Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 14, 2019)
A4 THE ASTORIAN • SATuRdAy, dEcEmbER 14, 2019 OPINION editor@dailyastorian.com KARI BORGEN Publisher DERRICK DePLEDGE Editor Founded in 1873 JEREMY FELDMAN circulation manager JOHN D. BRUIJN Production manager CARL EARL Systems manager BEHIND THE NEWS ‘This isn’t some sort of a stepping stone’ T he Port of Astoria burned through five executive directors since 2012. Will Isom wasn’t sure he wanted to be the sixth. As the Port’s finance director for the past three years, Isom concentrated on clean audits while the relationship between Jim Knight and the Port Com- mission disintegrated. He was appointed interim director after Knight resigned in June and earned the permanent job in early December. “I think there’s a microscope, kind of, on that job,” he said. “It’s very public.” Aware of the turn- over and the Port Com- mission’s reputation for DERRICK volatility, Isom is nego- DePLEDGE tiating for a longer-term contract with incentives for positive performance reviews. Before the Port, Isom had stints in finance at Columbia Memorial Hospi- tal in Astoria and the Georgia-Pacific Wauna Mill. He also coached basketball at Knappa High School, his alma mater. Isom talked about the challenges at the Port — and how the agency could rebuild public trust — in an interview. Q: What do you see as the biggest challenge facing the Port? A: Ultimately the job of the Port is to manage certain public assets in a way that creates economic growth and jobs. I think over a long period of time now the revenue that the Port generates has been inadequate to properly main- tain and reinvest into those assets. You can see the symptoms of this every- where. We have low cash reserves. We have high debt loads. We have crum- bling infrastructure. So I think the real challenge going forward is to figure out how to fix this financial shortfall. And I don’t think it’s just one answer. I think there’s a number of things. We have to be able to improve our operating margin on an annual basis, and so we need to find a way, not only to cut costs, but to increase those operat- ing revenues. We also need to be looking for out- side sources, through help from the state, through grant programs. And so I think there’s a whole spectrum of ave- nues that we could possibly use to address these issues. But I think a lot of what has troubled the Port really comes down to money. And so that’s something we have to solve. Q: We’ve had several executive directors over the past decade. Why the turnover, you think? Hailey Hoffman/The Astorian Will Isom is the new executive director of the Port of Astoria. ‘I THINK AS LONG AS WE’RE TRANSPARENT, WE’RE INFORmEd ANd WE mAINTAIN WORKING RELATIONSHIPS dESPITE mAybE NOT AGREEING ON EVERy ISSuE, THEN I THINK THE PORT’S dOING ITS JOb.’ A: I do want to be careful in sort of speaking for past directors or those com- missions. Each situation could have had a unique set of circumstances and I may not know all of those details. I do think that, as a general statement for such a small port, the Port of Astoria has a wide range of stakeholders. Many of those stakeholders rely either com- pletely, or at least partially, on the Port for their livelihood. So because of this I think there is sort of added scrutiny on any deci- sion the Port makes. I think this makes it vital for the Port director to be really open and transparent and make sure that the decisions that get made are fully contemplated. Q: You’re a Knappa guy. What is the value of having someone with local ties in a leadership role at the Port? A: I don’t think having local ties should, obviously, be the most important factor in hiring a director. I do think, however, that it could be in the best interest of the public to have some long-term stability with this posi- tion moving forward. I would say there’s probably some correlation between hav- ing local ties and the likelihood that I would be in this role for a longer period of time. Like I said, my wife and I are both local, plan to be in the area for a long time. So, for me, this isn’t some sort of a stepping stone type job to a bigger port or something like that. Q: In an interview after your appointment with the Columbia Press, you said the Port has at times sacrificed long-term health for short- term gain. What’s an example of that? A: Conceptually, the Port ultimately is run by an elected board. And, as such, that can change every two years, through each special election. I do think there is some pressure — and rightfully so — as a commis- sion and thereby on the Port manager to really look at that short-term time hori- zon and make sure that we’re having some short-term successes. Over a long period of time, I think the biggest sort of evidence of some of that decision-making does have to do with the deferred maintenance issues that we’re facing. Because deferred maintenance tends to be something that — it’s not something sexy, you’re not going to get a lot of applause for invest- ing money into things that maybe should have been fixed a long time ago. Another good example has to do with our AOC4 (Area of Concern 4) con- tamination issue down on the central waterfront. This is one that has drug on now for close to 20 years, but in order to really close the loop on this and get a resolution, it will ultimately cost the Port some money. And it’s a project that isn’t going to bring in more revenue for the Port. It’s not going to be something that people can really see and then go, “Oh, there’s where that money went.” Those are just some examples of things that have been sort of linger- ing out there, but because, in the short term, there may not be as much benefit, maybe those things have been pushed off. Or the priority hasn’t been to really invest into those type of things. Q: The new strategic plan talks about repairing public trust. How do you do that? A: My job as the Port director is to manage the Port in a way that serves the best long-term interest of the public. I realize that not every decision the Port makes everyone