6 A SIUSLAW NEWS ❚ WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2017
the Huntington and Duman voted
Port
from 1A “yes” to protect their financial inter-
On March 15, Leskin came back
with a more definitive resolution
that laid out six criteria for commer-
cial vessels:
1. Complies with all local, state
and federal laws and regulations.
2. Complies with all Port of
Siuslaw requirements for moorage.
3. A commercial vessel is any
vessel engaged in a maritime trade,
the fishery or carries passengers for
hire.
4. A “historic vessel” is defined
as any vessel that is at least 50 years
old.
5. The port manager, in his sole
discretion, shall determine what
constitutes a commercial or historic
vessel.
6. Any vessel which meets the
definition of “commercial” or “his-
toric” shall receive the commercial
discount.
The commission welcomed the
list, except criterion five.
In a tense exchange, Buckwald
said he would refuse to sign off on
the resolution, stating that criterion
five was, “unacceptable to me. I
will not vote for that when it’s in
there.”
Buckwald explained that if
Leskin had sole discretion over
what constitutes a commercial ves-
sel, then the rest of the clauses
would be void, allowing Leskin to
discriminate against any type of
vessel he sees fit.
Leskin’s argument was that if the
port manager did not have discre-
tion regarding these issues, the
commissioners would have to be
constantly involved with determin-
ing if vessels were commercial or
not. If this happened, delays could
occur, particularly if commissioners
disagreed on a definition.
“If you’re going to scratch it,
then I’m withdrawing the motion,”
said Leskin.
“Then bring us back something
next month, because it needs to be
clarified to all the people,” said
Buckwald. “Not just to (the audi-
ence) here but to everybody. It’s
important, Steven.”
The only commissioner who did-
n’t question the clause immediately
was Rickard, who asked, “Where
does the manager’s discretion
come? Are we telling the manager
every other little thing he can do?”
Duman, clearly agitated, replied,
“No, we’re only going to tell him
one time. I don’t agree with this res-
olution, Nancy. If you agree with
the resolution, you can vote for this
resolution. I don’t care.”
Duman pointed out that if the
other five rules were followed, it
wouldn’t matter; tight regulations
would make most complaints void.
A vote was taken and the resolu-
tion was passed, without criterion
five, the only dissenting vote com-
ing from Rickard.
On March 20, just five days after
the board struck down the fifth
clause, Leskin filed a complaint
against Duman and Huntington to
the Oregon Government Ethics
Commission (OGEC):
“Commissioner Duman attended
this meeting. He failed to disclose
that he was a moorage customer,
and hence his conflict. He engaged
in discussions about the Resolution.
After another commissioner, Mike
Buckwald (his brother-in-law) sug-
gested a modified Resolution,
Commissioner Duman voted in
favor of the Resolution (sic).”
He enclosed information on
moorage contracts for both com-
missioners and directed the Ethics
Commission to view a video of the
public hearing at “about the 24-
minute mark.”
Leskin leveled two accusations
at the commissioners, the first being
collusion between Buckwald,
Duman and Huntington, and the
second that Duman and Huntington
voted “yes” to protect their financial
interests.
The first accusation stems from
Buckwald’s failure to disclose that
he was Duman’s brother-in-law —
an accusation made more poignant
because Duman was the person who
nominated Buckwald to the board.
In his complaint, Leskin suggest-
ed Buckwald modified the resolu-
tion to help Duman, who also voted
in favor.
By bringing Huntington into the
complaint, Leskin indicated what he
saw as a conspiratorial voting
block: Duman connected to
Buckwald through marriage,
Huntington through commercial
interests.
However, there is no public evi-
dence or documentation to support
this. In fact, a sample survey of
votes cast by the commission over
the past 12 months (June 2016 to
June 2017) show 26 were made, 22
of which were unanimous and only
four that were split. In those four,
Buckwald voted against Duman
half the time, as did Huntington.
Recordings of the meetings show
the three disagreeing with each
other often, particularly Duman and
Buckwald.
