More commissioners defeats transparency

There have been several articles in The Herald recently about the Everett City Council’s use of committees to work on city issues prior to bringing the matter to the full council for consideration. Some citizens complain of the lack of public participation and transparency. It has even been suggested that this process could, in some instances, be a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.

It seems ironic, then, that some of the same citizens are trying to convince the Port of Everett to increase its number of commissioners from three to five. One of the arguments they use is the increase in efficiency created by the ability of commissioners to talk to one another without violating the Open Public Meetings Act. (Currently, if two of the three commissioners get together to discuss a port issue it would constitute a quorum and thus be a “meeting” which must be advertised in advance and open to the public.) Clearly, with these kinds of legal get-togethers there is a lot more opportunity for collusion and back-room deals without any public participation. Why would we want to give up the transparency that currently exists at the port just to let commissioners talk port business outside of a commission meeting? Why also would we want to add significant costs to the taxpayers in the form of two more elected officials? Three commissioners is enough to get the job done.

Phil Bannan

Former port commissioner

Everett