Elections Thoughts

For some time, I've felt a declining joyousness about our local elections process and the growing obstacles that threaten it, but today's local results have helped reverse that trend.

Even though about 5000 ballots remain to be counted and certification isn't until 1/26, I'm happy with the direction Whatcom County voters have taken, to wit:

• All four progressive candidates for County Council lead by substantial margins
     [Weimer, Mann, Browne, Buchanan]

• Both progressive candidates for Port of Bellingham Commission also lead
     [McAuley, Kowalczyk]

• Two first-time City Council candidates, both young women, have wide leads
     [Vargas, Murphy]

• Initiative 517, another Tim Eyman exercise, is failing statewide
-------

Despite all that is right in our system, there are some glaring flaws that need to be fixed to ensure that principles of fairness, equity and openness are always evident.

Here are a few:

• The Citizens United SCOTUS decision that corporations are persons and money is speech needs reversing!

• PACs and other corporate gimmicks badly need the -timely- light of day

• The role of 'outside' money in local elections needs serious questioning

• Gerrymandering needs to be curtailed by redistricting to ensure no 'safe' seats

• Notwithstanding the 1st Amendment, political speech needs to be more accurate and truthful, especially in mass media and mass mailings

• Candidates should agree, in advance, to attend Forums and answer Questionnaires to demonstrate their comprehension and explain their positions on Issues

• PDC [Public Disclosure Commission] rules and guidelines need to be strengthened and enforced

• Wider voter awareness and participation

There are probably other flaws that need fixing, too.
-------------

Today's Gristle is a good read that weaves some political contemporary history into these latest election results.
Don't you agree that the incoming County Council ought to address the egregious current Planning Commission very soon?
I believe new appointments such be undertaken as a first order of business, in the interest of decent planning in compliance with the Growth Management Act!
That would give reasonable certainty for all citizens, plus reduce the unnecessary costs of continuing to deny that GMA guidelines need to be followed.

Passages

An unusually eventful day, this April 16;

• Scott Walker announced he will step away from being a Port of Bellingham Commissioner at the end of this year, his 22nd. This presents an opportunity to support candidates able and willing to step up to this task, something that has become a perennial wish for the last several years.
Know anyone?

• Ken Oplinger announced his resignation as Executive Director of the Bellingham/Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce and member of the Blaine City Council. He has accepted another CofC position in Santa Barbara, CA. Another opportunity to advocate for qualified people who are willing and able. Wonder if Santa Barbara will support a large Coal Export Terminal?

• The day after yet another tragic, terrorist-like event, this one at the Boston Marathon yesterday which killed at least 3 and injured over 170. The details are now emerging, but let's hope the perpetrators are found and punished to the full extent of the law.

• An interesting KCTS TV program with Enrique Cerna, who interviewed 4 former WA Governors; Dan Evans, John Spellman, Mike Lowry and Christine Gregoire. Spellman recalled his decisions to veto both the Northern Tier Pipeline and an earlier version of the CBI Cherry Point Terminal, saying he would do that all over again, because trading a few jobs for major environmental degradation was -and is- a bad idea. How's that for guts? BTW, Spellman is a Republican.

• I've been asked to write a Letter-To-Editor in response to a recent Bellingham Herald editorial authored by Brent Goodrich who serves on the Ferndale City Council and Bonnie Onyon who serves on the Blaine City Council. This will be submitted shortly, so stay tuned.

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 10

Waterfront Redevelopment

For several years, the City of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham have been planning a very ambitious -and expensive- Redevelopment of the former G-P industrial property and adjacent areas on the Waterfront which contain various levels of contamination deemed potentially harmful if they are left un-remediated.

Both the Port and City have committed significant resources toward the Waterfront Redevelopment effort, which holds remarkable promise in creating a very desirable area to enable building new businesses, institutions, residences and recreation areas for wide public use.

To enable this, millions of public dollars will need to be spent on clean-up, infrastructure and reliable waterfront access, with significant funds already spent or committed to this effort.

