However last minute surprise amendments remove both funding and independent oversight!
Today’s marathon Executive Session at Ways and Means was typical for a last day cut-off meeting. After almost 80 bills and nine hours, SB5955 was voted on. However, with two important sets of amendments: one by sponsor Karen Keiser, removing the independent inspector requirement, and one by committee chair June Robinson, removing all State funding. This left the version which moved forward to the Rules Committee an empty shell.
Senator Keiser’s only comment was that she would continue to work on the bill.
However, the more substantial (and surprising) comments before the vote came from Senator Bob Hasegawa, one of the other original sponsors of the bill! Sen. Hasegawa stated that he objected to using State sales tax to fund the program–even though it was only to be sales tax charged to airport projects, paid by the Port of Seattle, and not the general public. He also implied that he favored a one-time capital spend and not annual funding–the very heart of the proposal.
If Sen. Hasegawa’s name sounds familiar, it is because his daughter is Toshiko Hasegawa, elected to the Port of Seattle Commission in 2022.
Analysis
Mea Culpa. We told you to be optimistic. And we may have been wrong. It’s not over. Some bills do get ‘revived’ at the last minute. But we feel it’s important to admit when we oversell because otherwise we don’t deserve your trust.
Beyond that, we honestly don’t know what to think at the moment. When a prime sponsor of a bill speaks at the very last minute in favor of removing the very language that powers it? The expression “With friends like this, who needs enemies?” comes to mind.
In the Wednesday hearing, Sen. Hasegawa correctly identified that there had been poor oversight on the original Port Packages. But he also seemed confused as to who was responsible for what, asking whether or not the Port should consider suing the FAA, which is completely backwards. But regardless, he obviously felt it was not the State’s job to pay for this program. Wow.
And what does it mean for Port Commission President Hamdi Mohamed to speak publicly on Wednesday, and pre-announce a matching fund program after passage, and then have one of the bill’s prime sponsors, (the father of her colleague) pull that funding away?
Frankly, it means a further erosion of community trust.
If one of the most senior members of the Senate attempts to shepherd a fairly modest bill through a committee she is on, with a super-majority and in the richest budget in State history, with record profits from the Port and with the public support of the Port of Seattle Commission President?
It tells airport communities that nothing is possible. That the upcoming SAMP will be terrible. And if you don’t like it? MOVE.
Now: There may be some last minute save. After all, the bill did move forward and sometimes there are dramatic turnarounds–good as well as bad.
Action Items
The next stop will be the Rules Committee, which has not scheduled a hearing yet. So until that is scheduled, for now, our action items are for our decision makers.
First: This. Looks. Bad.
We know how hard everyone has worked on this bill. The entire process of sixty day sessions is insane. Senator Keiser actually wrote a book with the very apt title Getting Elected Is The Easy Part.
Regardless. We, people with bad Port Packages, also put our hearts in this. The airport communities have been, individually and collectively been getting screwed for decades. And we can no longer make any distinction between ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. You all look like bad guys to us, whether you’re new or a seasoned veteran. If it’s this hard, it looks like bad theater.
You should be sensitive to how bad this looks. For everyone.
Second: Give us an explanation
If we are ever to obtain any form of justice, we need a better understanding of ‘how the sausage is made’ in order to determine a more effective path forward.
We call on Senator Keiser, Senator Hasegawa, Senator Robinson, and the Port to provide some candid answers.
- Why was there so little basic understanding of the issues?
- Why the last minute changes?
- Why were we unable to convince even bill sponsors that this funding mechanism was not only the right way to go, but the only way to go?
Whether or not SB5955 passes or not, legislation for airport communities cannot continue to be this difficult. If you cannot help us. Please help us help ourselves.