Can they hear you now? Are they paying attention? Do Port of Vancouver commissioners understand that they are elected officials in charge of a public entity? Those questions have been at the crux of a three-year debate over a proposed oil-by-rail terminal at the port, and they have returned to the forefront with a recent controversy.
In their quest for a new CEO at the port, commissioners posted a job description that listed one of the responsibilities as attracting more crude oil shipments to the facility. After Commissioner Eric LaBrant questioned the job description and the group Taxpayers for a Responsible Public Port recommended an edited description, the phrase regarding oil was scrubbed from the job listing on the port’s website — yet it remains in descriptions posted elsewhere.
This has been a volatile issue. The proposed terminal has generated much public opposition, and The Columbian has editorially decried the plan as being dangerous to the region and antithetical to the idea of a robust, thriving community. The proposal, which would result in the nation’s largest rail-to-marine terminal, is under consideration by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which will forward a recommendation to the governor for final approval or rejection.
Regardless of whether one favors an oil terminal or dislikes the idea, the issue has shed light upon problems with how port commissioners approach their jobs. Approval of the terminal was passed in 2013 under a veil of secrecy that should be anathema for a public entity. Since then, two of the three current port commissioners have embraced a stubbornness designed to deflect criticism and ignore feedback.
In discussing the job description for the port’s CEO, Commissioner Brian Wolfe said, “In my 40 some-odd years in this community … I’ve never had a citizen’s committee edit a job description, and I’m a little concerned about that.” Commissioner Jerry Oliver said he would “offer a reminder to Commissioner LaBrant it’s not the intent or purpose of this commission to get involved in the — at least privately — in the minutiae of the management of the port and we give direction in public.”
Indeed, job descriptions should not be negotiated by the citizenry; that’s what commissioners are elected to do. But if those commissioners don’t perform due diligence in writing those descriptions — based in large part upon what they have heard from the public — that opens the door for the public to correct the mistakes. Do your job, commissioners, and this kind of public embarrassment would not happen. At best, the situation demonstrates that those overseeing the port are not paying attention to how job descriptions are worded; at worst, it is an intentional eye-gouge to the public.
The oil-terminal proposal was destined to generate strong feelings on both sides of the issue. We believe a vast increase of oil-bearing trains through the area presents a danger that outweighs the economic benefits, and that a terminal and the related businesses that would accompany it run counter to the environmentally conscious ethos of the region. While Wolfe and Oliver might disagree, they also should heed their critics. They should try to engage with residents. They should work to heal the divisions that have been created.
Port commissioners, after all, are agents of the public. It is essential that they act as such and start listening.