Upon completion, likely to require 20 years or more, this new 'neighborhood', adjacent to the existing downtown, is expected to accommodate businesses providing between 2500 and 4800 new jobs and over 2000 new dwelling units to house future growth.

Additionally, this venture is intended to make the Waterfront 'Bellingham's Front Door' by providing a clean, accessible, waterfront area designed to sustainably attract businesses, tourists and area residents interested in shopping, recreating and generally enjoying a great gathering space for multiple activities.

Converting this former, uninviting industrial area into a very desirable spot requires not only years of hard work, vision and funding, but insuring against unanticipated changes in events likely to be detrimental to it, like more than doubling the rail traffic that separates the Waterfront from the downtown and residential areas.

It is hard to imagine an unanticipated event that could be more harmful to the goals of a successful Waterfront Redevelopment than the sudden addition of 18 unit coal trains per day, each 1.5 miles long, blocking necessary road crossings, blaring high decibel noise and spewing diesel fumes and dust into the air.

What tourist, shopper, business owner or resident would consciously wish for such a round-the-clock nuisance?
Certainly no one that I know!

Even if grade-separated crossings were possible, they would likely be prohibitively expensive and take years to build, since there are more than a dozen of these, alone, within Bellingham's City Limits.
An average cost per bridge might approach $10 million, providing sufficient space is available and could be acquired.

That is a very large burden to impose upon any municipality and ought not to be allowed, particularly for selfish and arbitrary reasons.
Even with substantial mitigation, providing that is possible, the imposition of 18 additional very long trains per day, is a hurdle that threatens the very viability of the entire Waterfront Redevelopment Project.
That is simply unacceptable!
---------------------------------------

GPT: Scoping Comment No. 7

Safety & Levels of Service at Rail Crossings 

I am concerned that the many unspoken potential off-site impacts appear to grossly out-weigh those strictly on-site impacts identified in GPT's Application.For example, the 48 railway crossings in or near Whatcom County listed below and on the Communitywise website: http://www.communitywisebellingham.org.

While some of these crossings are tunnels and over-passes that do limit at-grade interferences, most are at-grade and seem to entail significant and expensive mitigation that GPT apparently intends to externalize onto citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions. 

• The tunnels listed do represent choke points at which blockages could disrupt all train service.

• The over-passes listed have a similar potential as choke points should a derailment or structural damage be encountered for any reason, including natural causes.

• The at-grade crossings present the clear potential for vehicle & pedestrian accidents, as well as Level of Service degradation at varying degrees of impact to other vehicular traffic as well as to people, businesses and public marinas and ferry services that provide essential water transportation to remote locations where people live, work and recreate. Many municipalities, including Bellingham, have long since  adopted Level of Service 'E' for major streets, leaving little room for additional traffic delays, which could degrade the LOS to "F", a failing grade.   

A comprehensive study is required to clearly define likely problems caused by the anticipated greatly increased unit coal train rail traffic at each of these 48 railway crossings, as well as the much greater number outside of Whatcom County, as well as to assess reasonable mitigation and all its associated costs and potential funding.

The Applicant would appear to need the expectation of bearing very substantial costs in this regard, with the necessary amounts to be determined in consultation with the applicable jurisdictions.

1. Bow Siding North  [Skagit County]

2. Bow Siding South  [Skagit County]

3. At Grade

Colony Road - MilePost 80.94  [Skagit County]

4. At Grade

S. Blanchard - MP 81.21  [Skagit County]

5. At Grade

S Legg Road - MP 81.41  [Skagit County]

6. At Grade

N Legg Road - 81.81  [Skagit County]

7. Under-crossing

Chuckanut Drive - MP 82.4  [Skagit County]

8. Tunnel

Chuckanut Point Road

9. Tunnel

Chuckanut Shore Road

10. At Grade

Yacht Club Road - MP 89.37 [Main access to Larrabee State Park Boat Launch Area & expensive homes]

