ANYTHING BUT: An Act Relative to Port Security

It is a very good time to take up the issue of maritime safety and security, especially as it relates to the matter of compulsory pilotage in restricted waters. No, I’m not talking about the Port of San Francisco. Instead, we head east to the much smaller port of Boston, MA. You probably won’t find Boston in any ‘top ten’ tonnage categories as compared to other U.S. ports, but it is an important regional transportation hub, nevertheless.

Today, the future of New England’s most important deepwater port is, at best, uncertain and the reasons for that are the usual culprits: politics and money. In other words, it is business as usual in the Bay State. As we head into the Thanksgiving break, there are two bills relating to maritime matters in play in the Massachusetts legislature. The fate of each will define the safety and the financial health of the port for years to come.

Senate Bill 515 is a proposal to increase pilotage rates for Boston harbor traffic. Senate Bill 1349, on the other hand, is a bill put forth by supporters of an effort to codify the mandatory use of so-called “docking masters” in the port of Boston. Both seem like logical proposals, each with nothing to do with the other. But money has inextricably tied the two together when their common bond should have been marine safety and concern for the good of the Commonwealth.

This week, the Massachusetts Pilot Rate bill (s.515) was reported out of committee favorably, but is now mired in Senate Ways and Means. This is a curious development since the bill by itself costs the taxpayers nothing and in reality, will add tax revenues to the state’s coffers. This is the exact same bill that both the Massachusetts House and Senate passed in the previous legislative session. As Mitt Romney headed off to the presidential sweepstakes, however, this and a myriad of other “finance” related bills were left unsigned. Apparently, it is not a good idea to look like a spender when playing high-stakes GOP poker.

Senate Bill 1349 (S.1349) is described by its sponsors as “An Act Relative to Port Security.” The real purpose of the bill is to grant a state sanctioned monopoly to a group of docking masters who work, for the most part, for a single towing company in the port of Boston. The merits of the bill are questionable but the need to dock and undock deep draft vessels in the port of Boston is something we can all agree on.

In the absence of a docking master provided by a tug operator, the state licensed Boston Pilots are required to perform this function. Over the past decade, they’ve performed literally hundreds of these operations; all with little or no fanfare and nary a casualty. And therein, lies the rub. The docking masters want all the work, they want to charge what they want and along the way, they hope to put their only viable competition out of business. And all of that spells bad business for the Port of Boston.

With the single stroke of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick’s pen, the monopoly provided for by the state legislature could very well put one of the only two large commercial towing firms in business in the harbor today, out of business. S.1349 literally flies in the face of any semblance of good marine safety practices and in fact is opposed by virtually every other stakeholder in Boston Harbor. This bill’s supporters, bolstered by a high-price lobbyist, paid for with out-of-state funds, have been consistent with their approach. Boston's pilots will get their rate increase when the ‘docking masters’ achieve their unrestricted monopoly. And not a minute before. As you read this, well-placed MarEx sources in Massachusetts say that “Efforts continue to tie the key components of S.1349 to the pilot’s rate bill.”

When the Boston Marine Society formed and convened a Working Group to provide recommendations as to the best way to provide credentials and oversight for docking masters in Boston harbor, virtually every stakeholder in the Bay State took part in the effort. This included the docking masters themselves, MA Senator Bruce Tarr, Representative Charles Murphy, United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port Boston (Captain Jim MacDonald), Massport’s Port Director Michael Leone, The Massachusetts Pilot Commissioners, The Boston Marine Society and The Boston Shipping Association. This Group met at least four times, starting in June of 2006 and finishing up in December of the same year.

The recommendations of the Working Group were formally adopted by the Boston Marine Society. These recommendations were ignored and the bill presented today (S.1349) runs contrary in most respects to the best collective judgment of the marine interests of the Commonwealth.

Looking forward, a worst-possible-case scenario looms large in the windshield. Boston could very well see a marine environment run by a group of docking masters who will be free to charge what they want, without sufficient oversight from the state. On the other side of the equation, the Boston Pilots await their first rate increase in seven years, in the face of fuel costs that have risen 150 percent in the recent past. It is important to note that their requests do not form the shape of an increase in wages, but primarily, these additional funds represent their critical ability to cover the cost of running a pilot boat, training issues and a host of other safety expenses.

The political arm twisting now ongoing on Beacon Hill is a disaster waiting to happen. To fully understand what that means, one only has to look 200 miles south to where a fractured group of pilots who form the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MOA) pilots of Long Island Sound are still waiting their first rate increase in 25 years. The neglect in Long Island Sound, primarily a function of indifference from the Connecticut State House and the inability of New York and Connecticut to adequately coordinate their supervision of these pilots, has resulted in a system of poorly equipped, underpaid and rapidly aging professionals. With no formal provisions for apprentice pilots there, the next generation of marine pilots for these waters is nowhere to be found. Skilled mariners will not seek to join a poorly funded system that does not work. And, under these conditions, who can blame them?

