Anyone Want To Run For School Board?

ECB Staff on February 14, 2017

Three School Board seats are up for grabs in this year’s Great Falls school election, set for May 2, 2017. The election will be held by mail. Thus far, according to the Commissioner of Political Practices’ website, incumbents Jan Cahill (Board Chairman) and Don Ryan have filed for re-election. Trustee Jason Brantley is also up for another three-year term.

Cahill’s a good hand, and should be a shoe-in not only to win, but to receive the most overall votes. Ryan and Brantley should be formidable as well, as incumbents traditionally dominate Great Falls school elections.

If you’re considering serving on the School Board, there’s still plenty of time to decide.

The filing deadline closes March 23.

Bozeman, Montana: Sanctuary City?

ECB Staff on February 13, 2017

How spineless.

Bozeman will not become a sanctuary city.

This evening, the Bozeman City Commission instead passed a mayoral proclamation declaring Bozeman a “safe, welcoming, and inclusive community,” to the chagrin of a handful of residents. The proclamation reads:

WHEREAS, for more than twenty years the City of Bozeman has passed Resolutions declaring itself to be a welcoming community, an inclusive community and a community that values

diversity; and

WHEREAS, one of the primary functions of our City is providing safety for all; and

WHEREAS, the difficulties and uncertainties of present times have created concerns about our community’s safety and resolve;

THEREFORE, I, Carson Taylor, Mayor of the City of Bozeman, hereby state and proclaim that our City continues to welcome all, continues to be an inclusive community, and continues to thrive in the diversity of experience and backgrounds that populate our City; and I specifically reaffirm that one of our primary purposes is the safety of all persons within our City, and I pledge that the City will continue to protect the safety of all people, regardless of their status.

This sweeping, all-encompassing statement was not meaty enough for some community activists:

‘I recognize that this City Commission is trying to do the right thing by this proclamation, but I find it too bland and insufficient to meet the needs of my heart,’ said organizer Margarita McLarty. ‘And I know that I am not alone in this community.’

‘I want more,’ she continued. ‘I want a community dialogue. I want to see us step up and deal with the issues that are happening now in the country.’

McLarty and several other speakers told commissioners they’re disheartened by the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on immigration enforcement and want to see the city take a strong stance in opposition.

She and tens of other sanctuary city advocates showed up in force at last week’s commission meeting, urging the city to make the partially symbolic declaration, that would have affirmed the city’s commitment to supporting residents regardless of their immigration status and limited city law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

McLarty makes a compelling argument: she has a voice, and a heart, and it has needs. How dare local law enforcement cooperate with federal agencies. Moreover, who cares if the Trump administration defunds the City? Surely, the citizens and legal residents of Bozeman would make due somehow. Taking a symbolic stand for illegal aliens undocumented migrants, at the behest of “tens of people,” is infinitely more important, and would better serve the community, than would continuing to receive heaps of money from the federal government.

Say what you will about some of the “gadflies” who attend City Commission meetings in Great Falls — they’ve got nothin’ on Bozeman.

Poll: GFPD Vs. The Great Falls Tribune

ECB Staff on February 12, 2017

On Friday, the Great Falls Police Department issued a media release responding to a Tribune story about the Great Falls Rescue Mission. You can read the Tribune’s response to the GFPD release here.

Can anyone recall the GFPD ever scolding local media like this? The fact that our (excellent) police department felt compelled to make any kind of statement says a lot, frankly.

But what do you think? Do you agree with the GFPD, or did the Tribune get it right? Vote in our poll, and tell us why in the Comments…

VOTE

[poll id=”5″]

Fuzzy Math Frames Issue Of GFPS Tech Spending

Phyllis Tryon on February 10, 2017

Something doesn’t fit. After Monday night’s budget presentation by Great Falls Public Schools, the Great Falls Tribune painted a grim picture of the District’s per-pupil technology spending compared to other AA school districts. Sarah Dettmer for the Tribune reported:

According to data collected from fiscal year 2016, Great Falls is spending $21.66 per student for technology. GFPS is the second-lowest for per-student technology spending of all the AA schools. In comparison, Kalispell spends $182.03 per student for technology and Billings spends $127.72.

