehensive representation of the communities it serves, which was in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation, the political firestorm that was generated from this direction was not in the best interest of BATA at this time,” said BATA Executive Director Kelly Dunham in a press release. “The outcome BATA’s board was striving for by creating a more diverse and comprehensive board is still possible. This tentative agreement highlights BATA’s commitment for better county communication and collaboration in the appointment process, keeping our community representation strong.”

In March, BATA explained its intention to add more at-large members to its board, stating that having those extra at-large positions “provides flexibility and allows the BATA board to review its overall composition when filling at-large openings and search for the most qualified candidates to fill representation and skillset gaps.” Per yesterday’s press release, BATA has now provided commissioners in both Grand Traverse and Leelanau counties with “a list of board member competencies that it thinks best represent essential characteristics from the various areas and demographics BATA serves.” Going forward, the BATA Board Governance Committee “will evaluate where representation gaps may need to be filled each time there is a vacancy and provide that input to the appropriate appointing body.

“It is the hope of the BATA board that the counties will respect that input and assist in ensuring a comprehensive board structure will be restored,” the press release stated.