Statements appearing in the Voters Pamphlet For the General Election
CW Port Commissioner, District 1:
Candidate Mark Lampton:
The Port needs to operate openly and decision should reflect public values. The Port needs to develop a national marketing program with close cooperation from the cities of Camas and Washougal to bring living wage jobs to our communities. We need to enhance our recreational facilities and preserve our historic sites and to maintain them as publicly owned assets. We should strive to keep taxes low and we need to work to amend the leasehold tax formula so that it more directly benefits our schools, police and fire services. With your support I hope to achieve these goals.
Candidate Gary Perman:
What’s wrong with this picture?
Collecting $2.2M annually in taxes yet the Port continues to fail in their primary mission; create new jobs while undeveloped port lands sit vacant for decades, not generating jobs or taxes.
Meanwhile our schools lay off teachers and cut programs – hurting our kids.
I believe in eliminating this ineffective and unnecessary layer of government.
Our cities and private business can do better at creating jobs and revenues, thus directly benefiting our schools and local government, while reducing our local tax burden by $2.2M per year.
Gary Perman: life long resident and Executive Recruiter
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CW Port Commissioner, District 2:
Candidate Alan Hargrave, Incumbent
Our community is a great place to live and work. As port commissioner, I’m working to keep it that way! I’ve worked successfully to obtain state transportation dollars for SR-14, create shovel ready industrial land to attract Port jobs, and improve government transparency.
Our Port will continue to face critical challenges regarding growth, transportation and economic development. Addressing these issues requires leadership experience and vision.
I’m dedicated to public service and protecting your tax dollars. With successful private sector experience and life-long knowledge of our community, I bring common sense, sound business practices and fiscal responsibility to your Port.
www.REElectAlanHArgrave.com [We looked for his website, but at this time, “Address Not Found”]
Candidate Bill Macrae-Smith
I am running for this position because I believe the Port has the potential to be of true value to the community. It needs to focus on providing economic benefits by attracting family-wage manufacturing jobs. The Port also offers wonderful recreational venues with the marina, airport, Captain William Clark Park and Parkersville historic site. These can be preserved while being frugal with taxpayers’ money. All of these efforts should be conducted with absolute transparency and public input. The Port’s veil of secrecy must be removed, and I pledge if elected to reopen the door to your Port.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Washougal, Council Position #6
Candidate Larry Wagoner
[waiting photo]
I am running for the city council because the people deserve a strong voice for transparency and accountability in their government. I have had the opportunity to serve the community through the emergency services not only locally but at the state and national levels for the last 15 years. I believe that I have the experience that will enable me to perform the duties that the position requires. I am committed to helping our community grow in a responsible manner. Please vote for Larry Wagoner.
Candidate Dave Shoemaker
I would be honored to represent my fellow Washougal citizens. In additional to adding balance to the Council, my goal is adding employment and shopping opportunities while preserving the unique character of Washougal. Such opportunities require partnering with schools and making Washougal attractive to potential employers and residents. Growing while preserving city character requires a sense of history and the type experience I have in introducing change. As a former Army officer, decorated Vietnam Veteran and college Dean with a doctoral degree, I have been at the forefront of change for four decades. I ask for the opportunity to serve. www.electdaveshoemaker.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Washougal, Council Position #4
Dear Neighbor,
I was appointed to the City Council in June. My whole goal in politics is protecting citizens’ rights and keeping government from being too intrusive.
That translates into keeping regulations to a minimum, fees and taxes as low as possible, and being wise with the public’s money. We can provide for public safety, road maintenance, and necessary services, without raising the tax burden.
City government cannot spend money unless it first takes money from someone. You don’t want to pay more taxes do you? I didn’t think so.
Please vote for me for position 4
Candidate Garry Alexander, Sr.
no photo
It would be an honor to represent the citizens of Washougal as a councilperson with the city of Washougal. I have over 12 years experience, both on the City Council and as a Washougal School Board Director. Guidance means that I can count on God; Commitment means that God and the citizens of Washougal can count on me. I see myself as a statesman and not a politician. A politician thinks of the next election, I think of the next generation. I feel from listening come wisdom and from speaking repentance. Listen-or thy tongue will keep thee deaf.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
East County Fire and Rescue, Fire Commissioner, Position #3
Candidate Mike Berg
no photo available
Current economic times present many challenges and opportunities for East County Fire and Rescue. Having served as a Firefighter and Fire Captain for over 33 years, I maintain the dynamic level of response that is needed for our community. Careful and deliberate planning will be key to maintaining the District’s exceptional service, while being cost effective to the community it serves. I’m committed to the people of our community to make safety, performance, professionalism, and accountability the highest priority and address the needs of our citizens.
