Voters should consolidate port districts

To The Eagle:

The recent firing of Port District 2 Manager Steve McClain has resulted in many letters and a lack of understanding why this happened. It is my opinion that the Port 2 has been a time bomb for years and Steve was in a bad place.

In years past I attended the meetings of both port districts. I experienced very different environments. Port District 1 meetings were respectful. Port 2 meetings were confrontational. I remember one frustrated Port 2 commissioner saying, "If you think you can do a better job than I am doing, then you can have this seat."

More recently no candidate could be found to fill a vacancy on the Port 2 board so the Wahkiakum County Commissioners had to help put someone on the Port 2 board. That action should have been a red flag that Port 2 was in trouble. I am saddened with what has happened to Steve but I am not surprised. I believe Steve did all he could to keep a sinking ship afloat.

I wondered, in 2007, why there are two port districts in our small county. The county file for each district only explains when and how they were formed, not why. In both cases the county commissioners (at that time) put the issue on the ballot so the voters in each planned taxing district could vote their district up or down. One can speculate why in the county commission resolution for Port 1 dated July 8, 1958 excluded Puget Island. That resolution included the primary purpose of Port 1 "for the proper development of a moorage basin in or near Cathlamet." Maybe the folks on Puget Island had adequate moorage and did not want to have their property taxes increased.

Port 2 was approved by voters on November 8, 1966. No reason for this action can be found in the resolution approved and submitted to the voters by county commissioners. Nothing in the county file suggests that an attempt to expand the taxing district for Port 1 was tried. Under state law that could have been done. I can imagine that (the then) Port 1 commissioners were content with the scope of "their" port district.

In 2007 I asked Steve for his thoughts on a merging of the two port districts. First, he said there would be a contest between (the then) commissioners, and second, he said one of the two managers would likely lose their job.

Maybe now is the time to merge the districts. Port 2 does not have a manager, and no one in-the-know is likely to accept that job under the existing commission.

The rules for consolidation of two or more) port districts can be found in RCW 53.46.010. The commissioners of each port district can propose a consolidation. Or, it can be put on the voting ballot by "10 percent of the qualified electors residing within each of the districts." I suspect more than 10 percent of the qualified electors in Port 2 might sign such a petition. I am not sure how the electors in Port 1 would respond to a petition, but it may be worth a try if the port commissioners will not do the right thing and consolidate.

Port 2 has been broken for some time. Reform is needed. Put the choice to the electors in November 2010.

Don Koenig

Puget Island/Congress, AZ