A lot of people aren’t sure what a port commissioner is, what one does, or what makes a good candidate. It’s a fairly low-key job, but an incredibly important one. 

The Seattle area is proudly the “Portal to the Pacific.” Our airport and seaport, both managed by the Port of Seattle, are closer to Asia than any other large mainland US ports. This geographical advantage has brought tremendous prosperity to our region. Whether you’re booking a flight to Japan or buying an item made in China, chances are excellent that the Port of Seattle is involved.

As good as things are now, I think the Port of Seattle is teetering on the verge of disaster, and that’s why I’m running for commissioner:

• Cargo volumes and Port market share continue to decline, with no clear plan to reverse this trend.
• Declining property values have resulted in looming budget deficits.
• The entire airline industry is, again, on the verge of bankruptcy.
• Notwithstanding the dire fundamentals, Port expenses are growing as a percentage of revenue.

Performance audits: I support these. Only a limited scope performance audit has been performed, which primarily focused on whether the Port was overpaying for projects, and whether small businesses had adequate opportunity for bidding on them.

The results were not surprising. In effect, the auditors had trouble determining whether the Port is overpaying because project management and record-keeping are inconsistent and do not conform to industry standards. They developed a series of recommendations to bring project management and procurement at the Port in line with industry standards, and I support implementing these. I understand Port management agrees, and is already in the process of doing so.

The larger issue is what other problems are lurking. I’d like to see further performance audits in the following areas:

• Efficiency and completeness of intermodal facilities.
• Relative cost of the Port of Seattle versus competing ports.
• Security and policing of Port facilities.
• Compensation and benefits relative to the industry.
• Alignment of real estate portfolio with business needs.

Scandals: From e-mail scandals to bidding scandals to executive pay scandals, the Port of Seattle has been at the center of controversy for a number of years. There’s no point in blustering about previous scandals; my biggest concern is preventing the next one. Scandals are, in my mind, symptoms of a larger overall problem: a working culture that is too cozy, has too much impunity, and—most importantly—doesn’t have enough to do. Idle hands are the devil’s work and in this economy, we can’t afford them.

Growth: The Port of Seattle is very keen on starting new businesses (real estate development in Interbay, for example) but is not best-in-class in running its existing businesses, and these are in decline. Proponents of the Port’s “green” initiatives may dispute this, but I think the biggest “green” initiative the Port should focus on is money. Jack Welch’s example of “fix, sell or close” is a good one to follow.

Terminal operations: Terminal 5 is managed by Eagle Marine Services, Terminal 18 and 30 by SSA Terminals, Terminal 46 by TTI, Terminal 91 is self-managed, terminal 115 by Northland, and the grain terminal by Louis Dreyfus. This can’t be the most efficient way to manage terminals.

The Port is not an ATM: As a taxpayer, I’m tired of paying for the same horse twice. The Port of Seattle has been a key enabler of poorly managed agencies such as Sound Transit. Any highway construction even remotely happening in the vicinity of the airport has been paid for in recent years—in part—by the Port. Now, some groups are even asking the Port of Seattle to pay for reducing air pollution. The Port should focus strictly on its core business, and tax revenue should be used to make prudent and appropriate investments in this core business.

The Environment: It's easy to make sweeping environmental campaign promises. In fact, you may see my opponents make such promises. I won't make promises I can't keep. In a practical sense, environmental regulations are written and enforced by state and federal agencies. I support following the law, meaning that I think the Port should fully comply (in letter and spirit) with its existing environmental commitments. Let's start there before we invent anything new, and we'll no doubt see measurable results. I support driving for industry-wide sustainability initiatives at a national level, which is the most appropriate venue. And finally, I support voluntary public-private partnerships to reduce the environmental impact of Port operations, such as supplying "shore power" to cruise ships. No matter what you do, though, running seaports and airports is a dirty business. If doing such business with the Port of Seattle becomes an expensive hassle due to "green" initiatives that do not apply at competing ports, taxpayers will own a very clean, very expensive, and very empty white elephant. Clearly, this benefits no one.

I’m an engineer, and I like to fix things. I won’t make any glamorous campaign promises, but I will work hard to focus the Port on its core business: the efficient and cost-effective flow of people and goods. I’ll work hard to reduce the Port’s share of your property tax bill. And most importantly, I’ll work hard to keep Seattle the “Portal to the Pacific” for many generations to come. 

If you agree that a fresh perspective and new approach are crucial to our region’s success, I would be honored to have your vote.