Delegation of Authority Briefing and
Commission/Staff Roundtable Discussion

Master Delegation of Authority - Purpose 
Created to define and differentiate levels of
authority for governing and operating the Port of
Seattle. 
Goals of the resolution: provide for both the
necessary accountability and public trust and the
need to run the day-to-day operations of the Port in
as efficient and cost-effective a way as possible.
The results of this discussion will be fed back into
current efforts to revise the Delegation of Authority.

Historical Context 
Ports in Washington set up to be run by an elected Commission,
unique among Port authorities in the United States. Port's
authority flows from the people of King County to the
Commission, which delegates authority to the CEO 
Originally Port Commission made all important executive
decisions 
As Port grew in mission complexity and infrastructure, an
organizational structure created that was akin to a standard
corporate structure 
This structure and its relation to the Commission necessitated
the creation of a CEO/Commission governance agreement

SAO Performance Audit 
December 2007: Audit from the SAO on contracting practices. Major recommendation
called for the Port Commission to re-evaluate the then-current Delegation of Authority
Resolution, and develop one that more clearly defined the authority and oversight of the
Commission. 
Resolution No. 3605: 
Clarified the relationship between the Commission and the CEO that allows the
Commission to set broad policy goals and the CEO to provide the operational
capacity to implement those goals. 
Improved the quality of information available to the Commission so that it could
approve expenditures, both long-term and annual, in a fiscally responsible way.
Made the procedures the Commission followed in approving expenditures
transparent, so that the public understood not only what spending the Commission
was authorizing, but how each step of the approval process was crucial to the
oversight role the Commission plays in directing funds for the public benefit.

Questions to Consider 
How/Where Should the Commission oversee spending? 
How do strategic programs like the Century Agenda affect the Master
Delegation of Authority? How well can they realistically be integrated into
the business plans or 5-year Plan of Finance? 
The Commission has both oversight and policy decisions in major
programs. At what point is their authority warranted? What do they bring
to the decision loops that exist?
How well does setting a numerical level for project authorization provide a
guide for policy decision authority? What is an appropriate level? 
Does the system of notifications provide value? Are there better ways to
provide that information? Does the Commission need this authority? Does
it provide value to the efficiency of project management?

Major Revisions 
Preamble: Roles and Responsibilities of the Commission and the relationship to
the CEO 
Section 1: Roles and responsibilities of the CEO, budget process 
Section 4: Public works projects  authorizations, changes, reporting,
emergency and critical work, budget transfers, small works 
Section 5: Non-public works projects 
Section 6: Contracts, procurements, competition, sole source contracts 
Section 7: Personal service contracts, professional service and procurement
contracts 
New sections: Interlocal agreements and project labor agreements