Washblog

'I believe that the root of these isses', Fisken said, 'is the levy. I have consistently supported a phase-out of the levy and this is threatening to the companies that profit from it.'

In 2005 a PAC called Citizens for a Healthy Economy (CHE) formed to oppose Jack Jolley, who was challenging Port Commissioner Pat Davis. Jolley supported a phase-out of the levy and Pat Davis has fought to maintain it. Fisken believes that the same interests behind CHE are also backing Bill Bryant. What leads you to that conclusion, I asked. Fisken replied that several pro-levy people had told him directly that they were looking for someone to challenge him, including Mic Dinsmore, the former CEO of the Port. At least two of the donors to Bill Bryant's campaign, Columbia Hospitality and Jim Blackmore, which each gave $5,000 to CHE in 2005 have donated to Bryant so far, $500 and $1,000, respectively. He expects more of the CHE donors to appear on future campaign disclosure reports and estimates that at least another $100,000 will be coming into the Bryant campaign from these sources.

The levy on King County properties has been a matter of public discussion since the 2005 port race. An emerging consensus is that the levy is unique nationwide in its size and that it benefits big business but does not truly serve the public interest. Do you think, I asked Mr. Fisken, that if you stay in office and one more Port Comissioner who opposes the levy is elected, that we are likely to see it lifted? Each of the Port Commissioners is very individual, Fisken said. It's difficult to say that there’s a block in either direction. But if Bob Edwards were defeated by one of his challengers, it's likely that we would see a substantial push from the commission to lift that levy.

Alec Fisken is known as a advocate for labor, environment, and for greater public accountability in the operations of the Port, which has been widely criticized for lavish capital improvement projects, secrecy, great friendliness to big business, and less than kind behavior to labor and workers.

A History of Secrecy and Poor Management of Public Assets
The giant orange cranes we see when we drive down Route 99 past Seattle are a symbol for many of secrecy surrounding management of the Port of Seattle. The cranes are privately maintainted by Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a company famous for its opaque operations and which has earned a place in the Rouges Gallery of Iraq War Profiteers.

In 1990, before privatization, The Seattle Times reported, SSA and the Port moved together to eliminate "SSA's only marine terminal competitor from the waterfront, according to a $10 million complaint" by Seacon Terminals Inc. In 2001, SSA and the Port teamed up again and without, public input, privatized the maintenance of the cranes with a no-bid 30-year lease in order to fund a $300 million expansion and improvement of Terminal 18 on Harbor Island, the company's home. O. Casey Corr of The Seattle Times reported on this deal, noting that the expenditure was "the rough equivalent of a new Mariner stadium or what the Seattle Public Schools will spend on capital needs through 2001."

At the last minute, labor interests discovered the plan and forced a public hearing. Later, they alleged that the Port commissioners made a number of contradictory statements on the financial status of the cranes at the meeting. A reported 37 workers lost their jobs. The no-bid privatization was sold as a move that would make the Port of Seattle more competetive with other Ports. The Port has not been gaining market share, however. A November, 2006 article in the Puget Sound Business Journal reports that in the previous year, Port of Seattle's volume had decreased 4.7 percent, Tacoma's had increased .4 percent, and Port of Vancouver had increased 26 percent.

Secrecy, poor management, and generous no-bid business deals that are stingy on the public interest, persist. A December, 2006 PI investigative article, Lax Oversight at Port of Seattle details sweetheart deals, lost public opportunity and resources, and some apparent connection with Citizens for a Healthy Economy, the group that Mr. Fisken believes is connected with support for Bill Bryant.

I agree with Alec Fisken, as I understood him, that William Bryant's campaign is probably largely driven and fueled by CHE interests that are focused on maintaining the status quo at the Port. Mr. Bryant, who gave a small donation to counter Initiative 933 and is a board member of the Nisqually River Council, no doubt genuinely desires to work for the protection of Elliott Bay. And perhaps he's an admirer of Barack Obama and didn't intend any misrepresentation in his campaign letter. Perhaps he does not know the long and, I think, sad and sordid, history of the relationships between self-serving business interests and the Port of Seattle. But my conversation with him was not reassuring to me. I believe he was less than forthright with me when he characterized a focus on his Republican donations as a form of cherrypicking. His history of political contributions shows that he is a devoted Republican, although he didn't want to admit that to me. I'm voting for Alec Fisken, in fact I just sent him a donation. Take a look at his list of his accomplishments. Mr. Fisken needs to return to the Port and needs the company of at least one more public-minded Commissioner so this agency can be brought in line with the public interest.

*Corrections were made to this number based on readers' comments. Thanks to Willis Reed and Steve Zemke. Other minor corrections have been made in this piece.