However, earlier in her article, Dettmer wrote:

GFPS has a technology budget of $2,389,107. The general fund accounts for 84 percent of the budget with an additional 9 percent paid for by the district’s existing $225,000 technology levy. The remainder of the budget is paid for by the state and the E-rate rebate program. Half of the budget is allocated to pay salaries.

So, how is it that “Great Falls is spending $21.66 per student for technology”? If GFPS has a technology budget of $2,389,107 and 10,471 enrolled students (according to the slide presented by GFPS and seen below), doesn’t that mean GFPS actually spends $228.16 per student on tech — in other words, more than ten times the amount reported in the Tribune?

This disconnect exists because the formula presented by the School District, and utilized but not disclosed by Dettmer, is based solely on the technology levy amount, which, again, comprises only 9 percent of GFPS’ total technology budget. But the reporter did not reference this slide, nor did she identify what “data collected from fiscal year 2016” she used to conclude that “Great Falls is spending $21.66 per student for technology.” It’s highly misleading.

Let’s compare two statements made by local journalists and see which one is more accurate:

Sarah Dettmer’s:

According to data collected from fiscal year 2016, Great Falls is spending $21.66 per student for technology. 

Or KFBB’s Amanda Roley’s:

According to data collected in fiscal year 2016, the Great Falls Public School District has the lowest technology levy among AA schools across Montana. The district’s current permanent technology levy of $225,000 breaks down to $21.66 per student.

Roley correctly attributes the disparity to the levy amounts, whereas Dettmer omits this critical fact, allowing Tribune readers to believe that GFPS is spending barely more than $20 per kid, no matter the funding. Rather than framing an issue on just 9 percent of the data (a small sample that only benefits the School District’s position in establishing the need for a levy increase), shouldn’t journalists consider 100 percent of the relevant data?

Slide 22 from GFPS’ Monday presentation provides this necessary context. It compares total technology funding of the Great Falls and Missoula school districts. (Although interestingly, GFPS’s figure here, $2,223,748.73, does not jive with Dettmer’s stated total of $2,389,107. Whatever.) Assuming the number of total expenditures for Missoula Public Schools is correct, then Missoula’s levy of $1,623,403 comprises 55 percent of its technology budget, while GFPS’ levy makes up only 9 percent. On the other hand, Great Falls spends 90 percent from its general fund, or more than double Missoula’s 44 percent.

What this boils down to, then, is in large part a question of how school technology is funded. Even though Missoula Public Schools — a district with fewer enrolled students — faces higher taxes and a generally higher cost of living than Great Falls, GFPS can still point to comparatively less total technology funds. GFPS also has a credible argument to make in that, if voters approve a larger tech levy, that would free up hundreds of thousands (if not a million or more) of general fund dollars for other priorities.

According to Roley’s report, Tom Hering, GFPS director of instructional technology, will encourage a larger tech levy:

The district has two options for funding technology as it prepares the 2017-2018 school year budget.

It can continue using the current $225,000 permanent levy, which has no expiration. Or it can ask voters to approve a levy with a higher amount, and it would expire every 10 years. This would be a standalone levy that would get rid of the permanent levy.

Hering told KFBB he would recommend the latter in order for the district to keep up with technology needs in the district.

Perhaps the School District, if successful in passing such a levy, would then need less money from the general fund, and decline to run a separate, operational levy as a way of thanking taxpayers for approving last year’s nearly $99 million school bond.

ICYMI

Gregg Smith on February 9, 2017

I thought the following comment on the City Commission post, below, was worth elevating:

Don I would agree with you. I was there last night, I’ve been researching this and I think the city’s got something up their sleeves. Ordinance 4138 is far too inclusive. So is Ordinance 3149. There’s more to come too, with City Attorney Cik on his “quest.”

A quest that I believe exists to re-write the Muni Code to give the commissioners more power. There’s more to come at the next commission meeting, with Ordinance 3154. My understanding is that one will change the public notice of competitive bidding process to eliminate publication in a newspaper. It appears to give them the opportunity to posts in any manner they see fit.

Back to Ordinance 3148 which passed last night. The way it reads, someone could be banned from city property for ONE YEAR for ANY violation of the ANY part of the municipal code, the Montana Code Annotated OR IF THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE DECIDES YOU’VE BEEN DISORDERLY OR ABUSIVE.

