As a former Port of Centralia commissioner, I know exactly why Kyle Heaton’s severance protections were created.
When I voted for that provision years ago, Heaton’s salary was nearly half what it is now, and the goal was to protect him from a potential hostile or politically motivated firing in some low-probability, hypothetical future.
It was never designed to become a guaranteed payout executed weeks before a new port commissioner was sworn in. In hindsight, I regret that vote.
I find the preemptive firing of Heaton by the current port commission ethically troubling and fiscally irresponsible. Heaton has had majority support and encouragement from the existing commission throughout their terms, especially in recent months.
The election highlighted a need for change in port governance.
Accountability, transparency and a new standard for leadership engagement with the community were the center of Ally Pickard’s campaign. Her subsequent win confirmed that sentiment and gave her a clear mandate to pursue it in collaboration with Commissioners Kyle Markstrom and Peter Lahmann. Pickard’s post-election message signaled a desire to do exactly that. There was no message to fire Heaton, only a mandate to improve how the port serves the public.
Under new leadership, Heaton could have adapted to the expectations voters set. If he were unwilling to change, he could have resigned at zero cost to taxpayers.
If his performance fell short, the commission could have addressed that through normal oversight. Voters deserved the chance to see whether a shift in direction could occur without an immediate firing and the heavy cost attached to it.
Instead, the outgoing commission acted before Pickard could take her seat. Firing Heaton and triggering a potential half-million-dollar severance has created the very “distraction” Markstrom claimed the vote would avoid. The timing gives the impression that the action was designed to insulate Heaton from enacting the change voters demanded, allowing him to effectively quit with severance rather than protect public interest.
If Heaton had remained in his role and was later fired for reasons safeguarded in his contract language, he still would have received severance. The difference is that the decision would have come from a commission with both the voter mandate and a demonstrable reason to end his contract.
The optics are troubling. Heaton’s firing wasn’t a response to misconduct. It wasn’t a reaction to an operational or fiscal crisis. It was a decision made before any of those possibilities could be evaluated, before new standards could be set, before new oversight could be applied, before voters’ expectations could be put into practice and tested.
In the end, the move may meet the letter of the law, but it does not meet the spirit of ethical governance. It was preemptive when no preemption was needed, costly when no cost was necessary, and timed in a way that makes one question whose interests were truly being served.
The voters asked for a new chapter. The current commissioners chose to write the ending before the new commission even opened the book.
Matt Evans
Centralia