11. Tunnel

Clark's Point

12. South Bellingham Siding

South end

13. South Bellingham Siding

North End

14. At Grade

Harris Avenue - MP 93.34 [Major conflict with Alaska State Ferry Terminal, AMTRAK, Businesses near water, City of Bellingham Wastewater Treatment Plant, Port of Bellingham's Marine Park/water access] 

15. At Grade

6th Street Ferry Access - MP 93.46 [Popular Public Boat Launch site]

16. At Grade

Bayview Drive Boulevard Park - MP 94.24 [Only vehicular access to very popular City of Bellingham Park on waterfront, Woods Coffee, Taylor Street Dock Overwater Walkway]

17. At Grade

Bay Trail Boulevard Park - MP ?? [Very popular pedestrian/cycling trail]

18. Siding

Cornwall Landfill - South

19. Siding

Cornwall Landfill - North

20. At Grade

Wharf Street - MP ?? [Access to Port of Bellingham Waterfront Area, Cornwall Avenue entrances to former G-P property Redevelopment Site]

21. At Grade

Cornwall Avenue - MP 96.33

22. At Grade

Beal Memorial - MP 96.33

23. At Grade

Laurel Street - MP 96.65

24. Over-crossing

Chestnut & Bay Streets - MP 96.81

25. At Grade

Central Avenue - MP 97.02 [Major access point to former G-P property to be redeveloped, Whatcom Waterway]

26. Siding

Roeder South - MP 97.13 [Access to Waterfront]

27. At Grade

C Street - MP 97.16 [Access to Waterfront]

28. At Grade

F Street - MP ?? [Major Access to Waterfront, Commercial business complex, Hotels, Restaurants, POB Marina], USCG hdqtrs]

29. Siding

Roeder N - MP ??

30. Over-crossing

Squalicum Parkway - MP 96.3 [Major Truck Access to Waterfront Businesses, Marina, Port of Bellingham, and Redevelopment Site]

31. Over-crossing

Seaview - MP 98.43

32. Under-crossing

Locust Avenue - MP 99.66

33. At Grade

Cliffside Drive - MP 100.3 [Access to Waterfront]

34. Over-crossing

Marine Drive - P 100.9

35. At Grade

Wynn Road - MP 101.1

36. At Grade

Country Lane - MP 101.62

37. At Grade

Rural Avenue - MP 103.12

38. At Grade

Slater Road - MP 103.6

39. At Grade

Hovander Road - MP 105.06

40. Under-crossing @ Ferndale Main Street - MP 105

41. At Grade @ Ferndale 2nd Avenue - MP ?? 

42. Siding @ Ferndale - South

43. At Grade @ Ferndale Washington Street - MP 106.2

44. At Grade @ Ferndale Thornton Street - MP ??

45. At Grade Ferndale Brown Road - MP 108.6

46. At Grade @ Ferndale Grandview Road - MP 109.4

47. Siding  @ Ferndale N - MP ??

48. At Grade @ Cove Road - MP ?? 

--------------------------------------- 

Port: Mayday Or Pan-Pan?

The term 'mayday' is known as an international distress signal to be used only in dire emergencies.
The Port of Bellingham seems headed that direction, but hopefully hasn't yet hitched it's hawser to the bits on that miserable dock.
Instead, we ought to take the precaution of signaling 'pan-pan', which sounds the alarm that the Port is merely off-course enough to warrant concern that it's situation is steadily worsening.
So, that is what this blog attempts to do.

I am supporting a petition for the next public ballot that seeks to increase the number of elected commissioners from three to five, as is allowed by State law.
The two additional commissioners would be selected at-large, which wouldn't directly affect any of the commissioners now in office.
But, it would dilute their existing authority and require fresh eyes to steer a course truer to the public's interest in sustaining and improving not only its waterfront, but also it's airport and other assets meant to spur economic prosperity that benefits the entire community.

Not only has the current Port leadership failed to engender the public trust and confidence in its ability to manage its assets well by it's arrogance and unresponsiveness to significant public concerns, like hiring and supporting a competent Executive Director, Charlie Sheldon.

