Another update on the continuing saga of MGx attempts to evaluate what, if any, due diligence was performed on behalf of the public before the Port of Coos Bay declared an emergency on the Coos Bay Rail Link on behalf of Roseburg Forest Products. As previously chronicled the Port denied my first request for documents filed last June citing confidentiality. The Port claimed that it had evaluated “market and sales strategies” supplied by RFP and told the public RFP had an imminent business opportunity that necessitated the move in order to circumvent time intensive competitive bidding.
The Port claimed market and sales strategies were exempted from public records because the Port had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and further, select records of applicants for Port services are exempt from public records law. A subsequent request for a copy of the NDA and the application resulted in the Port having to admit that all of these excuses were false, RFP has not applied for services and there is no confidentiality agreement. Additionally, we learned that in fact RFP was still looking to negotiate a deal but that nothing was imminent or pending.
After discussing the denials with a representative of the Oregon Department of Justice I submitted a 3rd request for “documentation that shows the Port conducted proper due diligence before declaring a state of emergency in order to bypass competitive bidding for repairs on the Coos Bay Rail Link to be made on behalf of Roseburg Forest Products.”
September 2 I received the following response from Elise Hamner, Communications Manager at the Port. “There are documents that exist related to your request, however some of those documents are exempt pursuant to ORS 192.502(9)(b), because of attorney client privilege set out in ORS 40.225.” Again, I asked for clarification as to who was being protected from releasing these documents. Nine days later I am told that, “In relation to attorney client privilege, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay is represented by Stebbins & Coffey of North Bend, and on
railroad issues by Sandra Brown, who originally was with Troutman Sanders LLP and now represents the port with the law firm Thompson Hine of Washington, D.C.”
Again, what ARE they hiding?
When I asked the County Sheriff, “How do citizens report crimes in progress, by the port?” The Sheriff said; “It’s too political!”
Actually, the port commission is appointed by the guv. It is astonishing that the port would want to deny the public the right to analyze its decisions and actions. The port acts like it is a private corporation but even there it would be accountable to its shareholders and I bet shareholders would have wrinkled their noses when the port prepaid $25 million for a land option.
How ridiculous! This is a PUBLIC entity represented by an attorney PAID BY THE PUBLIC. What is there to understand? Release the information Commissioners. We the people of this Port have a right to know! Ms. Brown you are NOT a PRIVATE attorney, you are employed and paid by the PUBLIC.
Our hard earned taxes are going to your pay. THe Port Commission is NOT a private entity. Give it up now! Thanks Mary for your persistence! These people must be sooooo corrupt that they fear exposure. I suggest that the public think several times about any Port Commissioner for any other Public Job. Lets not forget we have the privilege or NOT voting for these corrupt human beings.
Yes, imagine a job where you are paid to do that to the very people who pay your salaries. One thing is obvious, we will not likely ever see a whistle blower sharing stuff at the Port. That would require some character after all.
One thing about the port that’s clear as a bell, is the staff will avoid, misdirect, or flat out lie to protect the boses at the port. Kitzhaber is the only one that has any control over their activities and he is in on their schemes to scam the public for private corporations.
Where does the public look for help in combating fraud, when the top elected officials in the state are involved in this conspiracy, and the top law (Oregon Attorney General)of the state looks the other way?