MarEx Mailbag:

This week’s mailbag contains just one letter that addresses our lead editorial of last week. This week, we received just one letter and it addressed last week’s lead piece. Received from a Port of Corpus Christi official, it predictably takes issue with our editorial entitled, “Port Security: At What Price, Who Decides and to Whose Account?” The reader is upset with our ‘take’ on recent events in south Texas and the facts as we reported them. Read our article on the matter by clicking HERE or simply go directly to what our reader had to say below:

* * *

Joe, The information Neils gave you that was printed in your lead article concerning maritime security at the Port of Corpus Christi is false and inaccurate. First, no one should have been "surprised" as we have held over twenty meetings and briefings with PICC and local elected officials since Nov, 2008 concerning the plan. We specifically requested, via letter, PICC's comments and recommendations on the manner of funding this initiative. They declined to respond other than to say they were opposed. "Surprise" should be replaced with "Head in the sand". Secondly, the recent "proclamation" from AAPA you are referencing allows for grant money to be used for maintenance or replacement of grant purchased equipment. "Operating costs", including personnel salaries, fuel, routine oil changes, etc. are specifically excluded and are not allowed under this program. Just for information, grant maintenance money has been available for several years and the recent AAPA "proclamation" merely noted an expansion of the program to past and future grants but in no way changed the base limitations on what it could be used for. The Port of Corpus Christi has in the past and intends in the future to go after the maximum available grant maintenance money to lesson any burden on our customers relative to maintaining grant equipment. Thanks. Arch Archambo Chief of Police and Security Port of Corpus Christi (361) 885-6180 Cell (361) 816-3631 MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Archambo writes a nice letter, but it does not change the basic facts that include a whopping increase in fees for port users, against a cacophony of protests. Our article, which came out a couple of weeks before we actually published our editorial, said that port users were “stunned” at the increases. I will stand by that assessment. As for his initial comments about the source of my material, I think Mr. Archambo gives WGMA’s Neils Aalund far too much credit, and me, not enough. Let me assure the Chief of Police that I spent 3-1/2 years coming in and out of Corpus Christi on a chemical tanker (with OD 8 my favorite stop) and followed that with more than ten years of consulting services at a myriad of locations on the Corpus Christi waterway. I know my way around the port. Aalund has to represent his WGMA base. In this case – and he was one of many sources – he speaks for the vast majority of users on that channel. Finally, I saw another news source (and I’ll link it HERE, lest I get accused of parroting the party line again) that came out of the Corpus Christi area just this week. It seems that some other aspects of “operating” the Ship Channel are about to get a little bit more expensive, as well. Finally, I thank the reader for educating me on the nuances of port security grants. In their recent press release, the AAPA says, “This reversal in DHS policy is welcome news and represents years of advocacy on the part of the port industry,” said Kurt Nagle, AAPA's president and chief executive officer. "The 2006 SAFE Port Act allows port security grants to cover maintenance, repair and replacement expenses, but DHS' past limitations on these costs have resulted in grantees having to take over this large financial burden.” So: Are “security maintenance and repair expenses” part of “operating costs?” I would think so. But, according to the port, the answer is “no.” Go figure.