Two of the three Commissioners -Walker and Jorgenson -demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement, despite vocal public outcries that challenged their silly and remarkably unexplained actions.
That kind of arbitrary display is simply repugnant to citizens who expect much better accountability from their elected officials!

Don't get me wrong, because I don't believe in numerology; there is no intrinsic certainty in greater numbers.
Just look at our County Council as an example of why seven isn't a very magic number.
Or, worse, our combined Congressional circus of 535!

But, five is better than three at the Port for the simple reason that it's much harder to avoid having an illegal meeting out of the public view, something that has unquestionably happened with the current cast of Commissioners.
Is that enough reason to sign a petition so that voters can decide?
I think so!

Switching to a five member Commission would also allow additional concerned people to become responsibly involved in both knowing and deciding the Port's direction on the entire range of important public business the Port manages.

In addition to the critical redevelopment of our waterfront, that also includes future plans for the airport; something the Port has seriously neglected to share with the public, other than the after-the-fact course that we are just now beginning to hear about.

So, I'm calling 'pan-pan' and signing that petition, and hope you will too.

Port: The Morning After

Bummer!

I have the feeling of a bad hangover but no recollection of having anything approaching a good time.

The spectacle of two bozos pretending to be Port Commissioners trying again to spin a mess of their own making into someone else's fault -in this case, their victim's- will likely remain with me indefinitely.

These guys need to be decommissioned!

If they had any gumption they would take that action themselves.

Dereliction of duty isn't just a matter to prove, it's a readily observable phenomenon, which the case of the Port has unfolded unmistakably over the last several years; at least from my frame of reference.

That dates back to the time the Port seemed willing to undertake a project of major importance to this entire community that had the backing and enthusiasm such ventures always seem to require, but often lack.

That priceless backing and enthusiasm has now been largely wasted -literally pissed away- by the Port's ruling junta. Mark my words, our community will suffer for it!

I can't remember a time when folks we elected to office have been so publicly disingenuous.

They sat in front of an entire room of people and made the same self-serving sounds that we've heard before, in defense of an action that is indefensible!

It's difficult to know where to begin to unravel the circular arguments and convoluted reasoning that issued from the lips of Commissars Walker and Jorgenson, except to say palpable untruths were unquestionably interwoven.

Perhaps, the most audacious statement was that Port Director Charlie Sheldon was 'terminated' because of 'dissension in the ranks'.

Unstated, was the fact that this 'dissension' was created by Commissar Walker himself, who not only sowed those seeds, but watered them, enlisted other gardeners, and then harvested their bitter fruits to poison someone he considered a potential nemesis to his reign as Chief Commissar.

Give me a break!

No one is stupid enough to believe that crap, except for the two misguided traitors of the public trust who sat there and exercised their already advanced ability to CYA.

Now, I am under no illusions that this latest amateurish jibe by the Port will just correct itself with no one else being hit in the head or swept over the side. But, it will change, because it must! And I, for one, will definitely work to make that happen; the sooner the better.

Today's Gristle again zeroed in on this subject and fired more direct hits at this already sinking derelict. Will it go down by the bow or stern? Or roll over?

More likely, just slowly take on water and disappear - except for the nice little fru-fru pennants on the top mast, that always seem to be flapping in a breeze - also of the Port's own making.

Eventually, when the pennants fray to threads, seagulls will find new perches, and join the barnacles to memorialize the wreck -to become known as Walker's Folly.

Phew-ip, phew-weee; now hear this; all voting citizens, lay down to the polls and elect a new Captain!

The Port's Reality Distortion Field

------------------------------

What's the difference between the Port of Bellingham and the Boy Scouts?

Answer: The Boy Scouts have adult supervision.

------------------------------

All the brightwork polish in the world won't put a shine on our Port's activities these days, until the current corrosive scheming and salty talk is harnessed to a more positive effect.