Candidate Sheldon Tyler
I moved to Camas in 1973, worked at the CZ paper mill, and at the Port of CW for 22 years as the Executive Director. I have previously served on ECFR staff selection committees. I volunteer with the YWCA CASA program with children in foster care, and with the Clark Co Juvenile Court program called Community Accountability Board.
I want to work with and support current and future staff and crew, be responsible and prudent with all district funds irrespective of their source, be open and accountable for all discussions and decisions, and accessible at all time to the public.
Sept. 2 -Primary Election is Certified
22 Comments
July 2, 2009 at 10:42 pm
This is a watershed election for the Port. I’m disappointed that the candidates for CW Port commissioner do not rise above cliches and tired slogans, especially the incumbents.
Below is a letter to the editor from former director Sheldon Tyler published this week in the Post-Record. What do the candidates have to say!
Title: New perspectives on RiverWalk, Grove Field issues
In response to Dave Luse’s letter of last week, I offer the following regarding Riverwalk, and then provide another perspective on FAA funding at Grove Field.
RiverWalk:
To set the record straight regarding RiverWalk: In October of 2005, I recommended to the Port Commissioners thru the Port attorney that they not sign the Option Agreement.
I thought then, and still do now, that the document was flawed and needed many changes before approval. I also disagreed with the rush to approval, and wanted public input before signature. I could not understand why the hurry to approve the document, and suggested the Port get options on critical properties before going public.
It is unclear whether my recommendations were relayed to the Commissioners before the October 2005 meeting, and unknown whether they would have delayed approval had they received my recommendations.
After approval (I was out of town for the meeting), I recommended that they not only have the document reviewed by outside counsel, but to try to get the document improved sooner than later, as I feared it would cost dearly to do so two years and $400,000 down the road.
As many of you know, my fears have recently been validated.
I also struggled with the developers as they did not provide documentation as agreed, to include providing scope of work before the work was done, timely and accurate invoices, completed reports etc.
Many of the issues were discovered by the State Auditor during their 2007 audit where they concluded “we found several instances in which the Executive Director had made inquiries into project activities and attempted to monitor expenses of the RiverWalk development, prior to his removal from the project in June 2007.” This and additional information will be substantiated if/when my deposition for the arbitration, and emails and memos to the Commissioners become public.
The port has paid out over $1 million on the RiverWalk project for little gain, if any. Given the bad feelings in the community, one could argue that the Port lost considerably in the deal.
Grove Field:
As for a different perspective on the FAA funding at Grove Field: The funds, if and when available, and that is a big “if,” are derived from taxes on airline seating and aviation fuel sales.
I believe they should be used, if warranted, not because of the “use or lose” philosophy or that they will “go somewhere else,” but if they will result in needed safety improvements. I believe our country is in the mess it is in because of some of the wasteful spending such as this.
With the future of general aviation somewhat cloudy (I believe the number of GA pilots is down significantly nationwide), with the economy in transition (higher energy costs etc) and whether the improvements would really improve safety that much at the airport for so few aircraft, I suggest a wait and see approach before spending upwards of $6 million in federal funds and over $300,000 in port monies, not including the recent expenditure of nearly $400,000 for a residence appraised at $300,000.
Perhaps just widening the runway from 40 feet to 60 would suffice. This is a lot of money for an already subsidized recreational airfield. And this does not include the ramifications of obligating the field to the FAA for the life of the improvements, over 20 years.
A higher and better use for the community might arise during this time, and coming up with enough funds to buy your way out of an obligation might be hard to do. I would hope this receives an open public debate before proceeding to the next step.
I welcome the opportunity to sit down with anyone anywhere anytime to discuss this in a mature manner.
