Anonymous Packet Hits The Westside, Rips GFPS

ECB Staff on March 24, 2017

A number of Westside residents received a surprise in their mailboxes this week, in the form of the following 12-page packet. In it, the author takes issue with Tammy Lacey and GFPS for the School District’s construction plans at the Little Russell School site. The District’s operations facility does not conform with county zoning requirements.

One Westsider (who was kind enough to share the material with us) remarked that s/he was “appalled” because, “Jane Weber doesn’t give a damn about what any of us have to say. We all signed a petition saying we didn’t want this in our neighborhood, but all Jane cares about is giving Tammy the good news. I guess we’re not as important as Tammy.”

(You are Weber’s constituents, though.)

You can view the entire packet below…

Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

Page 6:

Page 7:

Page 8:

Page 9:

Page 10:

Page 11:

Page 12:

BREAKING: GFPS Budget Committee Recommends $1.2 Million Elementary Levy, $1 Million Tech Levy

ECB Staff on March 21, 2017

At the GFPS budget meeting (which is still underway), the budget committee recommended a $1.2 million levy for elementary schools, as well as a $1 million technology levy. That’s two levies, for $2.2 million, proposed not even six months after voters approved a nearly $100 million school bond.

The full Board of Trustees will vote on whether or not to send both levies to taxpayers next Monday.

Wow.

Benefis FNP: Patient Care Should Trump Union Constraints

ECB Staff on March 18, 2017

On March 9, the Tribune reported that a majority of Benefis RNs signed interest cards to vote on whether or not to form a union. Since then, opposition to unionizing has grown.

Julia Fitzpatrick, FNP, has a good letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune today. It comes after a recent KRTV story detailing her efforts to prevent Benefis nurses from unionizing. Fitzpatrick has organized a “majority of advanced practice registered nurses at the hospital to sign a petition in opposition.”

How has the Montana Nurses Association union been working to drum up support for its efforts? According to Fitzpatrick, by bashing the very people it wishes to unionize. “The union has been insulting us at Benefis, saying that we provide poor and unsafe care. We know that that’s not true, and the union really has nothing to offer us,” Fitzpatrick told KRTV.

You can read her letter below, or at the Tribune online:

No union at Benefis 

The Tribune published an article regarding the Montana Nurses Association’s efforts to unionize Nurses and Advance Practice Registered Nurses at Benefis.

A union is not necessary at Benefis. As an APRN, my primary concern is for the safety and health of my patients. Throughout this organizing process, the MNA has repeatedly attacked the nurses at Benefis by claiming falsely that Benefis patients receive poor quality care.

I am deeply concerned a union will hurt patient care. We work in a complicated, rapidly evolving environment. It is imperative that we work quickly to solve emergencies and diagnose problems. There isn’t time during an emergency to worry about work rules, seniority, and the other types of encumbrances unions place on a workplace. [emphasis added]

Benefis nurses have little to gain from joining the MNA. The MNA is an ineffective policy advocate. For years, they have tried to pass legislation to prohibit assault on nurses and have been unable to do so.

Only the union will benefit if this passes. The dues charged by the union are excessive and will be close to $750 a year. Many of my colleagues are single moms and this would create an extreme hardship.

Finally, the union cannot promise to improve staffing ratios or increase the number of nurses at Benefis. In fact, the MNA has stood in the way of recruiting efforts across Montana by opposing nursing compacts in the last two legislative sessions.

Please support the nurses who are taking a stand against the union.

—Julia Fitzpatrick FNP 

Great Falls

Small Town, Big Government?

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

After a lively couple of weeks, the City has decided — in advance of its previously scheduled March 6 meeting — that the Children’s Museum will not have to pack up and move, at least for now. The fiasco surrounding the CMOM highlighted a larger issue, though: the City’s desire to grow our government.

Let’s take a look at some recent statements made by City officials. Here’s Mayor Kelly, on February 17 in the Tribune:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said, ‘It would be silly to start a big construction project if the museum comes to us when the lease expires in ’18 and says they’ve outgrown the space.’

Here’s Kelly again, 10 days later, via KRTV:

‘We have a couple things that are happening. One right now is we have additional personnel that we need to hire for Marcy’s Law. Our legal department is getting squeezed out right now, ideally we would like to have them all together. The other thing we have added some personnel to our Planning and Community Development group. We have also hired a human resources person and we are looking to group those folks together, as well as out risk managers,’ Kelly explained. 

