Port report can't stem criticism

The controversy over efforts to sweeten former Port of Seattle CEO Mic Dinsmore's retirement package won't end just because a recent report concluded no laws were broken.

The report released last week by the Port's ethics panel is drawing criticism from Port watchdogs and even some Port commissioners.

They say the document was too narrowly focused on whether any specific rules were violated and failed to plainly say whether Dinsmore or Port Commissioner Pat Davis behaved unethically when they worked to grant Dinsmore an extra year of pay as part of an unusual severance package.

The sponsor of an effort to recall Davis ridiculed the report as "a whitewash" and said it will not stop the recall campaign.

And candidates for two Port commission seats say ethics reform and transparency will be major themes in their campaigns this year.

Dinsmore never got any of the severance money — the package was quashed by the Port commission after it was publicly revealed. But it continues to be seized upon by critics who say it typifies secret deal-making at the Port.

Davis signed a memo last year endorsing the severance package, which she claimed other commissioners had informally agreed to in a closed-door session. But other commissioners hotly disputed that, saying they'd never discussed the proposal to grant Dinsmore an extra year of pay at his $339,841 annual salary.

The ethics report, by former King County Superior Court Judge Terrence Carroll and Seattle University law Professor John Strait, found "mistakes, misjudgments and lack of communication" but no violations of the Port's ethics policies by either Dinsmore or Davis.

Davis, in an interview last week, praised the ethics report and said her critics should have waited for the investigation before attacking her with a recall.

"We should try to find out what actually happened before we jump into accusations," Davis said.

But Chris Clifford, the sponsor of the effort to recall Davis, called the report a "whitewash" and said he'll press on with the campaign, which has been challenged by Davis to the state Supreme Court.

Clifford rapped the report for failing to cite the Port's bylaws, which say the commission can only take actions authorized by a public commission vote. The informal agreement cited by Davis would have been illegal even if it had taken place, Clifford said.

"It's embarrassing. It's pathetic," Clifford said of the report.

Port Commissioners Alec Fisken and Lloyd Hara expressed more measured disappointment, saying the report employed a legalistic rather than common-sense definition of ethics.

"It really didn't get to the heart of the matter of whether it was ethical behavior," said Hara.

Fisken said the report didn't clear up the central issue of whether there was "a deliberate effort to circumvent the public process." He said he was puzzled by apparent changes from earlier drafts of the report, which had focused more on that issue.

Carroll and Strait could not be reached for comment on the report Tuesday.

Challengers for two Port commission seats also expressed dissatisfaction with the report and with the commission's conduct — particularly its reliance on closed-door executive sessions.

"I think a black mark still remains on the Port as far as credibility is concerned," said Thom McCann, one of five candidates challenging Commissioner Bob Edwards. Edwards strongly criticized Dinsmore's conduct when the ethics report was released last week, shedding more light on the former CEO's maneuvering to land the severance package. He said it was important that an independent panel conducted the ethics investigation and that commissioners should "stay away from trying to pass judgment on fellow commissioners."

Gael Tarleton, another challenger, said Edwards was late to criticize Dinsmore.

"It's pretty convenient that the guy who has supported every one of the former CEO's pay increases has abandoned his long-term friend and ally," Tarleton said.

Tarleton said the Port commission should quit discussing so much business in executive sessions and more clearly explain how it spends its property-tax levy.

Bill Bryant, who is mounting a well-financed challenge to Fisken, also wants fewer executive sessions, saying he's calculated that the Port commission spent nearly 40 percent of its time in such closed-door sessions last year.

"I don't think that's any way to run a public agency," he said.

Because of the Dinsmore controversy, commissioners recently started recording executive sessions.

Fisken said he has challenged the overuse of the secret meetings, walking out on 20 of them since being elected in 2003.

Jim Brunner: 206-515-5628 or jbrunner@seattletimes.com