Sheldon Tyler, Camas
July 8, 2009 at 12:56 am
Jason,
You say “This is a watershed election for the Port.” I agree, this election is very important. The RiverWalk ordeal was definitely the low point in the history of our Port, and now we have an opportunity to turn the page on this whole sorry affair. I was truly amazed that the two incumbents chose to run for re-election. I guess they hope that we all have very short memories.
Sheldon Tyler’s letter from the Post-Record understates the losses that the RiverWalk debacle imposed on our community. He says “The port has paid out over $1 million on the Riverwalk project”. The state auditor found the Port had spent $698,125.00 on RiverWalk in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Add to this the legal costs claimed to date by the Port, $864,789.00, and you get $1,562,923.00. This doesn’t include Port staff time spent on this project, loss of productivity and focus caused by all the resulting turmoil of RiverWalk, loss of a key staff member, costs incurred after the period covered by the audit, or consultant costs for promotion of RiverWalk in 2007 and then Port image repair since then. A full accounting would likely bring the total into the $2,000,000 area.
Legal costs are still being incurred. At Monday’s Port meeting the Port approved paying $73,798.83 more in legal fees. This does not include any current billing for the Port’s attorney. And the Port will continue to spend resources to mend the “bad feelings in the community” referred to by Mr. Tyler. The Port has prevailed against RiverWalk. A $19.5 million lawsuit did not go against us. Yet this best case scenario still cost us a couple of million dollars. Who knows what the eventual total will be?
When you say “I’m disappointed that the candidates for CW Port commissioner do not rise above clichés and tired slogans, especially the incumbents”, I don’t think you are giving them enough credit. It would probably be best to take them case by case.
Mark Lampton says he supports open decision making processes reflecting public values, national marketing for our Port and neighboring cities to bring jobs to the area, and maintaining Port owned recreational facilities and the historic site in public ownership. If these are clichés and tired slogans I still support them all. But when Mark proposes working to amend the leasehold tax formula to benefit local schools and services he brings a truly fresh approach to an often identified funding problem.
I haven’t heard much from Craig Tyler, but offering to be a voice for the younger population is no tired slogan in the context of our Port. Anything that encourages their participation in the political process is a good thing.
Jim Carroll chose not to submit a statement for the voter’s pamphlet, probably a wise decision. My Grandmother used to quote Mark Twain saying, “Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”.
Gary Perman proposes to completely eliminate the Port. It may be an uninformed and misguided idea, but that’s no tired slogan, either.
Alan Hargrave’s statement contains many clichés and tired slogans, just as you would expect from an incumbent. I couldn’t help but chuckle, though, when I read that he was dedicated to “protect your tax dollars”. If he means that he has learned anything from RiverWalk, he has given no indication of this that I am aware of. But we really get a rare glimpse of his sense of humor when he claims to have worked to “improve government transparency”. Hargrave’s standard answer to questions about RiverWalk is “no comment”. A friend, after reading this claim, said “that’s like a mosquito claiming he has worked to improve malaria awareness”.
Bill Macrae-Smith advocates attracting family wage jobs, preserving our publicly owned recreational venues and being frugal with taxpayers’ money. These may seem like tired slogans to you but I support them all. It is his promise to conduct Port business “with absolute transparency and public input” and his pledge to “reopen the door to your Port” that I really appreciate. No cliché or tired slogan, just what our Port needs the most.
July 9, 2009 at 12:58 am
I was with you Mr Hamby until your enigmatic defense of port attorney Shawn McPherson.
His transparent attempt to stall the public records requests on RiverWalk by the Concerned Citizens in Action until after the election isn’t my idea of government transparency.
And I have to agree with Jason that, besides Gary Perman’s throw-the-bums-out solution, the other candidates haven’t impressed me yet with any grasp of how dire things are at CW port or how to effect meaningful change.
Who, for example, will start by saying, “the public is not served by the current legal counsel at the port.”
July 9, 2009 at 8:53 am
Jeffrey,
You misunderstood my comments if you thought you heard any defense of the Port’s attorney. And you will find that you are often misinformed if you believe everything you hear from Gary’s rumor mill. I would rather spend my energy gathering information and discussing relevant issues than correcting Gary’s misinformation.