The second complaint was that
est.
If there was one statement made
by Duman that could be interpreted
as supporting Leskin’s claim, it
would be a comment he made at the
end of the March 15 meeting on an
unrelated issue:
“The only reason I want to stay
on this commission is, if I’m not on
this commission, my boat’s the next
to go. It’s already been tried to get
kicked out of this port once by the
last manager.”
Duman’s statement could be
taken one of two ways, either mean-
ing he’s strictly on the board to pro-
tect his commercial boat, or he’s
describing himself as a “class.”
According to the Oregon
Government
Standards
and
Practices Laws, Section III, Article
8 states that a board member may
sometimes vote for a resolution that
gives him financial gain, as long as
casting the vote affects other people
“to the same degree.”
For example, a city counselor
would have good cause to live in the
city they are governing. If they did,
however, there would inevitably be
financial conflicts involved such as
raising a gas tax or drafting stricter
building codes. Instead of having
the counselors recuse themselves
every vote, they are distinguished as
a “class,” i.e. citizens of the city.
In this case, Duman and
Huntington are also distinguished
as a class: Commercial fishermen.
In this scenario, Duman’s con-
cerns about being kicked out of the
port if Leskin had absolute authori-
ty to determine what class of vessel
Duman owned could be valid.
However, his concern would not
just be for himself but all fishermen
in his class.
OGEC took a more simple
approach to Leskin seven days later,
stating in its report:
“After reviewing the materials
you submitted and the meeting
video to which you referred, it does
not appear that the decision that the
commissioners were making had or
could have any financial impact on
the commissioners themselves.”
Leskin said he had been attempt-
ing to right the port’s financial ship
for months, stating, “We want to put
things in a unified, logical way” in a
Sept. 21, 2016, meeting.
In March 2016, an increase in
revenue of $20,000 was reported
from the year prior. Then, in April
2016, income increased by $16,000
while expenses decreased $10,000.
In his State of the Port address
Jan 18, 2017, Caputo stated, “Under
JARED ANDERSON/SIUSLAW NEWS
Port of Siuslaw Board of Commissioners (from left) Terry Duman, Nancy Rickard, Mike
Buckwald and Bill Meyer decide the fate of Steven Leskin’s employment Aug. 7.
the leadership of Port Manager
Steven Leskin, the port has
increased revenue and decreased
expenses.”
Although the general funds did
lower from time to time, this was
primarily due to the renovations the
port had made to the facilities and
other projects it was working on.
Leskin attempted to raise funds
in a number of ways, one being a
requirement for moorage insurance.
In 2015, a 30-gallon oil spill
occurred, costing the port $6,000 to
clean, according to Leskin.
“I look out on our fleet and I see
an aging fleet,” Leskin told the
commission in July 2016. “A lot of
old boats, boats that aren’t cared for.
I see these as liabilities waiting to
happen.”
Boat insurance is partially deter-
mined by the size of the vessel, but
Leskin quoted a $1 million policy
for a commercial vessel at roughly
$300 a month, which the board sup-
ported enthusiastically. In addition,
Leskin began charging late fees on
moorage customers, with collec-
tions being made and lawyers con-
tacted in some instances.
But the collections quickly led to
complaints.
In a March 31, 2017, meeting,
Leskin pulled a year’s worth of data
from the reservations systems com-
ment section.
He stated that the port’s overall
score was an A-, explaining, “When
I go through people’s comments,
tons of comments, consistently peo-
ple say nice things about us. We see
Yard Debris Disposal
Next Date is August 19
9am to 2pm
at the Kingwood entrance to the airport,
located at Kingwood & 27th St.
