Port forgets it's a public agency

Late last year state Auditor Brian Sonntag released a scathing performance audit of the Port of Seattle's contracting practices, largely centered on the third runway project. The auditor has two more audits planned but they are on hold to allow the U.S. Justice Department to investigate possible wrongdoing.

The amounts that may have been misspent are at least in the tens of millions and possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Contracts were awarded without reasonable process, without competitive bidding and with a complete lack of transparency or oversight from the Port Commission.

There seems to be some confusion at the port as to whether it is a public agency. Let's be clear: It is.

We can't allow those practices to continue. Besides being illegal, they show a lack of respect for the fair public process and fiscal responsibility required of public agencies.

There are more than 20 bills already filed regarding the Port of Seattle audit in the Legislature this year, a good indication of how seriously legislators view this problem.

It's important to remember that we really do need a functional port. Washington is the most trade-dependent state in the U.S., and the center of all that trade is right here in Puget Sound. Without a seaport or airport, none of the software produced here gets shipped, nor do the tons of grain, apples, cherries or pinot noir from Eastern Washington. If it doesn't get shipped, we have to buy it all ourselves.

We can't emasculate the port, but we can and must ensure that port officials follow industry standard contracting practices, have adequate oversight and give minority- and women-owned businesses a fair opportunity to compete for jobs. We have several proposals in the House of Representatives requiring the port to follow the same contracting processes that all other state agencies do. They would also be required to publish their contracts on a public Web site, available for anyone to browse through, and enforce the recommendations of the state audit.

We can help the elected commissioners regain control of the port, guiding this public entity to be a better neighbor to its citizens. The commissioners currently don't have the resources to do the level of financial oversight expected of a public agency, but they should. The commissioners also need to ensure the public has visibility into the process.

Finally, we should use this moment to consider structural changes in the port that might enable us to compete more competently with the other major ports on the West Coast -- Long Beach and Vancouver. Should we combine the ports of Seattle and Tacoma? How about Bremerton or Bellingham? Should the port control the seaport as well as Sea-Tac Airport? What would be the best way to pick port commissioners? Maybe they should be appointed? If so, by whom?

We propose starting the conversation about a longer-term commission to look at competitive ports worldwide and how they are structured, overseen and managed. The Legislature should come back with a larger proposal, including a serious look at the taxing authority the port has. Other major ports get by without this authority and we should look at exactly what the Port of Seattle does that's different.

In summary, we should take a measured approach without delay to clarify for the Port of Seattle that it is, in fact, a public agency and must follow the same rules that every other government does, but we should not go so far as to hamstring a critical part of our infrastructure.