Trending
CHARLESTON – After two hours of questions and responses, it was the silence that meant the most.
The members of the West Virginia Public Port Authority did not respond when asked for a motion to rescind the powers of the Weirton Area Port Authority, meaning the local group would be allowed to continue its local economic development work.
The state agency issued 14 points it said the Weirton authority failed to meet and called the hearing to rescind the powers. The hearing was held as a response after the Weirton Area Port Authority said the state authority failed to meet a 60-day notice requirement when issuing a cease-and-desist order in October 2013. Weirton Attorney William Galloway, representing the WAPA, said he and Steve Connolly of the state attorney general’s office, met in January after the dismissal of the WAPA appeal of the state agency’s attempt to rescind the local agency’s powers. The hearing by the state port in the West Virginia Department of Transportation offices was the result.
Galloway said after the meeting, “The Weirton Area Port Authority still has its powers and duties. What we need to do now is to convene a meeting of the WAPA board and discuss where we go from here.”
Galloway said after October 2013’s action, “One issue was that if there was ever going to be a statement of intent to revoke the powers and duties of WAPA, then there had to be a 60-day notice and a hearing like we had today. That did not happen in October 2013, therefore the legal issue was, was it valid? Was it authorized? The second issue was that you often hear in the press that the October 2013 vote was unanimous, but there is an 11-member (state port authority) board, and only five voted to revoke and rescind. That is not unanimous. It’s not even a quorum.
“That was the quandary the WAPA board found itself in. Did it still exist? Was it legal?”
He said a suit filed in Brooke County by WAPA against the state port authority regarding the October 2013 action was dismissed without prejudice to refiling because the Brooke County Circuit Court found procedurally the case should have been filed in Kanawha County. That led to Galloway and Connolly discussing the 60-day notice and hearing procedure, which led to Wednesday’s hearing.
“Essentially this coming October, three years would have been lost. And it hurts the citizens of Weirton. Now, we are back on track. Hopefully, we will be able to bring some jobs to the area, some prosperity, and hopefully, our children can return,” Galloway said. He added that he and Connolly will work closely together to be sure the WAPA works hand in hand with the state port authority.
During the hearing, thick binders of records, reports and information from the WAPA were provided to the state authority’s members, but the records only provided information through the state’s attempt to rescind the local authority’s powers. The period from October 2013 forward was not included, largely because of confusion of the status of the authority, as explained by WAPA Chairman B.J. DeFelice.
“After the dissolution, there was no clear legal process of who was responsible for what. The volunteers (who make up WAPA) did the best they could with legal advice. But without rules, you could pick apart my answers all day. I’m saying we’re still interested in proceeding,” he said.
Galloway said he was brought on as WAPA’s general counsel after the October 2013 move by the state authority.
“WAPA, as far as I can see, wants to be transparent, to provide this board with the information they’re required to provide,” he said.
DeFelice said the records since October 2013 can be provided, but were not included in the binders presented Wednesday because of the confusion about the WAPA’s legal status.
Further, he responded to the state port’s claims that WAPA had assigned its duties to other entities in violation of the terms of its agreements with the state.
DeFelice said WAPA didn’t assign any duties provided to it solely as a public port authority. State port board members questioned information in resolutions by WAPA giving other entities, including the nonprofit Weirton Port Authority Inc., which raises funds and serves as a vehicle for investors to use to invest in projects, items to perform. DeFelice said WINC and other entities used by WAPA are private entities with their own rights to perform actions such as hiring, making leases and purchasing goods and equipment, the same as any private business.
“There is nothing in the rules that say I’m the only one who can buy something. They can do a lease as any private company can without me. Private companies are allowed to do that. I can’t give them any authority that they already have,” he said. “You need a public group to manage the public responsibilities.”
DeFelice said WAPA didn’t give any of the port authority’s governmental powers, such as bonding or eminent domain, to any other entity. He likened the use of the other entities by WAPA to that of a coffee shop given a lease in an airport.
“The airport sets the rules about how to operate the airport, but it does not dictate how Starbuck’s operates. We aren’t there. We didn’t get to that point. These people are trying to develop something to get to that point,” he said.
He asked the board, “What specific authority did we give that they don’t already have?”
He and James Greco, general manager of the nonprofit WINC, said the cloud of confusion over the port authority has led to a loss of opportunities because investors are not wanting to be involved while there is a cloud over the port authority’s operation.
Galloway said the local authority recognizes that it needs to run any decisions regarding assignment of duties to other entities past the West Virginia Public Port Authority board for approval.
Pat Ford, executive director of the Business Development Corp. of the Northern Panhandle, is a member of the state public port board. He suggested that WAPA be dissolved and reformed with clearer requirements. Galloway said that wouldn’t be necessary.
Another issue was regarding formal financial auditing and reporting by WAPA to the state port authority. DeFelice said the initial audit six years ago showed there was $188 in WAPA’s bank account and it’s grown to $195 through interest. WAPA doesn’t directly own or operate facilities or take in funds. He said WINC is used in the same way as the BDC, as a not-for-profit agency, but no governmental powers have been assigned to it or other entities the state agency was citing in its hearing notice, including Tri-State Port Management and Inland Services.
As for questions about legal claims, DeFelice noted those were against private entities, not the WAPA.
Greco said, “A lot of funding and financing came in via fundraising by WINC, not WAPA, and we had some agreements with people on a list to finance a project that, for some reason, they backed out.” He said a claim by Kokosing Inc. was not a suit against WINC.
“It was settled by the people who were supposed to settle it,” he said. Depositions are due to be taken in July in a claim by CityNet, he said.
Greco said he is “totally embarrassed to say I’m from Weirton, W.Va., because of the stuff that has been going on. We are getting very close to giving up an opportunity, to give up billions of dollars coming into this state.”
He said Weirton city officials have said they don’t care what the port authority is doing.
“It’s time for everyone to work together and lead, instead of going after personal agendas.”
Michael Ballato of Weirton was in attendance at the meeting and said he missed only two meetings of the port authority.
“I think a lot of all these guys. What has happened with the city is political,” he said.