From the January 3, 2017 City Commission work session:

City Attorney Sara Sexe commented that it is dysfunctional trying to supervise the prosecutor’s office since it is separated from the civil department. She further commented that it would be helpful to have a well functioning department all under one roof. City Attorney Sexe reported that once Marsy’s law becomes effective it will enhance the level of involvement between the two departments. She noted that the Assistant City Attorney is currently utilizing the Human Resource Director’s office space.

Also, and from the same meeting:

City Manager Greg Doyon reported that the impact of Marsy’s Law will fundamentally change the operation of the legal department.

That’s a lot of generalized talk about Marsy’s Law, so one naturally wonders how many new employees the City will hire to cope with its requirements. Well, if the City hires the same amount of staff as Billings, a community twice the size of Great Falls, the number of new employees would be exactly… one.

From the Billings Gazette:

Brooks said he plans to ask the city council for one new employee, at $66,000 per year plus an additional $2,000 for a computer and equipment, to comply with the law. For 10 years, his office has received no additional staff, and other Montana communities, including Bozeman, Great Falls, Gallatin County and Missoula County, are requesting new employees ranging from one half-time employee (Bozeman) to two employees (Missoula County).

Honestly, how responsible would it be, then, for the City to invest in “a big construction project,” or to take over a facility as large as the Children’s Museum? And why does there seem to be such fervor within City Hall to grow government? Does anyone think that Great Falls is experiencing population growth at a rate commensurate with this proposed growth in bureaucracy? How many additional HR staffers does the City intend to hire, and moreover, do they really need to hire any at all? We certainly don’t hear this type of “big government” rhetoric from the Cascade County Commissioners.

It is possible that one day the City of Great Falls will find itself in a position that necessitates a larger municipal campus. Our region’s economic outlook, however, is not especially rosy. Great Falls is an ag community, and is bolstered by oil patch activity. Agricultural commodity prices have tanked, and so have oil prices. By and large, and over the course of decades, Great Falls’ population has grown very little. It would be laughable to forecast a significant population surge anytime soon.

Great Falls, Montana population

Maybe, then, the City should focus on improving the government it has now, rather than on the larger government it wishes to have. Last we checked, the golf courses are bleeding money, the swimming pools don’t sustain themselves, the parking program is a loser, and taxes and fees keep going up, up, up…

Maybe more government isn’t the answer.

A Good Letter To The Editor In The Tribune

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

A thoughtful letter-to-the-editor recently ran in the Tribune, one that made us wonder: What if the Trump administration did this? What would be the resultant backlash then?

Here’s the letter in its entirety:

City ordinance goes too far 

Great Falls Ordinance 3148 allows the city to ban anyone from city property for one year for any violation of any part of the city code, the Montana Code Annotated or if the city manager or his designee decides you’re disorderly or abusive.

The “or” clause is particularly troubling, giving city personnel carte blanche to determine what is disorderly or abusive.

My research found no other major Montana community with a similar law—why Great Falls? There’s no sensible argument for this ordinance. It’s vague and over-reaching. They’ve given themselves the potential to abuse our civil liberties. It’s a bit suspicious.

A parking ticket could earn you a year-long ban, for example. City officials stated they don’t intend to use it that way but that’s only their words, which aren’t binding.

The city cited a library incident as reason for the ordinance. Public nuisance, disorderly conduct and assault laws already cover such incidents. The city claimed that without this ordinance, police can’t eject people from city property. Not true—I’ve witnessed police eject people from city property.

Why include the entire city code and MCA for a supposed “trespass” ordinance? There’s no reason to be this imprecise when defining law.

These recently passed ordinances give the city fiefdom-like power—sans moat and drawbridge.

—Jeni Dodd 

Great Falls

City Staff Can Use PowerPoint At Commission Meetings, City Residents Cannot

ECB Staff on March 12, 2017

A number of folks don’t think that’s fair, and none more so than the Ol’ Colonel, Richard Liebert. It’s something Liebert has wanted to see changed for years, to no avail. On Friday, Liebert submitted the following written petition to Great Falls City Commissioners, urging them to grant residents the same multimedia privileges as City staff.

