A three-member board of commissioners has governed the Port of Vancouver’s affairs ever since the first cargo ship moored at its docks. Now, more than 100 years later, the port’s business and the city of Vancouver have changed significantly, and Commissioner Jerry Oliver is asking if the port’s ruling body should change, as well.
Within the next month, according to port staff, the port will host a workshop on the notion of changing the port’s leadership from three commissioners each serving a six-year term to five commissioners each serving a four-year term.
“I have long felt six years is far too long,” Oliver said during the Jan. 9 commission meeting. “Not that we’re blessing the idea, but we’re asking staff to prepare the public workshop to hear the opportunities that might be available in going to a five-member commission and moving to ultimately four-year terms with the understanding the existing commissioners would serve out their existing terms. I think it’s something for the future growth and governance of the Port of Vancouver to consider.”
Of Washington’s 75 public ports, five have five-person commissions, said Eric Johnson, executive director of the Washington Public Ports Association.
When public ports were first created in 1911, they all had three-member commissions.
The ports of Seattle and Tacoma grew from three commissioners to five in the mid-1960s, but were treated differently in state statute because of their size.
In the early 1990s, the state Legislature allowed other ports to add two commissioners, so long as it was approved during an election by voters in the port district. The notion can be put on the ballot either by a resolution made by the current port commission or by a petition signed by 10 percent of the district’s voters who participated in the last general election.
The three other ports to have five commissioners — Anacortes, Orcas and Edmonds — are all smaller than Vancouver. Efforts to grow commissions at the Port of Everett and the Port of Port Angeles failed when voters rejected them.
If they do add commissioners, ports can either make them at-large positions or create five districts.
Johnson said growing commissions means greater expenses for port operations, but there can be some other, less tangible benefits.
“Benefits are kind of in the eye of the beholder,” he said.
On a three-person commission, two commissioners can’t talk outside of regular meetings because that would constitute a quorum, whereas two members on a five-person commission could legally do so.
“Some people think there’s a more moderating influence (with five commissioners), but that depends on the community and the commission,” he said.
Theoretically, expanding the port commission could mean greater representation for district voters, something Commissioner Eric LaBrant said he’s intrigued by.
“I think there are some advantages to making the commission more closely tied to the will of the voters,” he said. “Other larger ports in Washington have gone to five-member commissions. I think we’re at about a size where it makes a fair amount of sense to me.”
It’s not LaBrant’s “top priority” — given the port is currently working on updating its strategic plan, dealing with its lease with Vancouver Energy and trying to finish the West Vancouver Freight Access loop — but he does think it’s a discussion worth having.
Don Orange, who was sworn into office in late December, said now’s not the time to consider expanding the commission. He’s more concerned with getting a solid grasp on his new job and the port’s tenants.
“I note Jerry has either been in the majority or the supermajority of this commission since he’s been there. Now that his majority has gone away, he’s ready to restructure the commission,” Orange said. “Right now, I think our attention needs to be on getting the area of Terminal 5 working and getting people to work. … This could be a sideshow where the port stays in the news for this in the next year or two. We want to be in the news for recruiting great tenants and getting more people on this side of the river.”
Port Spokeswoman Abbi Russell, said in an email the idea comes up occasionally, be it from a commissioner or members of the public.
“It’s likely we haven’t seen movement on it because of the expense associated with increasing the size of the board,” she wrote.
A bigger board would mean paying additional commissioner salaries, per diem, travel expenses and benefits; it would also result in redistricting and increased election costs, especially if the new board had four-year terms instead of six-year.
“Cumulative expenses vary based on everything above, but at a minimum we’d see additional costs of around $50,000 per commissioner, per year. During election years — in which we, as a municipality, are responsible for covering costs to the county — expenses could increase by hundreds of thousands of dollars,” she said. “If we had a larger commission and the commissioners had shorter term lengths, we could have an election every year and even some years with more than one candidate on the ballot.”
It’s not the first time Oliver has broached the idea of expanding the commission.
In 2009, he surprised other commissioners and port staff with the idea of adding two commissioners, but it never moved beyond talks.