What could restore some Port lustre is the simple return to basics, like teamwork, self-discipline and a renewed focus on the goals that count to this community; think waterfront redevelopment and the prudent generation of jobs and commerce that belong on or near the waters of Bellingham's rusty front door.

Since the Port's appalling Commissioner's meeting two weeks ago, I've given some thought to what happened - as was observed by about 100 concerned citizens. It wasn't pretty or necessary, but instead, silly and counterproductive

The questions remain; why did it happen and what can be done about it now?

Several written accounts have been published since the talk of summarily dismissing the Port's Director surfaced, all of them faithful to accurate reporting of what was seen and heard.

John Stark's Herald reports are referenced here.

Tim Johnson's Cascadia Weekly articles are here, and here.

John Servais' blogs on Northwest Citizen start here.

An online petition in support of Charlie Sheldon is here. [I've signed it]

But, explaining why this unusual dustup happened should be the real story, particularly if similar missteps are to be avoided in the future.

My assessment of the Port of Bellingham is that it has an excellent 90-person staff, of which about 10% are considered 'senior'. A little top-heavy, but with the range of operations involved likely appropriate.

Since at least the mid-nineties, the Port has seemed to function pretty well, with a possible exception or two better known by closer observers.

So, with these points in mind, what has changed that might account for this recent kerfluffle?

Three things mainly come to mind:

• The Port's 2004 commitment to waterfront cleanup & redevelopment, in partnership with the City of Bellingham

• The resignation of former Executive Director, Jim Darling in 2009 and subsequent hiring of Charlie Shelton 19 months ago

• The recent election of Commissioner Mike McAuley to replace former long term Commissioner Doug Smith

Now, my point: the only 'reason' given for the quick, forced termination of current Executive Director Sheldon was the excessively vague rationale of 'the Port wanting to go in another direction'. Not a new direction necessarily,mind you, just another one.

Now, what in hell does that mean?

Was there a real 'cause' for this sacking, other than the two older Commissioner's wishes?

What was the great hurry?

Why was Sheldon hired in the first place?

More importantly, how is this situation going to be resolved?

Here's my attempt to answer these questions:

'Another' direction really seems to mean the old direction, most familiar and comfortable to most of the current Port players who were used to dealing with one another predictably and not wading into waters more than ankle deep. That has now changed and some of the older players don't like it. Each of the three changes listed above likely plays a key part in the current situation.

First, undertaking the ambitious waterfront redevelopment envisaged took the Port into much deeper waters than it was accustomed to or equipped for. That has been evident since 2004, when the partnership agreement with the City was first formalized, with difficulty. At the time, there were many details yet to be investigated for which information was needed, and even more importantly - jointly developed in full collaboration with the City.

That collaboration has not been easy, and still seems to lack the mutual trust & respect necessary to bring this admittedly audacious project into accepted reality. Instead, it has repeatedly lapsed into bouts of bickering that do not engender public confidence in the Port's ability -or willingness- to work with the City in a true, bilateral sense of cooperation.

I am not pointing fingers here, just pointing out what has been a very public display of disagreement in matters important, even essential, to eventual success.

During the time in which the Port decided to undertake this very ambitious project, it had the benefit of fairly stable and predictable leadership. Former Port Director Darling was an experienced and competent leader, always supported by at least two, and often all three Commissioners who supported him strongly and were satisfied with things the way they were.

That comfort zone began to change in earnest during 2003/4, when the G-P property was acquired and the Waterfront Redevelopment effort begun, with the Port's main interest being the alchemy of turning the former G-P waste treatment pond [ASB] into a world class marina -perhaps the last one likely to be permitted anywhere along the West Coast. That was the first attraction and hoped-for cash cow for supporting whatever else came to fruition.

Also, about that time, Commissioner Jorgenson was first elected and welcomed by Commissioners Walker and Smith, the two old sea dogs who had been in place for years, and along with Director Darling, mainly controlled Port activities and its culture.

I know first-hand that Jorgenson's comfort level was severely challenged when he was faced with agreeing to taking on the huge Redevelopment effort that the two senior Commissioners and Director favored, but he did accept their assurances and agree himself as well.