COST
Pickup load
$10
2017
Collection
Dates:
Small Utility Trailer
(Single Axle)
$10
AUGUST 19
Medium Utility
Trailer
(10-12 ft)
$15
Large Utility Trailer
(12-18ft)
$20
Greater than
20 cubic yards
$20 +$5/yard over
SEPTEMBER 16
OCTOBER 21
Bring:
• Tree Clippings
• Leaves
• Grass Clippings
• Weeds
• Prunings
• Brush
DO NOT
Bring your:
• Food &
Household waste
• Animal Waste
• Plastics
• Construction
Debris
• Hazardous Waste
For questions, please contact the
City of Florence Public Works Department at 541-997-4106
people bring us flowers. I see peo-
ple bringing (employee) Kelly
(Stewart) sweets. People bring us
pizza. We are doing fine.”
Those comments, however, were
from people checking out; short
timers and RV residents.
The commissioners, meanwhile,
were seeing a completely different
story in their public meetings from
moorage customers. The first major
complaint came Aug. 17, 2016,
from James Freeman. Wanting to
moor his recreational vessel long
term, Freeman said he had run into
problems with Leskin and the staff
over getting a permanent slip; On
Feb. 15, Gordon Owen lodged a
complaint that led to a protracted
argument with the board, lasting
months (Siuslaw News, May 24,
2017); On March 15, Len
Christensen complained that after
revamping his boat, he was denied
his commercial discount: He was a
tuna fisherman and had a license,
with insurance; On April 19, moor-
age customer Steve Starnes
recounted a time when Leskin
asked him to move his electrical
cords from over the dock to under
the dock, a practice he felt unsafe.
“He absolutely does not know
what he’s doing around marine
operations,” Starnes said. “I don’t
know who hired this person for this
position, but they definitely need to
look into that because that could
become a dangerous issue — a dan-
gerous issue for everyone.”
But it was an explosive public
meeting March 15 involving David
Swinney and Michelle Culwell,
who have been moorage customers
for 12 years, that brought the dis-
cord between the port commission
and its manager to a whole new
level.
At the beginning of the meeting,
Culwell, who leases the moorage
with Swinney, stood up to make
official complaints to the commis-
sion. In her hand was a manila
binder overflowing with paperwork
detailing their position.
“When I went to renew our
moorage agreement on Feb. 3, (the
employee) said she wasn’t going to
take our money because we were
late. They were going to put us on a
month-to-month.”
The month-to-month fee is more
costly than the annual fee. For
example, an annual fee for a vessel
up to 20 feet is $840. The monthly
rate is $132, or $1,584 a year.
Culwell insisted that she never
received any bills or reminders and
that the staff refused to accept her
payments.
There were also issues with her
insurance, particularly arguments
about the boat length. Culwell
said that her boat was 35 feet, but
port documents showed 37 feet — a
difference of $167 for an annual
rate.
Culwell said she tried to con-
vince the port, but staff would not
listen. Culwell then stated she
received threatening letters from the
port.
“The threats and the belligerence
originates in the office. It doesn’t
come from us. And it got worse
throughout the month with the way
port staff treated us. We still don’t
have a moorage agreement. We’re
still on a month-to-month at the dis-
cretion of the port manager, who
has sole discretion to throw us out if
he deems it. I would just like to
have some fair treatment.”
At the end of the meeting, after
the commercial designation had
been discussed, Leskin read a pre-
pared statement describing the issue
from the port’s perspective. In it,
Leskin explained that Swinney had
come into the office to pay his
moorage bill, but was told that
Kelly Stewart, who usually handles
moorage leases, was not in the
office due to illness.
See
PORT 8A
Let me Showcase your property.
Jan Jagoe
Broker
541 999-0879
88339 2nd Ave – Charming 2 bdrm, 1 bath home
within walking distance to the beach! New deck,
landing, sheetrock and flooring make this double
wide mobile very desirable. This wonderful home
could be the coastal getaway you’ve always
dreamed of! $137,500. #2726-17257452
1749 Highway 101 • 541-997-1200
THE LARGEST YARD SALE UNDER ONE ROOF!
OVER 40 BOOTHS
INDIVIDUALS , FAMILIES AND NON PROFIT GROUPS
Saturday
August 12th
8 a.m. — 2 p.m.
Florence Events Center
715 Quince Street
Florence, Oregon
541-997-1994
$1.00
Admission