The purpose of this article is not to beat up on the state of Connecticut. As 2007 comes to a close, there is progress there, and finally, a sense of some urgency. The future of trade at Connecticut’s ports literally hangs in the balance. And so it is in the port of Boston. Here, marine pilots continue to guide LNG tankers in and out of the port using a rate scale that lags most others in the region, never mind the rest of the country.

Both s.515 and S.1349 should be about safety and the future competitive nature of the port of Boston. Properly structured, S.1349 would provide for a system of regulated docking and undocking in the harbor. Probably, there is room for compromise on what is arguably an artificially low codified rate for those services. Should those rates, earned while performing a public safety function, be unregulated? Of course not.

The swift passage of s.515 will allow the Boston Pilots to do what they’ve always done in the past: perform highly professional guidance of large, deep draft vessels, maintain an infrastructure that will support that endeavor, and attract the best and the brightest to take the place of this generation of pilots when the time comes. The current rate schedule does not allow for that.

At some point, absent some sort of sanity in Boston harbor, shippers will take their goods to other places, where they will be repackaged and transported over road back to the Boston area in tank trucks, 40 foot containers and other breakbulk vehicles. Somehow, this doesn’t sound like what Sean Connaughton had in mind when he revived the concept of “America’s Marine Highway.” Shortsea Shipping advocates will wring their hands in disgust. The increased pollution of tens of thousands of trucks on the highway will also increase road maintenance costs, exacerbate health issues and affect a wide range of related issues. But shippers aren’t going to leave just because its cheaper elsewhere -- and it terms of marine pilotage, it WON’T be. They’ll leave because the infrastructure that the rates allow will not provide for a safe transportation system in and out of the port of Boston. And they’ll leave because a single entity will be at liberty to charge whatever they want in an unregulated fashion, to dock and undock their ships.

Over the years, I’ve covered and analyzed pilotage issues from Boston to Long Island Sound, to Texas and in Louisiana. Along the way, I’ve been accused of being “pro-pilot” and “anti-pilot” and several other acronyms in between. I don’t know about any of that, but I do know a good story when I see one. When the facts present themselves as transparently as this one does, it is an easy story to write.

S. 1349 would create a disparity in the authority of the Pilot Commissioners. The Pilot Commissioners would not have the same authority over docking masters as they do over the Boston Pilots. Under the Working Group’s proposed amendments, the authority of the Pilot Commissioners would be parallel as to both groups. The proposed bill specifically forbids the District One Pilot commissioners from exercising control over rates or contractual relationships between docking masters and shipping or tug companies. If enacted as proposed, the bill could also affect the ability of local harbor pilots to perform docking maneuvers -- something already do, with competence.

More than a year after the contentious Senate Bill 1330 was introduced and died a slow death “in study,” supporters of docking master certification in Boston Harbor are pushing forward another aggressive bill, one which could ultimately certify docking masters who will be unshackled by the regulatory oversight enforced on the existing licensed Boston Harbor pilots.

In the past, a firm called Boston Towing & Transportation enjoyed a virtual monopoly on ship-assist services in the harbor on the basis of offering a larger and more modern tug fleet. No more. Constellation’s absorption into the powerful Foss organization has meant an infusion of capital and modern ship-assist assets into Boston Harbor. With Constellation now offering the most advanced ship-assist platform in the harbor in the form of their next-generation tugboat LEO and another tractor tug, the playing field has leveled measurably. And with customers now able to choose their tug-assist provider on the basis of price and not just quality of equipment, the fate of Senate Bill 1349 looms large in the future of Boston Harbor.

Docking Masters should be licensed. I couldn’t agree more. And the vehicle to do just that already exists in Massachusetts. But, S.1349 -- as written -- has nothing to do with the rates charged by the Boston Marine Pilots. It also has nothing to do with “Port Security.” And, wrapping this effort in Red, White and Blue won’t mask the smell.

Massachusetts’ legislators and its Governor should quickly move to enact S.515 and ensure that the safety of pilotage in Massachusetts waters remains as it has been for generations: safe, affordable and sustainable for years to come in support of the commonwealth’s business interests. Docking masters wishing to operate under the same rules should be welcome to join them. Seems pretty simple to me -- MarEx.

Managing Editor Joseph Keefe can be reached at [email protected] with comments and/or input on this or any other article in this newsletter.