So, there should be no doubt that this Marina dream was the carrot that enticed the Port into its current briar patch. Carrying semi-apt analogies just a bit further, the moment the Port agreed to partner with the City on the much larger project, was also the time it touched the tar baby of real public process, something it had only dabbled its toes in before.

Predictably, the Port's difficulties in dealing with both the City and concerned citizens led to agitation to begin changing the Port toward -shall we say- a more customer friendly culture. Unused to heated public political challenges, the Commissioners struggled to maintain control while the essential partnership with the City also struggled in fits and starts, due largely to a clash of cultures and emerging fiscal realities. Such things are never easy, and the cumulative mutual bruising began to erode the positive momentum initially generated. As time passed, none of this spectacle was helping the project go forward, especially with the enthusiasm of shared public visions.

In late 2006, Mayor Mark Asmundson - a dynamic advocate for the Port partnership - resigned and was replaced by former Mayor Tim Douglas, who served admirably until 2008, when Dan Pike was elected Mayor with ideas of his own. More turbulence ensued as Pike tried unsuccessfully to get things back on the track originally intended - albeit with some different tweaks that lacked traction.

Then, in mid 2009, Jim Darling - after NOAA's decision to relocate its facilities to Oregon instead of Bellingham - resigned as Executive Director, leaving something of a leadership vacuum at the Port. In the interim, while a 17-month search for a new Director was being conducted, slow progress continued, limited both by ongoing disagreements between Port & City, plus the new priorities of an unhealthy economy.

In late 2010, two significant changes occurred; Charlie Sheldon was named new Port Director by unanimous consent of all three current Commissioners, Walker, McAuley and Jorgenson. [Mike McAuley was elected Commissioner to replace Smith, beginning in 2010]

Over the next 18 months, those changes would come to be perceived as disruptions to the usual scheme of things at the Port, particularly the burden of dealing with the Redevelopment effort.

Charlie Shelton, despite his excellent credentials in Seattle, wasn't from around here and unsurprisingly had a somewhat different perspective and operating style than prior Directors. Perhaps, he simply didn't replace his rubber boots with the rubber stamps that the Commissioners preferred? I don't know. But, I also don't know what job description he was given or what rules he was supposed to follow. Those things do seem a bit unspoken -and maybe even uncharted- to me regarding the Port.

Good ol' boys do seem to expect newcomers to just intuit how things are done, sometimes without much explanation. Had you noticed? Maybe Charlie's instincts weren't up to this task, whether a reasonable expectation or not. More important, any Director worth his salt wouldn't likely agree to simply become an obedient yes-man, to part-time politicos, would they?

Anyway, the introduction of a new Commissioner about the time a new Port Director was hired might have triggered a barely perceptible tipping of balance in the Port Commission's unseen mechanisms.

Faced with not only a new Director - chosen unanimously by the Commission- and a new, independent minded Commissioner, elected to bring more public accountability to it, apparently grew into displeasure for at least one of the old Commissioners [Walker], who much preferred his former tacit understandings with familiar colleagues. Remember, Walker has been there since 1991 -even before Jim Darling had been hired- so not only was he used to getting his way, but he was invested in certain prized outcomes, such as the conversion of the ASB into a Marina.

By contrast, Jorgenson is a relative newcomer [only 9 years as Commissioner] who got used to going along and getting along with his two senior Commissioners, as well as former Director Darling, whose stamp was on nearly every Port activity. Also, longer term observers will remember the complaint by Jorgenson's predecessor, Ginny Benton, that she resented Port 'decisions being made in the men's room'. What does that tell you? Think Jorgenson was treated any differently?

