Upcoming StART meeting first to be closed to the public

Announcement comes on the heels of Airport Director’s exit

In a move that has caught community advocates and city representatives off guard, the Port of Seattle has closed the upcoming StART (SEA Stakeholder Advisory Round Table) meeting to the public — a first for the advisory body since its creation in 2018.

This meeting, scheduled for April 23, 2025 5:00pm at the airport’s Amsterdam Conference Room, does not appear on the Port’s web site. It is an internal session, for StART members only, to discuss 2025 priorities and revisit the group’s purpose and structure.

It is notable that this closed format comes immediately after the Port’s announcement that Lance Lyttle, Sea-Tac Airport Director and one of StART’s original architects, has stepped down to take over at Orlando.

At the same time, Burien city staff have recently been vocal in speaking out about the SAMP and the failure to pass further legislation in support of local communities.

Until now, StART meetings encouraged public attendance — both in person and virtually — and included a public comment period. While the Port attempted to ¹prevent recording of StART meetings, audience access was long trumpeted by all parties as key to the group’s credibility. With that access revoked and no clear explanation offered, several participants have expressed concerns.

“This is supposed to be about community communication,” said one StART member. “Closing the doors sends the exact wrong signal at a time when trust is already frayed.”

Some members are reportedly considering resignation, questioning whether the forum still has value. Others are unsure how to voice objections without risking further marginalization.

Roundtables

StART was envisioned as a collaborative platform to discuss the impacts of Sea-Tac Airport on surrounding cities.  It was modeled on FAA recommendations for increased community engagement. The term Community Roundtable originated there.

But there was criticism from the beginning, and over time this has been converted to cynicism. The FAA rarely attends. Port Commissioners are discouraged from attending. Until recently, any serious work was done by private subcommittees and all rules (including the recording ban) governed by a steering committee controlled by the Port.

When three of the six founding cities quit in protest in July 2019, they rejoined a year later with no meaningful reforms. In fact, things only got worse, with the lead voice in most cities being taken over by administrators rather than community members.

Given the group’s poor reputation, many cities have struggled to field community members. Des Moines, for example, has been operating with an empty slot for several meetings because one member died! (Apparently with no awareness from their own city.)

Last year showed some slight improvements with previously closed subcommittees opened to all members. But with the 2024 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) generating strong criticism from multiple cities, some believe the April 23 meeting may be even less about collaboration and more about control — or even a signal that StART’s days may be numbered.

“There’s a growing sense that the Port is falling back into its old ways: ‘Don’t like it? Sue.‘ That’s not community engagement — that’s stonewalling,” said one longtime StART member.

Former Director Lyttle had long acknowledged these complaints, but privately said that the format of StART was “as good as it can get”. He would say that he was balancing a number of competing interests, with the FAA, airlines, and even Port management. More than one Port Commissioner has commented that ‘Lance is what keeps StART going.’ We are about to find out.

Our Take

We were against it before we supported it

When StART was first proposed, we researched the experience of other FAA modeled Roundtables and came out in opposition. Unfortunately, other cities had not done that research until after they quit. Our feeling was (and remains) that StART simply checks off a community engagement box for the Port of Seattle, and also local politicians who wish to engage in ongoing virtue signaling. It’s decline was inevitable because it was created with expectations the Port never agreed to in the first place.

Maintain StART

However, we are equally opposed to ending StART at the present moment. Leaving StART was also virtue signaling. Any and all communication and community education must always be encouraged. The single biggest factor in our failure to achieve justice comes down to a lack of continuity over the years. At every meeting, the Port has the ongoing expertise; we lack – and sadly, that includes city staff. StART offers valuable information. Any opportunity, no matter how small, to learn and share must be encouraged. Our task is to be realistic about those expectations. It is up to us to leverage StART to build larger networks – not simply put in a few hours every three months. If StART members are not doing that? Shame on us.

Community networks not administrators

StART was meant for community members. It is unfortunate that several city councils, including Burien, have specifically designated that their City Manager speak on behalf of the City. We could not disagree more. Although community members will welcome anyone in authority who pushes back against Port’s excesses, administrators should not be taking the lead. How can community members speak candidly about their concerns  in a room where both the Port and their own government are the only real voices at the table? Community members should be the ones advising the Port – and their cities. They should be telling both agencies things they may not want to hear. Are they up to those challenges?

Administrators, on the other hand, should maintain a cool and professional distance from controversy whenever possible. If we are to succeed, it is they who will have to work the Port on substantial agreements. Leave the advice and protest to community members at StART and electeds at the Highline Forum. Doing otherwise risks further marginalizing the community and continues to let electeds off the hook with voters.

Bad Faith

That said, a closed meeting is a show of bad faith by the Port and should be opposed by everyone. The Port runs the meetings. If they are not anxious to share control, they should at least not be heavy-handed in doing so.

The last thing we need in this year of the SAMP is for any of us to create even more distance between communities, cities and the Port. Increasing the constant fog of war further reduces any hope for potential progress.

Call To Action

Write the Port of Seattle Commission and your city councils. Tell them to re-read the slogan at the bottom of every StART agenda:

 

Closed door meetings do not achieve that goal and are not what a community roundtable was meant to provide. Tell the Port and your electeds you want these meetings kept open to the community!  We expect more transparency and more ways to get engaged, not less.

---

¹Based on public criticism – and the fact that the Washington State case law appears to allow for recording any gathering where the public is invited – so long as all parties receive prior notification – the Port modified its ‘ban’ on recordings. It now provides a disclaimer before every meeting that recordings should only be done with prior permission and are never considered ‘official’. Whatever that means. It is an indication of the lack of seriousness by member cities that they have not bothered to insist that this ridiculous fig leaf be removed. Many people interested in learning from, and participating in, StART would do so via those recordings. This is a shared hallucination that no city should accede to if they sincerely want community participation.