On July 15, 2025, the Bellingham Port Commission approved a resolution to ask voters whether to increase the number of commissioners from three to five. This vote was the culmination of over thirty years of citizen lobbying and multiple failed ballot efforts since Harriet Spanel, our late 40th District state representative and senator, introduced and pushed through the enabling legislation with the help of late state senator Barney Goltz.

The last attempt by citizens to get this on the ballot was in 2012. That failed when, during a meeting at which the issue was not advertised, outside attorneys, paid by who-knows-who, asserted that the previously approved ballot language must be subdivided into two questions because of an archaic state law requiring ballot measures to address only a single topic. They insisted it needed to be two questions. The first question was whether to approve an increase in commissioners, the second was whether the increase should be done by adding two at-large commissioners or adopting two more districts. Hence, two ballot measures. The Port Commission, following this faulty legal advice, adopted this double-measure ballot format. They made their ballot measures as unclear as they could and confused voters failed the measures by a very narrow margin of 1.6%. Turned out, the state’s Supreme Court had already ruled that multiple points could be included in ballot measures as long as they were related. But the commissioners followed the attorneys’ lead.

Commissioners and citizens alike have long complained that the three commissioner structure - where any two are a quorum and therefore cannot talk to each other without advertising it as a “meeting” - leaves commissioners at a disadvantage to the collaborations of daily administration. Citizens have also observed that three member commissions are easily dominated by one strong member, further benefiting the administration, but not necessarily public outcomes. Remember ABC Recycling?

For years, commissioners Bell and Shepard indicated support for the proposed five-commission resolution. On Tuesday, July 15, commissioner Briscoe hemmed and hawed. He wasn’t sure why they should do it now. He complained there were other priorities. There would be costs. He didn’t mention any benefits, and then he specifically voted against his constituency’s authority to approve or reject.

In fact, the resolution, as prepared, already included a poison pill: a possible new expense that could be used as an excuse to tank the resolution. When Commissioner Shepard asked whether the “newly drawn separate districts” in the resolution would conform to the latest Whatcom County Council districts, the Port’s contract attorney from CSD Attorneys at Law offered Briscoe another new dissenting argument. Holly Stafford, the CSD attorney, took a surprising turn when she answered, “No.”

Holly Stafford claimed that since the Port didn’t know whether the county council districts were compliant with state law, she expected the Port would need to hire a consultant and form their own districts. The possibility of such a requirement gave Briscoe the chance to allege that the Port would need to spend half a million dollars forming all new districts, and that would be before adding in all the salaries and benefits.

This assertion not only impugns the latest redistricting, but also the county districts, and the county auditor, at a minimum. Stafford insulted everyone in the chain of review and acceptance of the current districts. But it was a business-smart claim.

While superficially it may sound plausible, it’s actually wrong. For one, county council districts are reapportioned shortly after each census and are adjusted based on population variations. Because council districts are tied to census numbers, they are adjusted every ten years. If the Port forms their own independent districts, would they not need to eventually redistrict again, at their own expense? Better for us to presume the accuracy of county apportionment and districting, conform to any current district, and avoid the present and future costs.

Ultimately, Bell and Shepard approved the resolution, with Briscoe voting no, and now the county prosecutor must approve the ballot language. The next step is for the Commissioners to ensure that the new Port districts conform to the County Council districts. This is more sensible to voters, makes the auditor’s job easier, and is good enough. It’s simply more efficient and that should count.