In other words, it's none of your business.

METRO doesn't even respond to its own employee concerns. But an outside company gets a response like this???

Now people watch for METROs slickness. They may post the meeting in advance, then cancel it the day of or change the location, then re-schedule/relocate it in the same breath. Then hold the meeting and you miss it. METRO will claim there wasn't enough time to post the changes. So while you may have the information, METROs slick hand cant be ignored.

This response to the Chronicle is a tub of dirty water...

The CHRON's Move It ed is a different person.

But said meetings are in the Caucus Room.  I think that is behind the right wall of the Board Room.  I don't think you can get to the room.

Ms. Sit,

What is stopping METREAUX from streaming the video/recording these meetings, and posting the video for anyone to download and view?

The transit agency thinks nothing of squandering funds for a mock choo choo, they can surely find a few centavos left over from the more than 1/2-billion dollars of sales tax money taken from citizens each year to pay for true "transparency."

"First, these working sessions are not attended by a quorum of the Board, which means under state statute we are not required to post their schedules."

Since when has doing the right thing been dependent on the law?  It seems that the meetings, ad hoc or not, could be easily posted on this blog.

"Second, unlike the formal committee meetings, the working sessions are conducted on an as-needed basis. They follow no set schedule - sometimes changing times and dates with very little notice. Depending on the schedule of the committee chair, working sessions may even be cancelled the morning of the scheduled day."

Again, how hard is it to add to this blog or start another page with meeting schedules?  I would think that as a public body using public money to serve the public, Metro would want the public involved as much as possible.  

Let the professional "anti_Metros" vent themselves, Mary, but rest assured some of us in the public understand. As long as their is no quorum, and as long as THERE ARE NO BINDING VOTES on any public issues, I have no problem with not posting ad hoc meetings for which public notice is not required. Some of the "anti"s would carry public involvement to extremes. No entity, public or private, could work effectively if every member of the public were invited to every single meeting, discussion or gathering. That's why state law limits it only to formal gatherings of the true decision-makers.