The poster claims the city gave mostly sensible arguments for Ordinance 3148. There’s no sensible argument for an ordinance that gives this extreme amount of power. It’s bad enough that the city included the whole Municipal Code and the MCA in this ordinance. The way it reads now, you could be banned from city property if you, for example, are caught of driving with a cell phone, although city officials will tell you they don’t intend to use it that way. I just can’t trust their word.

The “or” clause in this ordinance is particularly troubling.

I don’t think it takes a genius to see the many ways the city could abuse your constitutional rights with this one. It’s especially scary that the City Manager or his designee has carte blanche to determine the definition of disorderly or abusive. City officials claimed they’ll use the disorderly conduct definition of the Montana Code Annotated as a “guideline.” Their claims are only words; there’s no requirement in the ordinance that they keep their word.

According to the Great Falls Tribune, January 17, 2017, the ordinance came about because of an incident at the library.
The proposed amendment was prompted by an incident that occurred in October, when a library employee was struck in the arm by an unruly patron.

From the Tribune: ““There was a man in the library who appeared to be sleeping,” library manager Kathy Mora said Tuesday. “Our written policies state you can’t be sleeping in the library. One of our staff members approached him. We do not touch any patrons and we do not get too close to them. She attempted to wake him, and it took her a couple of attempts by speaking to him. When he awoke he jumped out of his chair and hit her on the arm.”

Mora said library staff immediately called the police, but the man had left the area before officers arrived.

“We did not know his name at that time, and they could not located him,” Mora said. “She (the library employee) declined to press charges.”
Mora said the man was banned from the library premises after he returned two weeks later. While the proposed city trespass ordinance would not have measurably altered the outcome of the incident in October, Mora described it as “another tool that we can use on city property when these types of occasions arise.””

In both the first reading of the ordinance in January and again last night, much was made about this library incident. Yet, as the Tribune article suggests, the ordinance wouldn’t have made much difference. So then, why is the city using this incident as their proverbial last straw? Doesn’t Great Falls already have public nuisance and loitering laws that would have applied in this case? If it was really about the library incident, why wasn’t the ordinance limited to problems on city property? Why does it include all of Great Falls ordinances and all of the MCA? There’s really no reason to be this imprecise when it comes to the law.

I’ve seen some city commission meetings get a bit disorderly. Are they going to ban people from city commission meetings when they feel they’re disorderly (i.e. saying something they don’t like)? Oh wait, the city already tried that. Remember the Mayor Stebbins-Susan Overfield fiasco? The city paid a cool half-million for violating Overfield’s rights. You would think that since the city already bought the t-shirt on that one, they’d be a bit more careful about an ordinance that could chill free speech and public assembly. Except now, with the passing of Ordinance 3148, they can throw you out for a whole year. Things could get interesting.

City officials further postulated that ordinance is required because unlike private property where law enforcement can ask trespassers to leave, police can’t ask someone to leave city property.

This idea was again echoed by City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who claimed the ordinance was necessary for public safety for people using city property. She told the room that her son is involved in many activities at the Rec Center and if there’s trouble there, the police currently can’t force anyone to leave.

Really Commissioner Houck? Really City of Great Falls? That isn’t my experience. I’ve witnessed police force people to leave several city properties—including the parks hosting Alive at Five, Elk’s Riverside Park and the skatepark, so that argument is invalid.

There was some talk at the meeting about an appeal process for someone who feels they’ve been unjustly banned from city property. It didn’t appear as part of the ordinance language and in my quick perusal of the Municipal Code, I haven’t found anything remotely related. If there’s someone out there that knows where I would find the appeal process for being banned from city property, please respond as soon as possible. I’m probably going to need it 😉

Interesting New Rules In Play After Last Night’s City Commission Meeting

ECB Staff on February 8, 2017

The City of Great Falls delivered a hat trick of ordinances last night, with the passage of Ordinances 3148, 3149, and 3153 — all of which were opposed by Commission-goers but adopted unanimously by the Commissioners. This before Assistant City Attorney Joe Cik at one point amusingly referred to himself as “some sort of medieval person on an epic quest” to clean up “[City] code.”

