Last week I asked the Port for any information documenting the opportunity claimed by Roseburg Lumber that necessitated doing away with competitive bidding on the Coos Bay Rail Link. Earlier today, during a phone call, Elise Hamner informed me that the Port was operating under a non-disclosure agreement and could not release any information. NDAs are a regular part of doing business, I am operating under several myself, but when using public funds and resources it leaves the public at a serious disadvantage.
How do we know whether the Port, by acting in the best interests of Roseburg Lumber, is also acting in the best interests of the taxpayer? How do we, the public, evaluate whether those placed in charge of administering these public resources are doing the proper due diligence required of such trust? Benefiting a small number of shareholders in Roseburg Lumber does not necessarily benefit the greater goals and needs of the public. Roseburg Lumber may have once been a major employer but dedicating public funds to ameliorate the business plan of a private company may not be a long term strategy for the area. Grinding up federal logs into chips, for example, in order to ship them to Asia may payout well for a few shareholders in the short term but have devastating long term consequences to the public.
The public are forced to ‘divine’ their way through the myriad tiny pieces of information to make sense of what is going on. Observers of Port meetings will note that virtually no discussion occurs between the commissioners leaving the public no clue as to their reasoning. Most of us who watch the Port’s power point presentations have more questions afterward than beforehand, yet the commissioners rarely, if ever, ask a question. The public include engineers, doctors, lawyers and Fortune 500 business executives all filled with unanswered questions about tactics and strategy and practicality and fiscal responsibility, yet the Port commissioners never have any questions or engage in any discussion or debate.
Some might argue that officials are chosen for their good judgment and the public just gets in the way of conducting public business. In the case of elected officials, that may be a valid argument. In the case of the Port, this commission is appointed by the governor and all we can do is rally for new appointees or demand that the positions be filled, as in the past, via election. If the Port or other public agencies do not like the heat of scrutiny and public speculation, it would be very helpful if they would just lay their cards out on the table rather than keeping everyone in the dark.
to RUSerious, I hope you can find a way to tell YOUR story, what YOU know.
Perhaps your loyal readers would be interested in visiting the Oregon Department of Justice web site where two documents of interest may be read in their entirety. First, the attorney general’s public records and meetings laws; and second, the attorney general’s government transparency initiative. Don’t let the feifdom creating, self serving, professional politicians and bloated ego staff jerk you around.
It is called faith based governance. We the public must take it on faith that they the port know what they are doing