is going to love, and I think that’s OK. I think as long as we’re transparent, we’re informed and we maintain working relationships despite maybe not agreeing on every issue, then I think the Port’s doing its job. And I guess my hope going forward is that increased public trust would be a byproduct to that management style. Q: How are you going define suc- cess? How do we know that it’s working? A: I don’t really have some big pro- found statement, I guess, about what it means to be successful. I do think it’s important for any orga- nization, or even individual, to have goals. It’s important as you accomplish things to keep setting the bar higher and creating new goals. I guess, from that standpoint, I per- sonally have never really felt like I was a success. I don’t really think of it in those terms. In some ways — I don’t know if this is the right answer — but I think almost being afraid to fail is what motivates me more than striving for some kind of abstract definition of success. I know in sports they often say that the agony of defeat is greater than the thrill of victory, and I think there’s some truth to that. I would say that my moti- vation is really that fear of failure, and kind of running from that. derrick dePledge is the editor of The Astorian. GUEST COLUMN Timber lawsuit verdict a reality check I t took a Linn County jury only a few hours to determine what timber com- munities have long known — state forests are being mismanaged. When the state took over management of 15 counties’ lands in 1941, the par- ties intended that the lands be managed to return timber revenue to the counties. But for the past two decades, the state chose instead to manage these lands for other objectives. In doing so, it broke a long-standing con- tract with the counties. Fourteen of these counties subsequently sued, leading to last month’s jury deci- sion awarding counties $1.1 billion in damages. STEVE So, what does this deci- ZIKA sion mean for Orego- nians? First, let’s be clear what it doesn’t mean. This decision does not threaten any of the values these work- ing forests currently provide. While this land — representing 4% of forestland in the state — should be managed for timber, it can do so while also providing environ- mental benefits. Forests, including working forests, are home to some of the best water quality in the state and unlike other crops, as timber grows, it provides habitat for a variety of wildlife. Land doesn’t have to be “wild” to support wildlife. Ask any of the hikers, hunters, fishers or foragers who regularly use our timberlands to recreate and they will tell you the same. Even with timber as a priority on these lands, the Oregon Department of Forestry must still comply with all state and fed- eral laws that protect water quality, human health and threatened and endangered spe- cies. Compliance with these laws is non- negotiable and does not change with this Hailey Hoffman/The Astorian Hampton Lumber CEO Steve Zika helped purchase the Warrenton mill in 2009 and has worked to fix and update the plant to increase production. decision. Rather, the court determined that the state broke a contractual agreement when it decided to go above and beyond these legal requirements in order to prioritize other stakeholder interests and other val- ues without the consent of the counties and the taxing districts. Admittedly, the forestry department has been in a difficult position. Over the years, I have known state forest managers to be dedicated public servants who struggle to navigate politics and increasing expecta- tions that add to and sometimes confuse their mission. It’s not easy work and is too often underrecognized, underappreciated and understaffed. This ruling should clar- ify and focus the forestry department’s responsibilities, at least on state lands. This outcome is both validating and frustrating for local sawmills that purchase timber from these forests. Our company supports the counties as we too live with the realities of reduced timber supply and revenue. Many know these lands can protect water quality and sensitive habitat all while producing timber that pays for for- est upkeep and county services. It was the state’s obligation to manage them in that way. It’s disappointing that taxpayers could be asked to foot the bill for services that sustainable timber production could have and should have supported. But perhaps the true costs of such pol- icy decisions need to be better understood and experienced by all Oregonians. To date, the cost of shifting priorities away from the counties and toward a vague con- cept of “balance” — a thing increasingly determined more by agenda and ideology than ecological or economic science — has been borne entirely by the surround- ing rural communities in terms of not only reduced revenue and jobs but also quality of life. Schools, roads, public safety, health services, small businesses and infrastruc- ture have all suffered due to reduced tim- ber harvests. What the counties argued — and the jury agreed — is that if the state wants to manage these lands for other stakeholders, those stakeholders need to help shoulder the associated costs of those decisions. This verdict should be a reality check not only for the state forestry department, but for all Oregonians. The state can and should do better by forest-dependent coun- ties. But this is also an opportunity to rec- ognize and rethink what working forests everywhere are capable of. While comprising only a small portion of Oregon’s total forestland, the state for- ests and the wood products they create now and in the future have the potential to help us achieve more sustainable and vibrant rural communities and a greener built environment in our urban areas. While this decision will undoubtedly be appealed and debated in the years to come, I’m hopeful it will promote a respectful recognition of the rights of forest-depen- dent counties and all the values and ben- efits well-managed working forests are capable of providing. Steve Zika is chief executive of Hamp- ton Lumber.
