The issue of expanded representation, once turned down by 1,458 votes, is again a hot issue in 2025.
Nearly a month after the Port of Bellingham’s three-person commission heard public testimony about a potential expansion to five members, debate continues.
A dozen people — including former Bellingham mayor Ken Hertz — spoke at a two-hour meeting Dec. 17, with most in favor of expanding the number of commissioners overseeing the Port of Bellingham and its broad set of economic development interests. Several others spoke against expansion, expressing concern over the potential for growing bureaucracy and political misappropriation.
One mechanism for expanding the commission would require the current commission to issue a resolution for a ballot measure, putting the final say before Whatcom County voters. Alternatively, a second mechanism exists: a petition of the people, requiring a number of validated signatures equal to 8% of Whatcom County voters in the 2024 gubernatorial election.
Mike Hogan, public affairs administrator for the Port, told Salish Current in an email that the port commission is continuing to gather public input ahead of making any decisions on the matter. There is no timetable for when a resolution might be issued, Hogan added, and there is no deadline for the conclusion of public comment.
If a resolution is issued, Hogan said such an action would be listed on the commission’s agenda, posted to the Port website one week before a future meeting.
Although Salish Current also attempted to speak with port commissioner Bobby Briscoe, who has gone on record about not supporting an expanded commission, the commissioner did not respond to inquiries by press time.
The suggestion of expanding the port commission has come up often, most recently in November 2019. Commissioners declined to take action on the matter the following year.
A measure to expand the port commission has made it to ballots before, most recently in 2012. That vote failed by a scant 1,458 votes out of 89,854 votes cast.
Commissioners at large
Any ballot measure on port commission expansion will also prompt the question of whether the new commissioners would be elected at large (that is, representing an entire jurisdiction) or would represent specific political districts.
Whatcom County has had five county council districts since 2016, but it wasn’t always that way.
Before Whatcom adopted its county charter in 1978, it operated under a format of constitutional government with three county commissioners. Although they were technically road commissioners, their roles eventually expanded beyond the purview of county roadways.
The three commissioner districts were mapped and — as needed — adjusted every decade (after each U.S. Census). For county council purposes, each district had two council members elected on alternating four-year cycles, and one at large member was elected to represent the whole county. These same three districts and their geographic boundaries are still used today by the county’s port commission and public utility district.
In 2016, the county’s charter review commission suggested an expansion to five single-member districts in order to reduce the number of voters represented in each. It recommended centering each district in Bellingham and radiating outward to create five pie-shaped districts.
Democrats of the time, concerned that the redistricting would greatly favor Republicans, instead wanted five single-member districts that utilize what are now the current geographic districts and two at large districts, and voters eventually approved that plan.
If the Port expands to five commissioners, there may again be a debate over whether to use current county council districting or some other boundary system. That debate could come in the form of competing ballot proposals.
What’s the problem?
Riley Sweeney, a senior project manager for the Washington State Department of Commerce, interacted with the port commission in 2023 and 2024, when he served as the community relations manager for ABC Recycling during its tumultuous time as a port tenant.
Sweeney pointed out that one of the biggest issues with a three-person commission comes from Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), a state law that prohibits the quorum (or simple majority) of a governing body from discussing official business outside of public meetings. Because a simple majority of a three-person board is two, it means that the current port commissioners cannot speak to one another about port business outside of a public meeting.
“This makes it very difficult to get on the same page about critical issues and more importantly, verify information provided to them by staff [through] checking with each other,” Sweeney wrote in an email. “In my time with ABC Recycling, I found that often critical information was being held at the staff level and not relayed or misrepresented to the commissioners.”
An another example, Sweeney pointed out that if the commission desired to oust current executive director Rob Fix, the only way to discuss that potentially charged issue would be by calling an executive meeting session coordinated by Fix or his staff.
“That is not a recipe for success for any organization,” Sweeney said. “Expanding the commission to five members would allow two members to meet to discuss issues and then bring them forward to the full body for decisions. We already have five county council districts in Whatcom; it would be very easy to use the existing district boundaries for the port as well.”
Issues with three — or with five
Most Washington port districts still utilize three-member commissions. But since 1992, six municipalities have moved beyond a three-piece board, including Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and Edmonds.
Skagit County’s Port of Anacortes and San Juan County’s Port of Orcas also use five-person commission.
Michael Lilliquist, the longest-serving member on the Bellingham City Council, said in an email that he also favors a five-person commission. He pushed back on the notion that five members could pave a path to collusion and corruption, noting that hundreds of elected bodies across Washington utilize more than three members without violating laws or obscuring transparency.
“A two-person agreement is only a problem when you artificially limit yourself to a three-member board,” Lilliquist said. “If you have more than three members, then two members may come to an understanding, but they do not have the power to control the vote or the outcome. I would argue that two elected officials talking things out and coming to agreement is a good thing, a powerful and valuable tool for the democratic process.”
Paradoxically, he added, having only three members increases the risk of running into the out-of-public-view quorum issue. Additionally, Lilliquist noted that state law also prohibits what is called a “chain meeting” — when board members talk in groups of two or three about a particular subject, but in a way that causes overlap and technically reaches quorum even if spread out over time and space.
“A series of meetings that adds up to a de-facto group meeting is illegal,” Lilliquist said.
If two council members each talked over a subject and then took that discussion to another, four people would be involved in an illegal meeting, regardless of whether they agree with each other on the issue presented, he added.
Lilliquist believes these issues are unlikely to come up with a five-member port commission, as elected officials are taught these rules early and undergo periodic retraining in OPMA requirements.
“I’m not saying that violations do not occur, or could not occur,” Lilliquist said. “What I am saying is that there are very clear laws and guidance on this possibility, and elected officials know exactly what they should and should not do. By preventing elected officials from talking to each other, they are actually disempowered in comparison to staff and especially to an appointed executive (e.g., port director).”
In his view, the current arrangement is hobbled in a way that an expanded one is not.
“As I see it, we actually have less transparency when most of the deliberation and development work is done by non-elected employees who have no restrictions under the Open Public Meetings Act,” he said. “And I also think we have less accountability.”
— By Matt Benoit
Read more in Salish Current:
• “Parties aim to influence Port elections; candidates embrace nonpartisanship.” Oct. 13, 2021
• “Efficiency, diversity, integrity: how many port commissioners to best serve Whatcom County?” June 17, 2021
• “Much more than a marina: Port of Bellingham drives economic recovery and growth,” Jan. 12, 2021