Ordinance 3153 clarified existing language pertaining to the election of officers for Neighborhood Councils, while Ordinance 3148 “[amended] OCCGF §1.4.070 to allow for violators to be banned from entering or remaining upon City property for a period not to exceed one year.” It added an additional provision to municipal code granting the City Manager authority to ban citizens from City property for up to a year:

C. Any person convicted of a violation of this Code, the Montana Code Annotated, or is determined by the City Manager, or his designee, to be behaving in a disorderly or abusive manner, on the property of the City of Great Falls may be banned from entering, or remaining upon, said property for a period not to exceed one year.

While City staff and Commissioners made mostly sensible arguments in favor of these two ordinances, we were troubled by the passage of Ordinance 3149, as presented, which granted the Commission broad powers to remove members of City advisory boards and Neighborhood Councils. It reads:

A member of any board, commission, or council, including Neighborhood Council, may be removed from office, by majority vote of the City Commission, if:

1. The member misses more than one-third (1/3) of the regular meetings in a calendar year without a health or medical excuse;

2. The member is unable to fulfill the duties of the office as a result of physical illness or mental disorder. A determination of whether the incumbent has a mental disorder shall be made pursuant to MCA Title 53, Chapter 21;

3. The member neglects or refuses to discharge the member’s duties;

4. The member ceases to be a resident of the City, or in the case of a neighborhood council member, the member ceases to be a resident of the council member’s district;

5. The member is convicted of a felony, or of any offense involving moral turpitude, or a violation of official duties or the City Code of Ethics, Title 2, Chapter 52, while serving on a board, council, or commission; or

6. Any other reason which City Commission deems to be in the best interests of the City, and in such case, only by a four-fifths vote. [emphasis added]

First, really? Who, and what, defines “the best interests of the City”? Second, the City Attorney’s office clearly spent a significant amount of time researching and drafting this ordinance. (Time well spent?) Now, it makes sense that if a Neighborhood Council member moves outside of the City limits, then he or she should no longer be able to serve on one of the City’s Neighborhood Councils. Still, Section #6 seems just a little heavy-handed. What, really, is the point of this ordinance? And why is the City spending time and resources imposing this kind of authoritarian control over its unpaid volunteers?

Reflections On DeVos, Arntzen, And Public Education

Philip M. Faccenda on February 3, 2017

A philosopher once said that we are really three quite different people; the one we see as our self, the one others see, and the one we really are. All very different and the first two are merely reflections.

The recent discourse concerning the Q & A session between representatives of the Great Falls Public Schools and the newly elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen, was not congratulatory, or welcoming. The event seems to be a spot-on reflection of the discourse surrounding President Trump’s Secretary of Education nominee, Betsy DeVos, who has been ripped nationally as Arntzen has in Montana.

Do you think the shoot-from-the-hip comments and condescending narrative directed at both women just might have some to do with their similar pro-voucher, pro-charter schools, and most importantly, pro-choice education positions? Do you think just maybe the NEA and the MEA have leveled their sights on Elsie and Betsy? One important feature is the emphasis and the substance of the word public when referring to education in our state as well as nationally. There is a not so new paradigm that suggests that the government’s program of public education for our children may not be the only, or the most successful methodology. When a country spends the most money per student on public education, yet ranks 29th in the civilized world in educational achievement, its structure probably ought to be up for review.

If pro-choice, charter schools, and vouchers have shown positive results, why not let this shift universally seek its level? The answer seems obvious; public education is a big business. Any move to divert taxpayer funds from the public education business is viewed as a threat to those running the business.

The truth is that parochial schools have been around since the beginning of our country’s history and the best colleges and universities are private institutions, many of which were founded based on religious principles. Why, then, should parents and students be financially penalized for exercising pro-choice educational freedoms when it concerns their children?

No matter the venue, existing and new educational methodology must be positively responsive to the new world we live in. It is well established that education on all levels must advance two basic important tasks, creativity and innovation. Without a strong emphasis on these, our children will not successfully meet the demands of the 21st century marketplace and our country will be at a significant disadvantage in the new world economy.

