WEST SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL: Sound Transit Board committee votes for a CEO candidate – without publicly identifying them

Following a 48-minute executive session (non-public discussion) during a special meeting, members of the Sound Transit Board‘s Executive Committee have just voted unanimously in favor of a CEO candidate, without identifying them by name. Search consultant Gregg Moser reported having about 60 people apply (including some that he recruited), 15 who met qualifications, narrowed that down to five semifinalists, then three finalists, whom the board identified publicly only as A, B, and C, voting unanimously today for C. Now board reps will negotiate an employment agreement with candidate C, bringing it to the full board on March 27.

The recommendation for permanent CEO comes 14 months after the last permanent ST CEO, Julie Timm, left; she had held the job 16 months. Goran Sparrman has been serving as interim CEO. The executive session in today’s meeting was preceded by a public-comment period which drew seven written comments summarized as opposing choosing King County Executive and ST Board member Dow Constantine – the only candidate whose name has been made public (Moser explained the need for confidentiality in a national search) – as CEO, plus three “live” commenters, one of whom voiced support for Constantine, another who stressed choosing someone who would “prioritize nailing the fundamentals” of service, and another who urged board members to have a more “transparent” process.

ADDED: Several board members made comments before the vote, but none gave overt hints at the winning candidate’s identity. They mostly discussed their hopes for the new CEO – Auburn mayor Nancy Backus, for example, said the new CEO must be committed to “get(ting) the spine built.”

15 Replies to "WEST SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL: Sound Transit Board committee votes for a CEO candidate - without publicly identifying them"

  • WSzombie March 11, 2025 (10:23 pm)

    So were the three candidates anonymous to the board as well? Did the candidates interview with anyone other than Moser? People often forget that Sound Transit is a private company with a blank check from the state. It really pushes the envelope with what should be allowed to be anonymous when spending taxpayer dollars. 

    • AH March 12, 2025 (7:47 am)

      It states in different places where I search that it is a public entity. Please expand on why you say it is private. If it is public then why all the secrecy? An aside is I am not big on 3 stations for 7 + billion bucks when ridership may be lower than people think.  I am frustrated sound transit is going to take out the West Seattle Health Club that has a decent pool in a city with few pools. It is a place for people to learn to swim which I value. And can someone tell me if it is true the steel mill is closing within the next 10 years?

    • Nombnie March 13, 2025 (10:37 am)

      4 Pinocchio’s for WSzombie,

      Sound Transit (ST), officially the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, is a public transit agency serving the Seattle metropolitan area.”

  • Ramp March 11, 2025 (10:37 pm)

    Is secrecy standard procedure for this sort of hiring? Was a reason provided for doing it this way? If so, that would be helpful and important context for the story – because otherwise it sounds concerningly opaque (as someone really rooting for light rail to come quickly and be successful).

    • Andrew March 13, 2025 (7:58 am)

      Well, this is a public process, and if I was a candidate who didn’t want my employer to know I might be looking for another job (especially if I wasn’t hired), I would appreciate the confidentiality.

  • anonyme March 12, 2025 (6:56 am)

    A separate report on the WSB within the last week did not describe the process as anonymous at all.  Candidates were interviewed, Dow Constantine among them.  Is this an attempt to cover up bias at the last stage?  Although I think that anonymity might be a useful tool for removing racial and gender bias in employment, it only does so if consistent throughout the process.  That didn’t happen here, so what is really going on?

  • Meeeee March 12, 2025 (9:52 am)

    Such a bad ethical look for the Sound Board to even consider Dow.

  • Etherhuffer March 12, 2025 (10:14 am)

    One single question: Will the CEO be an engineer or not? Will we get an Alan Mullaly or a Harry Stonecifer?

  • Jake March 12, 2025 (10:35 am)

    I am pro Dow on this. Sorry, he’s good at his job and he’s a good backer of getting things moving to get lightrail here.    

  • Scarlett March 12, 2025 (11:38 am)

    $675K salary?  About right for a project that was infrastructure pork from the beginning and peddled as some transformative public transportation alternative.   I can only imagine the backroom dealing that was going on prior to this vote and one individual in particular calling in a lot of political favors, I’m sure. 

    • wscommuter March 13, 2025 (12:05 pm)

      Why do you object to this salary?  What do you think people are paid to run very large, complex organizations; what do you think they should be paid?  This salary is quite low for an equivalent private sector CEO position.  If you want quality talent, you have to pay commensurate wages.  

      • Scarlett March 13, 2025 (1:20 pm)

        I think you could go out on the street and find someone equally capable of misling the public for a fraction of the cost. By the way, I’m actually the public’s side on this, which is ironic since the opposition to light rail has been portrayed as the villains.    

        • walkerws March 13, 2025 (3:08 pm)

          The opposition to light rail is portrayed as the villains because they are the villains. They are hurting the public. Stop hurting us.

      • Al King March 13, 2025 (1:37 pm)

        So “quality” leaders will only lead a company that pays a large salary? If they lowered the CEO pay no qualified people would apply?

  • Meade March 12, 2025 (11:41 am)

    The “bad ethical look” could easily be excused if the Board excluded Dow from all conversations related to the search. In the non-profit world, it is okay for conflicts of interest to exist so long as they are identified and the individual with the conflict is excluded from all deliberations related to the conflict. I’m hoping the ST board followed the same procedure.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.