A new political action committee, calling the Port of Vancouver “out of touch with our community and the public interest,” says it will provide campaign cash and grass-roots personnel to get candidates that share its values elected to the port’s three-member board of commissioners.
Launched earlier this month, Taxpayers for a Responsible Public Port has so far raised $2,000 from two individuals, records show. The group maintains a website and Facebook page, which, as of Wednesday afternoon, had 437 “likes.”
One of the group’s members, Jim Luce, said Wednesday the group grew out of concerns about the port commission’s handling of the lease for the oil transfer facility proposed by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies. The Vancouver lawyer is a former chairman of the state agency that’s reviewing the proposal by Tesoro and Savage to build the nation’s largest oil-by-rail terminal at the Port of Vancouver. However, Luce said, the group will advance a much broader cause aimed at making the port’s decision-making process more transparent and more accountable to citizens.
“We’re concerned that the Port of Vancouver is acting increasingly as a private entity instead of what it is, which is a public entity,” he said. “Our underlying message is, let’s put the public back in charge of the port.”
A goal for the group this year: selecting and backing a candidate for the Port of Vancouver’s District 2 seat, now held by Commissioner Nancy Baker, who, along with Commissioners Jerry Oliver and Brian Wolfe, voted to approve the oil terminal lease.
“Good governance is at the heart of this,” said Luce, who for a time was a consultant to a company that wants to redevelop Vancouver’s waterfront and that opposes the oil terminal. “We are not a one-trick pony, we are not a one-and-done group. We will continue and grow until the port makes the reforms we believe are critical.”
Baker said Wednesday she’s “not too worried about” the new political committee and that she plans to run for a third, six-year term. Baker, the port commission’s president this year, was first elected to the port’s board in 2003. Her current term expires Dec. 31.
“Ports in general are public agencies,” she said, “but at the same time they’re expected to operate like private industry.” As to the commission’s handling of the oil terminal lease, Baker said, “I believe the commission and staff made a decision based on what we felt was in the best interest of the port and the community.”
She said she did her due diligence before voting to approve the contract. “I didn’t make my decision lightly,” Baker said.
The last time a Port of Vancouver election featured a contested race was in November 2007, according to the Clark County Elections Department. That’s when Oliver defeated incumbent Commissioner Arch Miller for the District 3 position.
At the time, Miller attributed his loss to Oliver to a carry-over from the port’s failed attempt to more than double the district’s tax rate by implementing a special industrial development levy.
Earlier that year, a grass-roots effort had forced the new levy onto the primary ballot, where voters trounced it with more than 71 percent saying “no.” One criticism of the port was that it had allowed scant public participation in its special levy decision.
‘Boots on the ground’
Nowadays, opponents of the oil terminal similarly accuse the port of ignoring the public. And they call on commissioners to cancel the lease for a project they see as too risky to public health and the environment. The port also faces legal challenges over its oil terminal decision. One lawsuit, recently expanded by three environmental groups, accuses Vancouver port commissioners of using multiple closed-door meetings to illegally exclude the public from their discussions of the lease proposal.
The port denies the allegations.
As the port’s legal battles simmer, the establishment of Taxpayers for a Responsible Public Port intensifies the political circumstances.
If this year’s campaign for Baker’s seat features her and a challenger, the two candidates would automatically move on to the Nov. 3 general election. If three or more people file, all the candidates would appear on the Aug. 4 primary ballot. The top two vote-getters in the primary would move on to the November general election.
Luce said the new political committee will “encourage candidates to come forward, and we’re going to talk to them about our principles and rank them accordingly as a municipal league would do.” The group is soliciting contributions and will seek to provide “boots on the ground” to the best candidate “that serves the public interest.”
Luce and Ron Morrison, a Vancouver resident and critic of the port, each have contributed $1,000 to the group, documents filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission show.
Luce said Wednesday he’s no longer a consultant to Columbia Waterfront LLC, the company that wants to conduct a $1.3 billion redevelopment of Vancouver’s waterfront and that opposes the oil terminal. That’s been the case for several months, he said. Columbia Waterfront LLC includes developer Barry Cain and local investors.
The political committee’s concerns, and “issues and values,” according to its website, include improving the balance between the port’s commercial operation and the public interest; that the port refuses to provide “a full copy” of the oil terminal lease to the public; and that port commissioners “have too frequently deferred to staff, and continue to do so.”
In an email to The Columbian Wednesday, Abbi Russell, a spokeswoman for the port, said the port understands the political committee’s concerns and agrees that “ports are public and should be transparent and accountable.” She also said: “We remain committed to these values while working to keep our community safe, help grow the regional economy and protect our environment.”
The proposed oil terminal is undergoing an environmental impact analysis conducted by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Eventually, the council will make a recommendation to Washington’s governor, who would approve or deny the oil terminal. Opponents may appeal the governor’s decision to the state Supreme Court.
