|
Pat Davis, Port of Seattle, and Stevedoring Services of America Over the years, the relationship between the Commissioners at the Port of Seattle and Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), which has earned a spot in the Rogues Gallery of Iraq War Profiteers, has been, indeed, cozy. Like so much else at the Port, this relationship has received precious little public scrutiny -- and has been characterized by huge transfers of public funds, scant accountability, and accusations of secrecy and unjust transactions. Pat Davis, a 20-year commissioner up for re-election, has received contributions -- at an unprecedented level for the port races -- from developers. These developers include SSA and Citizens for a Healthy Economy (CHE), a PAC composed primarily of large developers who benefit from no-bid contracts at the Port. Media and internet documents indicate that she's an integral member of this cozy Port-SSA relationship and has otherwise earned the support of big developers by elevating their interests to the apparent detriment of the public interest. Davis, who, is being challenged by a reform candidate, Jack Jolley, originally was elected as a reform candidate herself and claims to still be so. Voters, who subsidize the Port operations with property taxes and depend on the regional economy that the Port serves, deserve to know that evidence indicates otherwise. Before covering the history on SSA and the Port, it is worth noting that Washington's Public Disclosure Commission is now investigating both Pat Davis and Citizens for a Healthy Economy (CHE). CHE has so far contributed to only one campaign, Davis'. Both Davis and CHE have consistently missed legal deadlines for reporting. Therefore, in step with the pattern of Port secrecy, we are not likely to find out, until after this election is over and the point is moot, where the CHE money was actually spent. But we know where it comes from: developers who have benefitted mightily from Port policies supported by Davis. Current Port Commissioner, Alec Fisken, gives a rundown of the unprecedented level of contributions to Davis's campaign from CHE contributors and other developers. He notes that, of all the current candidates, only Davis supports the continued tax levy on our homes (some $63 million annually): "The (CHE) PAC is largely a group of individuals and businesses with no-bid port contracts, who need the port tax levy (in other words, property taxes, my note here) to keep it all possible, and Davis is the only candidate who wholeheartedly supports the levy." Other recent indications of impropriety include a recent PI article that reports on Davis' extravagent travel habits at public expense, and a September Washblog account by Miriam Israel Moses, Executive Director of Rebound, of the Port's evident recent end-run around public bidding laws. The diversionary tactics that Miriam recounts ensured a no-bid contract for a large project that otherwise would have been required to receive open public bidding. Because Port operations are so opaque, we cannot know for sure what Davis' culpability is in these matters. But, as a long-time Port commissioner, who first ran as a reformer and who has not brought any of this to public attention, it is clear that Davis bears significant responsibility. Now, on to SSA:
Stevedoring Services and Port of Seattle: Eliminating the Competition
The first press account I can find on the Seattle Port-SSA relationship is from 1990. Casey Corr of the Seattle Times reported that "the Port of Seattle and Stevedoring Services of America together eliminated SSA's only marine terminal competitor from the waterfront, according to a $10 million complaint" by Seacon Terminals Inc. Seacon's complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission charged the Port with various violations of the 1984 Shipping Act.
$10 million complaint says port 'forced out' competition; O. CASEY CORR. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Jun 14, 1990. pg. B.2
Stevedoring Services and Port of Seattle: $300 million, a 30-year lease, and no public oversight
In 1996, Casey Corr wrote about the Port again, reporting that, "(w)ith practically no debate or public opposition, the Port on Wednesday signed a 30-year lease that solidifies SSA's hold on Terminal 18, Seattle's largest container shipping terminal, which the company has controlled since 1984."
This "solidification" was achieved because the Port of Seattle took on the financing, largely through our taxes, a $300 million expansion and improvement of Terminal 18 on Harbor Island. Corr pointed out that $300 million was the rough equivalent of a new Mariner stadium or what the Seattle Public Schools would have spent on capital needs through 2001. By that time, Seacon, the firm that the Port of Seattle and SSA teamed up to squeeze out of the game, had gone out of business. Corr further reported: "The expansion, the Port says, will generate more than $290 million in new business revenue and will directly create 1,300 high-paying jobs for longshoremen, freight forwarders, truckers and others."
Full steam ahead for SSA Corr, O Casey. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Dec 22, 1996. pg. J1. As the Port of Seattle is said to have lost significant market share in recent years to other Pacific ports, 37%, according to candidate Jack Jolley, we need some in-depth reporting on whether these projected profits have been on target. I would be surprised if this were the case. Stevedoring Services and Port of Seattle: Privatizing the cranes and leaving workers out in the cold It appears that this was done with no public input and that, at the last minute, labor interests discovered this plan and forced a public hearing. As important as it was, this hearing does not appear to have been reported on by the Seattle Times or PI. It was a highly contentious meeting and labor interests alleged that the Port comissioners made a number of contradictory statements on the financial status of the cranes (costs to operate and maintain and profits made). Because the lack of reporting on this event, we may never know the full truth, as important as it is to helping voters make a good decision in this election. Here is a "fly on the wall" account from a letter purportedly circulated by workers on the docks after that meeting:
They lied to the commission saying that the unions would not negotiate and that they were losing money.
In one breath, the Port staff told commissioners that they had lost 2.5 million on the cranes, and in another informed them that they had made 7 million on crane rentals.
Their books show crane maintenance spending did not exceed their budget even though there was testimony stating that they artificially pushed up crane maintenance spending to try show a loss during the review period. In their motion they blatantly stated that they had already negotiated a contract change with SSA. They testified that they had completed contract changes before even asking the commission for their permission. Eat the State reported on the privatization in January, 2002, contending that 36 workers were laid off as a result. The reporter claimed that:
The outcry in the labor community should have served notice to the mainstream press that something important was going on. But, as far as I can determine from googling and searching the Proquest database through the King County Library System, Eat the State, Seattle Weekly and Real Change News were the only outlets that covered this issue.
In 2002, Socialist Worker reported what appears to have been another privatization move.
I would like to see some in-depth investigative reporting on whether the $300 million sunk into the expansion of terminal 18 -- at public expense and with all its benefits to Stevedoring Services of America -- has garnered us the financial benefits touted at the time. And I'd like to see reporting on what happened with the displaced workers and the position of labor, in general, at the Port.
|