Liebert’s “ticket,” which can be found here, reads:

“Dear Mr. Mayor and commission,

I applaud your decision to deny the Calumet tax abatement and also promoting the message we do not stand for intolerance. I ask for your help collectively and or individually to make some modest amendments to Resolution 10072 so citizens can utilize multi-media (only at hearings, for five minutes only and slides submitted to city clerk prior to the meeting) to effectively articulate a postion – pro or con – that SAVES time, promotes greater understanding, reduces paper handling and costs to citizens and builds up public trust in government when citizens know you’re helping them participate more effectively.

Zoning issues like Thaniel, Fox Farm, and other projects are examples of where images, charts, slides and maps presented to the entire chamber lead to greater understanding of the issue in the limited amount of time allowed.

I am available to help work with the commission to meet this goal that will benefit us all. The Cascade County Commission, Great Falls School Board and every other major city in Montana allows citizens to utilize multi-media and powerpoint to promote better and more open government.

Sincerely,

Lt. Colonel (Retired, USA) Richard Liebert”

Liebert’s suggestion is a good one. It adheres to existing time constraints and would empower citizens brave enough to step up to the podium. Why does “every other major city in Montana” allow this, but not the City of Great Falls?

Buttrey Picking Up Momentum Ahead Of GOP Nomination

ECB Staff on March 4, 2017

But will it be enough to win?

According to an AP report, former gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte claimed to hold a de facto lock on the Republican nomination for the U.S. House, a point quickly disputed by Sen. Ed Buttrey:

Buttrey, a moderate Republican state senator from Great Falls, said that may have been the case a month ago but not anymore. Since Buttrey and other candidates have been lobbying those delegates, some of Gianforte’s initial backers have been peeled off, he said.

‘It comes down to electability,’ Buttrey said. ‘The Ryan Zinke type that I am can carry the right, can carry the middle and a little of the left. That’s what Greg doesn’t get, that’s why he didn’t win the governor’s office.’

While Gianforte said he “[doesn’t] take anything for granted,” that hasn’t stopped him from already advertising for the special election, even without the nomination.

We wrote about Gianforte’s electability issues, and so did Dr. Ed Berry, himself a Republican. Berry’s analysis focuses on Gianforte’s alignment with VCE’s, or “Very Conservative Evangelical” Republicans, as he calls them. These VCE’s are disciples of Ted Cruz-style Constitutional conservatism, and do not possess the “yuge” tent appeal of Ryan Zinke, President Trump, or Buttrey. Berry warns:

There is only one non-VCE candidate who the MTGOP can choose. That candidate is Ed Buttrey. Buttrey voted for the CSKT Compact. Buttrey is the candidate most like Zinke.

If the MTGOP chooses Ed Buttrey, Buttrey will very likely win.

If the MTGOP chooses any other candidate, all of whom are VCEs who did not support the CSKT Compact, then the Democrat is very likely to win.

I estimate Buttrey’s chance to win is ten times the chance that any other Republican candidate can win.

Ryan Zinke used a proven formula to win a statewide race. VCEs reject both Zinke and his proven formula to win. That is a bad decision.

If last June’s primary shellacking of the far-right and Gianforte’s November loss weren’t enough, one of the Legislature’s most visible and conservative voices recently went on a tear against Gianforte. Speaking in Townsend just two weeks ago, Senate President Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, advised his party to choose someone who was “electable”:

Pitzer said Sales stood up when it was his turn to speak, announced he was pulling out of the race, said state Republicans needed a candidate who would appeal beyond the conservative base, and said that the Legislature is in trouble right now because Gianforte lost the gubernatorial race.

‘Without naming Gianforte, Sales said that the governor candidate didn’t listen to the people and that going forward they needed to nominate someone who was electable,’ Pitzer said.

That Sales, a very conservative legislator, would urge the GOP to look beyond its right-wing base is especially telling. There is a growing and palpable fear within Republican circles that if Gianforte receives the nomination, and in the face of escalating leftist activism (#TheResistance), Democrats will add one more vote in Congress to obstruct President Trump. If winning only conservative votes was not enough in November — with Trump to support and Hillary to reject at the top of the ticket — why would this strategy work for Republicans now, particularly against an emboldened, community-organizing left in a possible mail-only election?

Gianforte partisans tout his high name ID and his (self-)funding capabilities, but such arguments refute themselves. Over the course of his campaign for governor, Gianforte did reach Montana voters. He spent millions on TV ads, and he campaigned aggressively. According to his Twitter feed, he logged 64,000 miles on the road and was ubiquitous up through Election Day, visiting every pocket of the state, some places many times.

