AC Transit’s former GM has a new job in Oregon. He’s still making $500k as an agency adviser

The former general manager of AC Transit, Michael Hursh, started a new job in Oregon last month that makes him the new head of a county transit agency. But the fact that he still is getting paid handsomely by AC Transit as an employee is raising some eyebrows. 

Hursh is still receiving more than half a million dollars in total compensation from AC Transit, according to a settlement agreement between him and the agency that we obtained last week via public records request. He will continue working as an adviser through September. 

Some local advocates and members of the board aren’t happy with the arrangement. 

“Transit is absolutely essential to our region. As a public transit agency facing a large deficit and potential service cuts for riders, we need to be extremely careful stewards of taxpayer dollars and the public’s trust,” said Jean Walsh, a District 1 board member.

In February, Hursh was introduced by the Lane Transit District board as its new chief operating officer in charge of operations, fleet and customer service, among other tasks. Oregon’s Lane County serves cities such as Eugene in the west-central part of the state. 

“I just want to let people know, particularly the board, that I snuck up here for four trips before I got the interview and what an amazing, incredible transit district you have. I was just floored, blown away by the friendliness and professionalism, the operators, the maintenance folks, and I want to thank you all,” Hursh told the Lane Transit District board.  

Hursh left his position at AC Transit in December a year ahead of his 10th anniversary with the agency. His departure came amid a dispute with the District 3 board member, Sarah Syed, who had questioned his handling of agency tasks. 

Last February, Syed accused Hursh of cutting off nighttime bus service on Broadway in Oakland without proper community outreach. Hursh said he had made that decision because of rising crime and nighttime crowds on the arterial road, which is used by many taking key lines such as the 51A. As a result of Syed’s pressure, the lines on Broadway remained but with more city and county enforcement officers. 

In the aftermath, Hursh accused Syed of bullying and intimidation, setting off an independent investigation. It found no evidence of bullying, but it did determine that her communications through email “may have been interpreted” as improperly directing Hursh and his staff. The board is legally required to communicate requests to the general manager’s office through a board officer. 

After a board retreat that sought to ameliorate the situation through new communications training, Hursh asked for a settlement “on or about November 7, 2024,” threatening a lawsuit due to “bullying, harassment, disrespectful conduct, and improper interference with his role as General Manager/Chief Executive Officer.” That same month, AC Transit announced Hursh would leave the agency and become a paid agency adviser until Oct. 1, 2025, which Syed called a “sweetheart deal” because of the generous salary and benefits package that came with no specific work expectations. 

In response, several members of the board who had voted for the Hursh settlement attempted to censure Syed but wound up falling short. 

The original November settlement agreement points to a new senior adviser position created specifically for Hursh. In that role, the agreement states, he would “assist” ACT on Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) matters “as it relates to a potential regional measure in 2026,” “provide advice” to the staff on negotiations with the drivers union, and “provide advice to the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer and/or Executive leadership on management and assist with the transition.” 

A new amendment to the settlement agreement, also obtained by The Oaklandside, removed the senior adviser title, potentially making his status more ambiguous. 

Hursh’s reporting duties and salary remain the same in the amended agreement but without a formal role. Both agreements state Hursh is expected to receive the “same salary, insurance, and accrued leave time (including District holidays),” that he had while serving as general manager. He is also paid “at the same time and frequency as all other District employees.” Hursh’s salary, as noted by Transparent California, was $556,045 as of 2022. 

The amendment removing the Senior Advisor title, according to AC Transit communications director Robert Lyles, was to “to ensure accuracy” since “the settlement agreement was not contingent on an employment title.”

The timing of the title removal in the settlement might help the board sidestep an allegation that it had violated the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law. 

On March 3, an East Bay resident named Adriana Valencia sent a letter to the board threatening litigation for approving the settlement agreement without proper public notice, for not properly explaining the litigation threat from Hursh against the agency, and for creating the new senior adviser classification without including an item that would specify the job and disclose that it would pay Hursh about the same amount as his general manager job. 

Valencia and her lawyers argued the settlement was approved in a closed session and that “none of the exceptions specified” in the Brown Act code applied. 

After receiving Valencia’s letter, the agency board called a special meeting in a closed session to discuss the matter. 

On March 12, the board’s outside counsel responded to the Brown Act allegation. In a letter to Valencia, lawyer Andrew Shen said that the board complied because the “Brown Act does not require a legislative body to spell out the elements of a proposed settlement agreement on the agenda” and that the closed-session agenda description is in “substantial compliance with the Brown Act’s requirements.

Shen did acknowledge that the agency did not “reference or include” the litigation threat. 

“As a best practice, going forward, AC Transit will make similar claims available to the public. But regardless, this minor error would be an insufficient basis to require the reversal of any Board decision regarding the settlement agreement, including rescission,” Shen wrote. 

Valencia responded on Friday. In a copy of the letter we received from a source close to the matter, the Oakland resident said that while she does not want to take her complaint to litigation, she still wants the Hursh contract to be rescinded. She also wants each of the board of directors who voted on his contract to explain their reasoning. 

The board has another 30 days to respond.