Here are facts that I know. The legal issue between the Port and the State Auditor is over 13 pages that the Auditor received from the Port in their last audit. The Port claims that they should be exempt from disclosure, and were apparently offered to the Auditor in error. This will be settled by a judge on Friday. CCIA will respect the decision rendered.
The Port’s attorney has frequently worked to delay public record requests, or otherwise not fully comply with related legal requirements. I do not believe there is ANY support for the Port’s current attorney by any commissioner candidate other than the incumbents. If you do not see the information you want within the 100 word limit imposed on candidates for the voter’s pamphlet, contact the candidates for their thoughts, or wait and see how the campaign develops. It is still early.
July 28, 2009 at 11:29 pm
For those of you who missed the candidate’s forum tonight, here are Mark Lampton’s final comments:
“All of us here tonight realize the Port of Camas/Washougal is not only an integral part of our community, but a very important factor in how we see our future and how we view our history.
Some would say that it is broken and has been for some time.
Dispose of it.
I believe it can be repaired. To disband, would only invite the Port of Vancouver to move up river and tax dollars to move down river.
Let’s start by working together.
Let’s have an open and honest dialogue.
We need to maintain control of our waterfront and focus our energies on creating future developments that highlight Parkers Landing, Marina Park and the Boat Marina.
We need to keep this forever in the public domain.
We need jobs that pay family wages. We need to aggressively market our area in partnership with Camas and Washougal and bring businesses into our communities.
98% of Port property is in the City of Washougal. Camas on the other hand, accounts for 60% of the tax base.
So if you live in Camas . . .
The city has land available within the current boundary and more coming. The port could option some of that land and work with the city to make it ready for industry and businesses.
Taxes . . .
The Port is currently offering 155 acres for sale. By selling, we realize property tax revenues that directly benefit out cities.
Not all of that land will be sold. Some will be developed as leasehold. We still maintain control and have a steady revenue stream.
I would like to see us work with the other Port Districts and the State Legislature to amend this leasehold tax formula so that we see a more equitable share returned to us to support schools, police and fire services.
Development will come, public and private, recreational and industrial.
How we plan for that now is up to us.
Let us all remember that without history there is no future.
We have a great place in history and we have a bright future.
Together we can do it.
It’s your Port . . . Our future.
Thank you.”
Words spoken by Mark Lampton tonight at the League of Women Voters Candidates Forum (7/28/2009).
July 28, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Mike Biggs, nice to meet you tonight. I thought all of the candidates did very well. I hope you were satisfied with meeting Mark Lampton and hearing from him direct.
July 29, 2009 at 10:25 am
Hello Roger, yes, I was going to contact you. I appreciated meeting you in person. I always find it interesting to meet people in person, once I have communicated with them at length in print, beforehand. I find you always have a certain “picture” of the person in your head. Now with you, I have the complete version. You are a nice guy and it was nice to speak with you. My wife, Jan, enjoyed your conversation as well.
It was also nice to meet Mark Lampton in person. He is a good speaker. I enjoy listening to someone who is poised, articulate, and expresses his views with clarity and purpose.
One thing, I would have liked to hear more detail on his plans to, “redirect the lease-hold agreements” with the port. For me, this was key to his value. He is but one of 3 port commissioners, correct? Even if he has a super-duper plan on how to redirect these lease hold contract agreements, can and will it get implemented? Without that, all the good intentions in the world may be for not.
Another comment by him that I thought was valid and important, “Without a Washougal Port, do we want the city of Vancouver to run all the way down here, to run our Port”?
I know I do not want this.
And so, while I did appreciate hearing from Mr. Lampton direct, unless he can actually do what he proposes (and I still do not know how he plans to change these important Lease-Hold Contracts), I find Gary Perman’s argument and plans some compelling.
While I am not 100% confident that abandoning the Port in entirety is the answer, you must admit, it is a way to relieve the local resident’s tax burden and get to get more action out of our money.
The Port has NOT kept up with their primary mission to the people. It has failed all of us and from what I heard from the incumbent, Jim Carroll, there is no startling changes, no real plan of improvements, to show me how things will improve. He gives me little hope.
So, as I see it, we have one person who wants to improve the Port and make it work better and more closely to it’s mandated charter and one candidate who wants to disband the Port and redirect what it does now to already existing and functioning local government.
