Subject: Militarization of Port: Port Records
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:50:48 -0800
From: Carrie Lybecker <carriejl@comcast.net>

Port Records
Thursday February 24, 2004

On Feb 07 I submitted to the Port a request
(http://www.omjp.org/PortReqRecFeb05.doc) to review all records related
to the use of the Port by the US military etc, since Jan 2004, under the
state Open Records Act. The Port gathered the records over 5 days. Today
[Thursday] Andrew Beck and I reviewed these records at the Port offices.

They consisted of about 700 pages, most of which were invoices for
charges, for instance, the labor costs of longshoremen and police
officers, installation of telephone and Internet lines, and various fuel
and equipment charges. I requested copies of all the documents, and will
write more about their content once I have the copies.

In addition, Port staff gave me copies at no charge of about 60 pages of
miscellaneous records. These were communications (fax, email) from the
public pro and con port militarization, property damage estimates, and
the sign-up roster for the Nov 22 meeting, at which people checked off
"support" or "opposition."

This batch of records also includes an interesting incident report
written on Securitas letterhead that describes the activities of a
security officer and a Sheriff's detective. Apparently on Jan 10, 2005,
they spotted a "male caucasian, 260-275 lbs, 5'10-11 with dark brown
hair and dark mustache, wearing black, using binoculars to observe" a
port area and taking video pictures. He was acting very suspiciously so
he was contacted and then walked away.

The records did not include any Port planning or policy documents. There
were no cost/benefit, financial, environmental, health/safety, or other
analyses. There were no budget/accounting reports. There was nothing to
indicate any internal agency discussions or policy development, nor were
there any records of communication with external agencies, including the
military, regarding the resumption of military trade through the port
for the first time since 1987. 

There was no mention whatsoever of a security zone, no mention of the
Department of Homeland Security's proposed or final rule re: permanently
militarizing the port, and no mention whatsoever of the USS Olympia.

So I asked to speak with Exec Dir John Wolfe. He wasn't there, and so we
spoke with Jeri Sevier, Administrative Manager.

In response to my questions, she said: 

There are no records of communications between the Port and the
military. There was no planning between the Port and the military
because "the military just tells us what they are going to do."

"We don't record minutes for every little meeting."

The issue of a security zone was never discussed by the military and
Port officials. No one at the Port was notified of the proposed DHS rule
re: security zone that was finalized in Dec. "None of us knew about it
beforehand. Neither did the City Council. We were as surprised as
anyone." She further said that the military/DHS just decided what they
would do without consultation of any kind with the Port or City. 

Regarding the USS Olympia, there are no records because there was
nothing to record: "All we received was one phone call telling us they
might visit."

I suggested that it is incredible that six military ships could load and
unload in the Port in less than a year without any planning or
discussion among Port staff or between Port staff and the military. She
repeatedly said that there are no other records because none were
needed. All that transpired was usual Port business. "I think you're
making this more complicated than it is."

She then conceded that there are ship manifests, which their attorney
has advised them are not subject to the Open Records Act and therefore
the Port needn't make them available. I mentioned that my understanding
of the Open Records Act is that the agency is required to give to the
person requesting records a written statement identifying the records
that will not be made available, and why. 

["Agency responses refusing, in whole or in part, inspection of any
public record shall include a statement of the specific exemption
authorizing the withholding of the record (or part) and a brief
explanation of how the exemptions applies to the record withhold. RCW
42.17.310(4)"]

Note that the Port consulted an attorney regarding my records request.

I asked about the invoices, as they reflect Port charges but do not
address costs or profit. She replied that the Port is not making a lot
of money out of military transports, that this had been "blown way out
of proportion by The Olympian," and that Port Commissioners have never
cited the profitability of military operations. She further denounced
remarks by the public that Port revenue from military shipments
constitutes "blood money."
 
[The Olympian reported Nov 23, 2004, that "The first three shipments
have raised about $629,000 in revenue, which has been significant in
generating the port's estimated $414,000 cash surplus this year . . .
its first cash surplus in nine years." In the July 04 issue of The
Navigator, published by the Port, the Port wrote about military cargo
operations and concluded that "The ability to handle diverse cargoes is
paying off for the Port’s bottom line. For the first half of 2004,
Marine Terminal gross revenues totaled over $1.4 million, up from
approximately $635,000 for the same period last year."]

She said there are no records addressing the proposal to install 1,200
feet of new rail to connect the port's dock with an existing line,
despite Marine Terminal Director Jim Amador's statement reported in The
Olympian that it "would make the port more attractive for Army
shipments."

I expressed my confusion about how the Port plans and develops policy
without meetings and records of those meetings. She said that planning
and policy making are conducted at the Port Commission meetings which
are open to the public, televised, and minutes of which are available
online. So I printed the minutes of every meeting since January 04 and
am wading my way through them now. She referred us to Jim Amador, Marine
Terminal Director for further information. She repeatedly said she
believes that we should be addressing these questions to the military,
not the Port.

Carrie