The Port of Seattle is different from you and me. How’s that, you ask? Well, think of it this way. If you went in to work and spent $14 million illegally, you might expect there to be some repercussions when that was found out. Or if you checked your bank account and it had about $400,000 less than you expected, you might check into it.

Back in February of 2012, a state audit found that the Port had decided to give $13.6 million to Highline School District “for construction and operation of Aviation High School,” despite having no funding authority for public schools. The funds used were meant to be spent soundproofing schools near SeaTac airport, not building them from the ground up.

The Port (and Highline Schools) vigorously disagreed, and anyway, the money had long been spent (the Port made its contribution 18 months before construction started, passing up about $500,000 in potential investment income).

Directed with running the SeaTac airport and Seattle’s seaport, the Port of Seattle has long difficulty discerning where, precisely, those duties end. Especially when the Port seems to be losing out on actual maritime business — these days a “win” is not losing long-time clients — there’s a tendency (not unique to Seattle) for its commissioners to style themselves as a “regional development engine” or “job creators.”

Thus, Commissioner John Creighton could tell KING TV that not only would the Port create jobs, but they would supply the people to fill them, too: “We feel that supporting Aviation High School is an important part of the port’s mission, in terms of workforce development and helping kids get into aviation careers.”

Notwithstanding those grand plans, a more recent audit notes that: “Once we communicated to management that the Port is not authorized to contribute funding for the construction and operation of public schools, the Port stopped its contribution to Highline School District construction activity.” No money was returned.

Now the Seattle Times reports that that same audit found “$395,000 lost due to faulty Sea-Tac parking machines.” It could have been worse. The losses were the fault of a single parking garage exit lane’s credit card processor, but the Port seems to have not bothered checking whether the processors were working accurately for years. That $395,000 is just where they stopped counting; the audit says, “We found no evidence to suggest the credit card processing failures were isolated to 2011 and 2012.”

The Port has installed a new receipt system that may not win you over. The new system “still is not accurately processing all credit card transactions or does not process them at all, does not always operate, and overbills customers,” says the audit, foregoing any appended LOL OMFG ROTFLMAO.

Finally, there is the food at SeaTac. Commendably, the Port has resisted stuffing the airport full of non-local chains (the non-local qualifier accounts for the presence of Starbucks). But there’s a certain Soviet-era hubris to their interest, lately, in protecting businesses from market fluctuations.

KING TV says they seem to be “playing favorites” with a six of the eleven SeaTac food and drink providers, cutting them deals on rent and offering lease extensions. If business is truly terrible because of your location in a less-used gate area and rent should be reduced because you expect lower revenues, it seems odd to demand a lease extension on that terrible spot (unless you’re angling to lock in those low rental rates in anticipation of business picking back up).

Despite advice from staff that the Port should avoid offering selective help, Commissioner Rob Holland told KING TV: “I like my staff. I think we have a great airport director and a great legal staff, but they are not experts. They are experts in many things but not in (minority contracting) programs.” Holland sat on the Port’s audit committee in 2011, the same year he was recognized as the leader in “most questionable business expenses.”