This of course is just my opinion and one of a new(er) resident who just completed his 2nd anniversary here.
What do you think Roger?
July 29, 2009 at 10:29 am
Roger, just took some time with a good response but the filters grabbed it. I trust it will show up soon.
Reading Skeptic’s comments below- my comment should dove-tail with his fairly well.
Mike Briggs
July 29, 2009 at 8:56 am
Lampton just stated the obvious. What I want to know is how he plans to accomplish this. Talk all you want. I want concrete action plans then hold the politician accountable to those plans and promises.
July 29, 2009 at 9:50 am
Skeptic, what did you think of the other speakers?
July 29, 2009 at 10:00 am
All long on what and short on how.
July 29, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mr Skeptic! You were at the forum……. did you notice me? I was sitting directly next to Roger Daniels. My wife, Jan, was sitting on the other side of me. I would have enjoyed making your “physical” acquaintance. But, having said this- I also respect your choice of anonymity.
Mike Briggs
July 29, 2009 at 10:40 am
Mark’s phone number is 921-3869, and his email is mlampton@comcast.net. If you would like more specifics, please call him.
July 29, 2009 at 10:45 am
Hey Roger, does he read this Blog? I may contact him directly but it would help me, as I am sure others, if he is already aware of questions about the Port circulating.
July 29, 2009 at 11:07 am
Mike, no, Mark does not read this blog — as do many other candidates and elected officials. But I keep him informed about what is being said. So, please feel free to contact him direct.
If you follow this link you will see that the Port does have property for sale. Apparently they have listed it with Eric Fuller & Associates in Vancouver and it’s been for sale for over two years:
http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=13416829&StepID=101&ItemIndex=4&PgCxtDir=Down
Some companies are not interested in buying this land because the Port has a policy that when the sell land they include in the contract two conditions: 1) if the owner decides to sell the property, the Port gets the first right of refusal; 2) the owner cannot sub-lease the property.
July 29, 2009 at 12:17 pm
What do you think of the Port’s 2 conditions?
And Roger, while Mark may not read the blog……… I am nearly positive in my belief, that any candidate who runs for a position, will read any and all comments about them or their position, including this rather new communication vehicle, the Blog. ‘Just human nature.
July 29, 2009 at 10:43 am
One other thing, the 155 acres up for sale currently by the Port, what percentage of this land for sale, is of the total currently owned by the Port?
This would give me a better picture of what they have, what they have done to properly maximize it’s value, be it to lease out or sell.
July 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Mike, it is my understanding that the Port owns of the the 155 acres for sale. I know that over two years ago Wes Hickey made a cash offer to by the 125 acres on the east end of the industrial park. Wes envisioned creating a corporate campus there, which would blend in with the natural setting, including wetlands and greenspace. However, to my knowledge, the Port never responded to his offer. I might mention that, as a Realtor, I have never represented anyone with land transaction with the Port. My primary focus is residential real estate.
Please say hello to my good friend Dan Anderson at Clark College. I once performed in the musical “Cabaret” at Clark. It was good fun.
July 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Damn, I hate typos: “all” and “buy”.
July 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I wonder if someone who is in contact with Wes Hickey might see if he is still interested? I mean, a bird in the hand………. With what is now going on at the Port, a new sheriff soon to be elected- you might think some “eager beaver” candidate would contact Mr. Hickey, discuss his former offer, and/or, discuss future things in the mix for this community.
What do you think Roger? If I were trying to get myself elected, as Port Commissioner or perhaps Mayor- I think he and other well heeled businessmen, would be on my agenda. Do you think any of the potentials out there running for an office has done anything like this??
July 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Mike, I’ll see what I can do.
July 29, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Super Roger. I think this is a wise and prudent move.
I am sure even the current Port Commissioners, given the spotlight which is now upon them, might wish to “reconsider” an offer to buy 125 acres, of the PUBLIC’S listed 155 acres, which is currently up for sale and no takers……….
And yes maybe the Port, with their profound business skills, may wish to also reconsider their two conditions of sale, which seemed to have been a sticky point in past offers……
I mean, do they want to sell this piece of ground or not?
Business 101 is now over.