The Dallas Area Rapid Transit parted ways with outgoing President and CEO Nadine Lee on Friday.\u00a0<\/p>\n
After over three hours of deliberations in closed session, the transit agency\u2019s board of directors finalized a separation agreement with Lee and appointed Gene Gamez, DART\u2019s general counsel, as the acting CEO until the agency finds someone to fill the role in the interim.<\/p>\n
DART officials declined to provide information about Lee\u2019s severance. But a news release soon after the vote shed more light on the back-and-forth leading up to Friday. Lee asked the board not to renew her contract on March 13.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Three days later, DART Board Chair Randall Bryant began discussing ways to \u201camicably transition\u201d Lee early enough to give the next administrator time to prepare the upcoming year\u2019s budget.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Bryant was negotiating conditions of the separation agreement with Lee for a week after a March 24 vote by the board. However, those discussions did not yield \u201cany consensus under the conditions approved by the board.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cTherefore, in the best interests of the agency, we have made the decision to terminate Mrs. Lee at this time,\u201d the release said.<\/p>\n
Lee, who grew the agency\u2019s bus system and oversaw the completion of the Silver Line, led the agency through an existential battle to keep its member cities from pulling out. For years, suburban cities have complained that their penny sales tax contribution to DART has cut into their plans to attract sports teams and corporate entities.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Some cities have said the current system unfairly benefits Dallas amid concerns of low ridership and safety for commuters. The agency has repeatedly sounded the alarm that a withdrawal could lead to widespread service cuts, impacting riders who rely on mass transit<\/a> for day-to-day travel.<\/p>\n Dallas, by population and funding, is the largest service area for the region. It contributes more than $400 million annually, money leaders once considered redirecting toward shortfalls in the city’s pension systems.<\/p>\n