Legislators’ Port of Call? – An opinion

Submitted by Faith Ross
September 8, 2016 9:00 a.m.

The season has arrived when our legislators ask our government agencies for legislative proposals. But will our legislators call at the Port of Fernandina? A Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) for the OHPA (Ocean Highway and Port Authority) missed an August deadline to report to the Port Commissioners with their recommendations for Charter changes. Ending their meetings in June, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee’s final report has now been rescheduled to be presented at the Port Authority’s September meeting. And it looks like the public will only receive the report after the Port Commissioners review it, despite the Committee working under the Sunshine laws. From the July OHPA minutes it reads, “Chairman Fullwood and the other Board members . . . stated that they look forward to receiving their (CAC’s) report prior to it being released to the public.”

Operating in the Sunshine, the CAC kept minutes of their meetings which were sent to the OHPA office and distributed by office personnel. So why the need to receive the report before distributing it to the public? Anyone can read the minutes of the meetings and read the results of their recommendations. At the July OHPA meeting a member of the CAC encouraged the Port Commissioners to listen to the tapes of the meetings. One purpose of the Citizens’ Advisory Board was to try to create some sort of level of trust with the public and receive public input. It did not help the situation when the CAC member appointments, personally made by the Port Commissioners, were made to represent the manufacturing industry, the Economic Development Board, and local governments, when tourism representatives (Nassau County’s leading tax paying industry) were not appointed to the Committee.

But did the hand-picked Citizens’ Advisory Committee propose any changes to the Charter? Despite the Port Commissioners’ refusal to accept any charter changes at last year’s legislative meeting, many proposed changes to the OHPA’s charter suggested by the general public were made by CAC during their meetings. Surprisingly at a May meeting the CAC voted 6 to 2 to recommend that the OHPA Board elections be changed back to non-partisan (no party affiliation) elections. In 2015, the Port Commissioners changed their election process from nonpartisan to partisan (with party affiliation). The Committee seemed to uncover information that since there was no language in the Port’s Charter stating a required election process, the recent port elections should have remained non-partisan. In other words, there was no need to change the election process. And in another CAC surprise vote it was recommended that OHPA consider issuing a quarterly report, within thirty days after the close of each quarter, listing all hazardous material under Title 49. CFR which have been or were on Port property during that quarter. The vote passed 5 to 2.

Common sense seemed to be expressed throughout most of the meetings. A member pointed out that one of the reasons the committee was there was because of the objections to the Port Master Plan. “The plan should contain attainable goals.” It was agreed that “we should just suggest that projections and goals be realistic” when it came to recommending specific limits on Port activities such as truck, train and cruise ship traffic. With a unanimous vote it was recommended that the Port’s Master Plan base its expectations and projections on actual historical data and physically attainable and realistic projections. And in a following discussion to change the Charter’s Section 12 (which stated that the OHPA was exempt from local permitting requirements which caused a nasty turf war with a local government), the committee voted to remind the Port Commissioners of the Attorney General’s opinion which required the Port of Tampa to get local building permits and follow local zoning ordinances. As a member put it, “if the committee advised the Board . . . that they were subject to this AG opinion, perhaps they would stop acting like it does not exist”. This vote passed unanimously.

There was a monstrous, laundry list of specific, special powers in the charter such as the Port’s ability to build hotels, casinos, etc. So the committee voted unanimously to recommend that the OHPA review and update its specific powers to include the elimination of “antiquated authority” and the “addition of authority for modern projects” such as high speed internet and infrastructure. Upon voting unanimously to carry this motion forward, the Committee launched into a genuine concern for the financial health of the OHPA. It was discussed that “the OHPA Board needed to consider exercising its existing authority in Section 5 to hire a fiduciary Port Manager”. Members noted that “the financial distress of the Port was utterly in the hands of a private enterprise with no responsibility to the public. Kinder Morgan’s proper, but potentially conflicting, responsibility was only to its shareholders. On the other hand, the Board and OHPA . . . does not have any professional basis for evaluation and analysis regarding any plans or options”. Ms. Cahill said the issue of hiring a manager had come up many times and money to do it was always the problem. It was suggested that “the Committee rely on the minutes of the discussion to communicate to the OHPA board the Committee’s concerns which it viewed as very important”.

Unfortunately, however, for the local governments affected by the threat of eminent domain in the Port’s charter (condemnation by the Port) which allows it to take property without the consent of local governments, the Committee did not see the need to protect private or local government property rights. “Mr. Powell moved that changes in the charter regarding eminent domain would not be recommended. Ms. Cahill seconded the motion.” The vote went 7 to 1: Bailey “yes”, Cahill “yes”, Campbell “yes”, Lasserre “yes”, Powell “yes”, Santry “no”, Schexnayder “yes”, Stokes “yes”. Three members were absent: Mike Cole, Hugh Graham, and Dale Martin.

The bigger question at this point is whether the Port Commissioners will implement the CAC’s recommendations. And will these recommendations be taken to the next legislative session in the form of Port Charter changes? Chairman Fullwood was very clear at the 2015 Fall legislative meeting that if the Port Commission did not like the Citizen Committee recommendations, the Board would not accept them. The delays and Port Board’s request for review before public release of the Committee’s recommendations does not bode well for their influence or respect for the CAC’s work. Perhaps as a final recommendation, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee may want to remind the Port Commissioners that, under the Sunshine laws, all of the Committee’s proceedings, records, and reports are open to the public at all times. The power to delay the release of a report is not enumerated in their Charter.

Let’s all hope that our Legislators and voters make the right call at the Port of Fernandina this month. A heavy shipment of trust would be welcomed by the public with a container of legislative changes to the Port’s (OHPA’s) Charter and a legislative call at the Port of Fernandina.

Editor’s Note: As an educator and reading specialist, Faith Ross has taught in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. She and her husband Chip purchased their home in Fernandina 6 years ago and are now residents. Faith enjoys reading, walks on the beach, and dining at the many downtown restaurants that are within walking distance from her home. She also enjoy telling her frequent visitors and friends from out of town that Fernandina is an amazing place to live!