A Time for Port Reform

I was asked to pull a couple comments out of John Servais' post, "We Can Expand Port Commission to Five" (Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 4:16 pm), and to elaborate on the process and rationale.  Here's the elaboration:

Under State law, port commissions are generally immune from citizen initiatives. The exceptions are that citizens may petition the county auditor to put these questions on the ballot, to wit: 1) whether the commission should expand from three to five, 2) whether to increase the number of districts within the port to match,and 3) whether the commissioner's terms should be reduced from six to four years. 

Similarly, commissions don't have much authority for sponsoring county ballot issues, but they can put the same questions on the ballot.  In fact, that's how it usually happens.

Initially, I thought that no matter how it got on the ballot, the result upon approval would be two additional at-large candidate positions available for filing at the next general election.  However, it turns out that if the port intends to sponsor the proposition, they get a chance to redistrict the port to accommodate five commissioners, thus directing the source of newcomers, shaping long-term representation in the district and delaying the change for one year.

That's probably not what citizens want.  The public's interest would advocate for two at-large positions, so a port position is open to anyone in the county at least every two years.  That's how we keep "fresh blood" coming and break the gravity of a system that produces twenty seven year commissioners like Scott Walker, or forty some year commissioners like Pete Zuanich and Tut Asmundson.

As to why it's worth pursuing, there are myriad reasons. The number increases the longer and more closely you observe the port.  Most recently, it has been their gaming of SEPA on the waterfront to avoid examining important public purposes, their now famous inability to play nicely with others, especially the city, writing embarrassing letters to everyone and their dog, their shortcutting environmental regulations on dioxins.  Even more recently, the public witnessed the willingness of two commissioners to feloniously conspire with top level staff to wage a hardball campaign against a new, well qualified and well liked director.  That got people's attention!  Why on earth would top level staff and a disgruntled commissioner illegally wrangle another key vote over a weekend of serial meetings to bring capable public administration to an abrupt end at the Port of Bellingham?  Well for one of those top staff, it's obvious.  He is slated to be named interim director!

Such meddling makes it seem worth scrutinizing what unspecified "internal aspects" of the port motivated commissioners Walker and Jorgensen to so precipitously seek a "different direction."  For the Port of Bellingham, Sheldon was indeed taking a new, if more traditional direction.  The port has just been through years of design and planning, study and policy development for a major change on our waterfront.  The entire organization got wound up to see the bulk of a public waterfront parceled off and sold into private ownership for development of high-end condominiums and six Bellis Fair's worth of upscale boutique retail and prestigious office space - all available with 40 to 50 foot slips in the new marina.  Then the bust came and no one is building high-end condos on the waterfront for the foreseeable future.  So Charlie got busy and started leasing idle lands.   He brought in a new industry to build oil spill cleanup modules for offshore drill rigs. He has talked of cutting into Seattle's lucrative barge trade with Alaska; that's port stuff that makes money and creates jobs.  It's not the fancy dancy foo foo deluxe pie-in-the-sky hoity toity uptown digs on the waterfront that commissioners envisioned selling cheap to their friends and family.  It's just a working waterfront.  Even accounting for my cynical literary liberties, I'm convinced those are the exactly the directions at stake in the battle for control of the Port Authority: Public or Private, Working or Wonderland.

And here are the original posts (amended):

The time for a five member port commission has come.  The Port can no longer maintain a low profile in local government.  The port should be more involved in the community and the community should be able to be more involved in the port.  The port's performance during events of recent times increasingly underscores this need.

Assuming we are going to have five commissioners, there are two ways to do it.  The Easy Way and the Hard Way. The Commission can authorize a proposition by resolution, or the voters of the district can qualify a petition with the county auditor.

We should ask the port, “Are you ready to work with this community, or must we work with the county auditor?”  Ironically, their likely choice will only further prove the need. It will also determine the tenor of the election.

Choosing to adopt a resolution, we all go to election saying, “Let the voters decide.”  The port says what they want to say, and anybody else can, too.

Forcing their constituents to qualify a petition, it becomes a campaign. We research and write, carry petitions, opine, develop slogans, distribute literature, forfeit our leisure and grow resentful of the burden and expense and sheer annoyance of unresponsive government.  In short, it’s a fight.

What would any reasonable legislative board choose? I got to thinking, “Time’s awastin’!”  and considered presenting a draft resolution for the commission’s consideration, but…well, uh… Instead, herewith, I present for review, discussion and amendment by my erstwhile peers, the following draft petition and ballot proposition.  But first the resolution, ready to cut and paste into the next agenda. This is the Easy Way:

====================
A RESOLUTION of the Port Commission of the Port of Bellingham submitting a proposition to a vote by the qualified voters of the Port District whether the number of Commissioners of the Port District should be increased from three Commissioners to five Commissioners.

WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Washington, RCW 53.12.115, authorize the Port Commission the Port of Bellingham to resolve that a ballot proposition may be submitted to the qualified voters of the Port District to determine whether there should be an increase in the number of port commissioners from three (3) to five (5).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Port Commission of the Port of Bellingham, Whatcom County, Washington, as follows:

Section 1. Finding.
The Port Commission finds and declares that the best interests of the Port of Bellingham require the Port of Bellingham to submit the proposition whether the number of Port Commissioners of the Port District should be increased from the current three (3) Commissioners to five (5) Commissioners for voter approval or rejection at the election to be held on November 2, 2012.

Section 2. Authorization For Election.
The Whatcom County Auditor, as ex-officio supervisor of elections in Whatcom County, is hereby requested to find and to call and conduct such election, to be held by mail-in ballot within the Port District on such day and to submit to the qualified electors of the Port District for their approval or rejection, a proposition providing for the increase in the number of Port Commissioners.

Section 3. Approval of Form of Ballot Proposition.
The Secretary of the Port of Bellingham Port Commission is hereby authorized and directed to certify said proposition to the Auditor of Whatcom County, State of Washington, in the following form to be placed on the ballot for the 2012 General Election in that form or substantially similar form as to properly place the proposition before the qualified voters:

NUMBER OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
The Commissioners of the Port of Bellingham adopted Resolution No._____, concerning a proposition to increase the number of port commissioners. This proposition would increase the number of commissioners of the Port District from three (3) commissioners to five (5) commissioners by the addition of two at-large positions. Should this proposition be approved?

Yes_____
No _____

Section 4. Qualified Voters.
The persons entitled to vote on the above-mentioned proposition shall be those registered voters within the boundaries of the Port District.

Section 5. Required Affirmative Vote For Passage.
The aforementioned proposition would pass if a majority of the registered voters at the aforementioned election voted “yes” on the aforementioned proposition.

ADOPTED by the Port Commission of the Port of Bellingham at a regular meeting thereof this _____ day of _______, 2012.

Signed, PORT COMMISSION of the PORT OF BELLINGHAM
====================

And , if the Commission still fails to understand the inevitability of working with the Community at this juncture of the Port's evolution, it can be accomplished by petition.  This requires gathering seven thousand valid signatures by the first week of June to allow elections to proceed in November.  There is a fair bit of rigamarole to getting ballot titles approved, assuring the petition is compliant, the wording bombproof, and so on, so time is already of the essence even without waiting around to watch the Commission hem, haw and drag their feet.  I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to make justifying their fire suppression strategy a priority instead.  Good luck with that.  Here's a draft petition, or the Hard Way:

PETITION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

WHEREAS, RCW 53.12.115 authorizes port district voters to petition to increase the number of Port Commissioners, and provides that upon qualification by the County Auditor, the measure will be placed on the ballot and decided by election, and

WHEREAS, a five member commission is needed to foster better communication and public involvement with the Port, to allow more open discussion of Port policy, to assure more open and responsive Port performance and to provide better representation for the Port District.

NOW THEREFORE, we the undersigned qualified voters of the Port of Bellingham Port District do hereby respectfully present the Whatcom County Auditor this petition to place upon the ballot a proposition to increase the number of Port of Bellingham Port Commissioners from three (3) to five (5), submitted in the following form:

Port of Bellingham: Number of Port Commissioners
Voters of the Port of Bellingham Port District have qualified a petition to increase the number of port commissioners.  This proposition would increase the number of commissioners of the Port District from three (3) commissioners to five (5) commissioners by the addition of two at-large positions. Should this proposition be:

APPROVED___
REJECTED___
====================

Finally, there's an Even Harder Way - a recall.  Let's return to that felonious weekend spree of Scott Walker's, whispering with conspirators, angling in the senate shadows with a knife to slip between Sheldon's ribs.  It may actually be possibly for this to have occurred legally, but I will bet that upon careful scrutiny, it wasn't.  The telling point is that one commissioner, Mike McCauley, was left completely out of the loop.  Details will emerge, probably along with confessions from those who now feel hoodwinked and dirty.

You see, we have laws about doing the public's business in public.  If you go to too much trouble attempting to legally accomplish that business in private, it's fraud.  Guess what, we have laws against that, and specifically against serial meetings intended to circumvent the law.  That puts Port Attorney Frank Chmelik directly on a critical bull's eye.

Recalls are notoriously difficult to prosecute, but not impossible.  There must be illegality, malfeasance.  It seems likely there was.  Nevertheless, I am calling this the hardest possible currently available path toward port reform.  As deserving as they may be, reforming the port requires long-term structural change, not just quick retribution - though both would work fine!

The main thing is that the outrage many experienced with Walker's shenanigans should be parlayed into lasting change.  Folks finally feeling some affinity for the port under Sheldon's management should stick with it and demand the port resolve to increase the number of commissioners.  Failing that, they should remain outraged and gather the requisite signatures.  It's our port, one we have funded with our property taxes for over eighty years. 

It's time we had a say in how the port serves our community.