I really like Jim Jorgenson, and have respected him since he became a Port Commissioner 9 years ago - right in the midst of the decision to take on the G-P and Waterfront Redevelopment with the City as partner. Jim is a reasonable person with the overall welfare of the community at heart, so I don't view him as a schemer, intent on getting his way on things; no, he's much more of a peacemaker, as even his colleagues see him. But Jim has his comfort zone, too. He's known Walker as a colleague over nine years now, while McAuley remains mainly a newcomer with an independent streak. Could that be a key in understanding Walker's success in convincing Jorgenson to support a quick jettisoning of Sheldon? That is very possible, especially when coupled with a few expressions of discontent from 'senior' staff members, with the apparent complicity of the Port's hired legal counsel.

But, Jorgenson takes his job seriously and I know he has been impressed by the unusual outpouring of public support for Sheldon, so maybe, just maybe, he'll change his mind. I would be surprised if he decided to compound the problem by again ratifying it, but that's his call. I do think Jim recognizes the Port's public reputation is now on the line, and this in turn might also impact the Port's ability to recruit other quality candidates for the Director position. Who would seriously entertain the idea of working here amid such arbitrary and fractious intrigues?

I hope Charlie Sheldon will agree to return as Director, providing a contract offer with assurance of continued support is offered. I have it on pretty good authority that Sheldon would favorably consider returning to the job for which he was hired, if good faith is demonstrated by at least a majority of the Port Commission. That's two Commissioners, folks.

Let's hope that happens.

--------------

So, back to the questions asked above;

Not a new direction necessarily, just another one. Now, what in hell does that mean?

My view is as described above; the dynamics of Port leadership changed and some folks didn't like that their influence was diminished. Couple that with a new Director eager to learn about other opportunities, options and opinions and understand how this might appear as a threat to the status quo.

Was there a real 'cause' for this sacking, other than the two older Commissioner's wishes?

Probably not. That's why all the stammering, embarrassment, hearsay and hiding behind assumed executive session privileges. Because the Port Director is hired by and reports to the Commission, he is likely considered an at-will employee, meaning he serves at their pleasure and can be fired without cause. In that vein, any discussion of the ASB being used for any purpose other a Marina could have contributed to the dissatisfaction by a Commissioner; because the ASB was seen as an absolute sacred cow, despite any inconvenient facts relating to its ultimate viability! Any dissatisfied Commissioner only needs to persuade one other Commissioner to take the action of firing its subordinate, without needing what most of us outsiders might agree represents a just cause. They could do it, so they did.

What was the great hurry?

It was largely manufactured as a fait accompli, closely following the tragic and fatal fire at the Port's boathouse facility, and during the time several senior staff were away. Was this a railroad job designed to satisfy Commissioner Walker and his recruited accomplice[s]? It sure looks like it to me.

Why was Sheldon hired in the first place?

Simply because he had the qualifications, made himself available, responded to Port recruiting efforts, and filled the Port's needs for an experienced Director better than the other candidates. It is ironic that two of the three Commissioners which voted to hired him are now the ones willing to fire him without any clear reason other than they wanted to go in another direction! You've got to be kidding! What were they thinking then? Now what are they likely to do?

More importantly, how is this situation going to be resolved?

That is the critical question that may be determined at tomorrow's Port meeting.

I hope Charlie Sheldon will agree to return to duty, but the hasty action already taken and the adverse publicity from it may mitigate against such a decision.

If Sheldon doesn't return, the Port will likely need yet another interim Director, before going to the expense of another costly recruiting exercise. Then what? Another repeated fiasco?

Long term, the solution belongs to us voters. Be careful who you elect!

Scott Walker ought to be encouraged to resign, but that might be a more difficult course to steer, since he's already been around over 20 years.

Rob Fix, the CFO and possible new interim Port Director, has been around only three years and seems to lack essential qualifications for this office.

I hope citizens will again show up at the Port Commission meeting tomorrow at 3 PM to again show tangible support for retaining Charlie Sheldon as the Port's Executive Director.

This Commission desperately needs unmistakable public encouragement to get its affairs in order.

Let's give them that encouragement, especially Commissioner Jorgenson, who is usually, a very reasonable man who really cares about our community and the important role the Port of Bellingham plays in it.