4 February 2007 Letter to Governor Kulongoski: Port Commission of Coos Bay Not Following Governor's Directives

9 February 2007 Letter to Governor Kulongoski: State of Oregon's Enabling of Jordan Cove LNG Terminal

4 February 2007

Governor Ted Kulongoski
160 State Capitol
900 Court Street
Salem, Oregon 97301-4047

Dear Governor Kulongoski:

Re: the State Commission of the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay is not following your directives, not making decisions in accordance with the intent of Oregon policy for open governments in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 192, and did not conduct due diligence in making the land deal for the Jordan Cove LNG project.

You appointed and administered the oath of office to the five Port of Coos Bay Commissioners in January 2005. You gave them several directives, including (boldface added):

"And finally, I ask that you work closely with local and regional partners to be sure that your plans are part of a community consensus about economic revival here. The Cities of Coos Bay and North Bend must be part of any discussion on land use, and the counties have a direct interest as well. Private sector businesses, labor and economic development agencies must come to the table. I am asking that you develop a community consensus on how to proceed. As you know, you will probably need state and federal resources to realize your goals, and one thing we look for is that the whole community is behind a plan. Eternal bickering is not persuasive in Salem or Washington, D.C.!"

Your advice was, and still is, wise.

The Commissioners have not followed your directive for their land deal for the Jordan Cove LNG terminal or for considering Project TK (Tokuyama) and Project April (Gateway Port Project). The Port Commission's failure to build community consensus and include public input before making decisions has led to divisiveness and the "eternal bickering" that you warned of.

The controversy that has resulted from the Port Commission's LNG land deal may have been avoided. The Commissioners could have held hearings and included the public in the decision-making process before concluding their land deal with Jordan Cove LNG developers and the exchange of money in June 2006. But they did not.

The Port Commission has also not followed the intent of Oregon policy for governments. For example, Commission President David Kronsteiner did not follow Oregon's "Membership Handbook for Boards and Commissions" guideline on p. 5 that states: "No board member should make decisions or take unilateral action without the consent of the board as a whole." Kronsteiner testified on behalf of the Port to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Coast Guard in support of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. However, his testimony was only approved by the rest of the Port Commission after he gave it and then by only three (including Kronsteiner) of the five Port Commissioners.

Further, Commission Vice-President Caddy McKeown has stated that the Commissioners can deliberate on the sale of property in closed, executive sessions "until the deal's done." But then where is the opportunity for meaningful citizen involvement in decisions? After the "deal's done" is too late, especially in decisions that affect so many Oregonians and landowners like the Jordan Cove LNG facility and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.

Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in Iraq, supposedly to bring democracy to Iraqis. Their deaths are even more painful when principles of democracy are ignored at home in Oregon. The least we can do is to practice democracy here.

What is your administration going to do to restore the democratic process of including citizens in decisions and plans made by the Port of Coos Bay Commissioners?

The Port of Coos Bay Commissioners are responsible to you, not citizens. Is your administration going to let the Port Commissioners get away with not following your directives, violating Oregon policies for open government, and failing to conduct due diligence expected of government commissions?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Range (Richard) Bayer

FOOTNOTE. Also see "Has the Port Commission of Coos Bay Handled Shipbreaking, Their Land Deal for the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal, and Other Issues with Due Diligence?" at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/cbbiblio.htm [must use all lower case letters] that includes sections:

* The Port of Coos Bay Commissioners, the Governor's Charge to the Commission, the Port's Vision, and the Port's Executive Director

* Have the Port of Coos Bay Commissioners Directed the Port Like a Successful Business?

* Are the Port of Coos Bay Commissioners Complying with Oregon Policy for Governments?

* Have the Port Commissioners Acted with "Reasonable Care" or Exercised "Due Diligence" in Approving Their Land Deal for the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal?

* Other Recent Port Commission Actions that Show that Important Decisions Are Made in Executive Sessions and/or Do Not Include Meaningful Public Input

9 February 2007

Governor Ted Kulongoski
160 State Capitol
900 Court Street
Salem, Oregon 97301-4047

Dear Governor Kulongoski:

Re: the State of Oregon's selective enabling of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal.

The Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) provided a $15 million loan to the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay to help purchase Weyerhaeuser land on the North Spit of Coos Bay. Part of this land will be used for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal. The land purchase deal is contingent on the successful siting of the LNG terminal. Jordan Cove LNG developers needed the land to have a viable site that could win FERC approval. The OECDD loan gave tacit State approval to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal.

Since the State provided the money that made the LNG terminal possible, how can you or State agencies seriously protest any aspect of the Jordan Cove LNG plan without it appearing that State government is in serious disarray?

The Oregon Department of Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality have some regulatory responsibilities in the siting or monitoring the LNG facility and associated 223-mile Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. This pipeline will run through southwestern Oregon to near the California border. Will these agencies be constrained because the State of Oregon loaned most of the money to purchase the site for the LNG facility and you came out in support of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal during a 31 July 2006 forum?

At least one expert predicts only one LNG terminal in Oregon. So how can the State of Oregon fairly be part of the certification process for LNG terminals proposed for Oregon on the Columbia River, since it is clear that the State is supporting the competing Jordan Cove LNG terminal?

Did the OECDD consult with other State agencies about the consequences of the OECDD loan to enable a LNG terminal? Did the OECDD exercise due diligence to determine that one of the consequences would be the need for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline? Did the OECDD consider the negative impact on Oregon landowners and the use of the law of eminent domain to take away property from unwilling landowners along the pipeline's route to the California border?

Do the purported economic benefits of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal justify the undemocratic means employed by the State and by the State Commission of the Port of Coos Bay to enable the terminal?

What will your administration do to include citizen participation in decision-making by the State or State Commissions that can have as great of impact as a LNG terminal and associated pipeline?

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely yours,

Range (Richard) Bayer

FOOTNOTE. Also see "Has the Port Commission of Coos Bay Handled Shipbreaking, Their Land Deal for the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal, and Other Issues with Due Diligence?" at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/cbbiblio.htm [must use all lower case letters] that includes sections:

* Are the Port of Coos Bay's Explanations that If the Port Had Not Provided Land for the LNG Terminal That It Would Have Been Built Anyway Questionable?

* Oregon Economic and Community Development Department's (OECDD) Involvement with Port Projects

[Go to Has the Oregon International Port Commission of Coos Bay Handled the Shipbreaking, Land Deal for the LNG Terminal, and Other Issues with Due Diligence? or go to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.