Yes, and how we design our schools can affect the education outcome we must achieve. Gone is the cellular and static concept we have duplicated in the past — encouraging movement, sensory stimulation and interdisciplinary study is the future. To do this, working together with open minds is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the left’s assaults on DeVos and Arntzen are instructive of knee-jerk partisanship, and ultimately, a willingness to place agendas above policy while shamelessly using our children as political pawns.

Tribune’s Education Reporter Doubles Down On Arntzen Hit Piece

ECB Staff on February 3, 2017

Sarah Dettmer, the Great Falls Tribune’s education reporter, seems to have it out for Elsie Arntzen.

Yesterday, Dettmer published a heavily self-referential, self-congratulatory article to explain away some of the blowback from her hit job on the freshly-elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican Elsie Arntzen.

Dettmer writes:

Then, Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey stood up to ask her question about federally funded preschools. It was a tense moment. The biggest player in education in Great Falls was politely, but pointedly challenging the biggest player in education in Montana.

As further research on Dettmer’s part would indicate, there is virtually nothing that Arntzen — a state official — can do to change federal funding of preschools. And there was nothing “polite” about Lacey cheaply invoking Arntzen’s granddaughter to frame what should have been a substantive question. Evidently more concerned with gamesmanship than with policy, the GFPS Superintendent seemed to relish poking at the OPI chief.

Nevertheless, Dettmer established her moral authority as a journalist to intervene — against Arntzen:

The fact is the story changed. As a journalist, I cannot sit in the back of the room and listen to a publicly elected official avoid her constituents’ questions and then go back to the office and not address it. It is my job to hold officials accountable for their words and actions.

Dettmer conceded that the crowd reaction affected her reporting.

I focused more on the audience reaction than I typically would in an article, but in this case I thought it was important to bring the reader into the room and to capture the palpable emotions. This was not a typical introductory meeting.

What exactly did Dettmer expect? One of the worst-kept secrets in Helena is that Democrats, Eric Feaver and the MEA-MFT, can’t stand Arntzen (a Republican), and that — in this venue — Arntzen was speaking to a room full of hostile administrators and union members who detest her. Yet, Dettmer deliberately chose to omit this necessary context.

She concluded in a similar vein:

Despite Arntzen’s claims in other publications that I misinterpreted her words through my transcripts, I look forward to working with the superintendent over the coming years and hope we can move forward with a professional relationship.

But, I will continue to hold her and her administration accountable for their words and actions just as I hope she does for me.

On this, Dettmer isn’t wrong. Arntzen, a government official, should be held accountable — and so, too, should Tammy Lacey, the School Board, and Great Falls Public Schools.

But by singling out Arntzen’s administration — and no one else’s — what does that tell you about which way the Tribune leans?

More On The GFDA

ECB Staff on February 2, 2017

After our reporting (and thanks to our tipsters!), KRTV ran a story about Brett Doney’s gloomy review of the Great Falls job market. Apparently, the state of Montana disagrees with Doney:

But the Montana Department of Labor says the GFDA report is inconsistent with state numbers. 

Chief Economist Barbara Wagner says there were roughly 300 jobs lost in Great Falls between July 2015 and July 2016 which could be attributed to the closure of the Asurion call center in downtown Great Falls.

Wagner says job growth through the rest of 2016 cancelled out the loss, showing virtually no change in the number of jobs in Great Falls.

The GFDA and the Montana DoL clearly rely on different metrics. It’s unsurprising, then, to see conflicting data on Great Falls jobs. What is surprising, though, are the conflicting reports from within the GFDA. We were intrigued by a Facebook comment by Sandra Guynn, who opined:

So who at the GFDA knows what they are talking about? According to an article in the Jan 28 print edition of the Great Falls Tribune, the chairman of the GFDA board, Ted Lewis, was quoted as saying, ‘the year 2016 was one of the best years for the Great Falls economy in many years. We’re very excited about our prospects for 2017, including several that haven’t been announced yet.’

So, which is it? Are we doing well, or aren’t we? And if the GFDA wants to push a mill levy, shouldn’t they develop some sort of coherent narrative explaining to the public why it’s a good idea? Should we vote to raise our taxes because we’re struggling and need the extra resources, or because we want to keep up the positive momentum?

We’re open to supporting this levy. But first, we’d like to know exactly why our community needs it.