In other words, Gianforte placed himself in front of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of voters, and in a “change” election where Republicans otherwise swept, Montanans still rejected him. To many, there was something inexplicably off-putting about Gianforte. He just didn’t connect with voters. That’s not the type of name ID Republicans should want, and it’s not the kind of problem more money can solve.

So, what’s changed? Most notably, and now that it is politically convenient for him to do so, Gianforte has cozied up to President Trump, who won Montana by 20 points. One major criterion of the GOP Central Committee is selecting the candidate who can best support the Trump agenda while in Congress. Tom Lutey’s February 28 article in the Billings Gazette provides context of who that might be:

Like Miller, there’s little evidence Gianforte was on the Trump train last spring.

The high-tech entrepreneur-turned-candidate didn’t identify Trump or the Republican Party last May when acknowledging Trump’s campaign event in Billings, which Gianforte didn’t attend.

Fast forward to March 1 and witness Gianforte, in the fashion of a typical office-seeking politician, now cozying up to Zinke and opportunistically guzzling the Trump Kool-Aid:

https://twitter.com/gianforte/status/836973130937593857

In contrast, Buttrey not only showed the resolve to mention and endorse Trump by name, but he was the only U.S. House candidate to donate to the Trump campaign:

A look at federal election data shows only one would-be Republican U.S. House candidate donating to Trump, state Sen. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls. A moderate Republican, Buttrey is considered by many to have an outside shot at the nomination.
But Buttrey was an early Trump supporter. He donated $2,700 to Trump’s campaign. And along with Rep. Zinke, he was the first Republican office holder to endorse Trump publicly. When Trump rallied supporters in Billings, Buttrey attended as a VIP and got to visit with Trump the candidate.

And then there’s this. We stumbled across a photo essay of Trump’s inauguration by Salon’s Peter Cooper. It includes images and interviews from folks across the political spectrum, and of all the people in Washington, D.C, Cooper just happened to bump into into Ed Buttrey:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207799251727751&set=a.10207760746245138.1073741860.1488180322&type=3&theater

We didn’t see any self-promoting fanfare or carefully crafted, “Look at me” social media releases from Buttrey — just a Montana guy showing up to support the incoming President. (Buttrey, it warrants mentioning, attended as a guest of then-Rep. Zinke.) Who is more authentic, then? And who, really, is better suited to work with the Trump administration in Congress? The politician who was too chickensh*t to even say Trump’s name, or the experienced legislator who wrote a check to Trump, publicly endorsed him and showed up to last June’s campaign rally in Billings, and to the inauguration? (It is amazing, incidentally, even after committing total support to Trump, that some Gianforte backers still dishonestly label Buttrey as a “Democrat.”)

In two days, about 200 GOP state delegates will descend upon Helena to select a nominee to replace Ryan Zinke. Republicans will tap either the failed Gianforte, or the only available Zinke/Trump amalgam, Ed Buttrey. We hope the electors consider the words of Sen. Sales, and moreover, the mood of the public, as Buttrey explains to the Gazette:

‘I believe I fit the mold of what the electors stated loud and clear in the last election that they want for their representative. I am a Zinke/Trump-type candidate, one that is willing to listen to all sides, to hear all arguments, and consider all opinions,’ Buttrey said. ‘I am conservative in my decision making, but also am humble enough to know that I am not always right on all issues and that the best leader is willing to know when they need help, need advice and need to consider alternate opinions before making a decision.’

Hear, hear.

An Angry Reader Blasts Us For Supporting Ed Buttrey

ECB Staff on March 2, 2017

Sen. Ed Buttrey

We received an email recently from “Carl” in Bozeman, who did not take kindly to our, in his words, “juvenile hit piece on Greg Gianforte.”

Carl writes:

You people are pathetic. I heard there was a new conservative blog in MT (desperately needed!!) only to see your juvenile hit piece on Greg Gianforte–who unlike Democrat Ed Buttrey-is actually a CONSERVATIVE!!!! You should team up with Montana Cowpie and then go ahead and support Buttrey for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!

While amusing, and not dissimilar to another commenter who labeled us “libtards,” Carl’s email is worth highlighting, because this “Buttrey is a Democrat” narrative is a real thing among those on the far-right. At the Cascade County Lincoln-Reagan Dinner on Saturday, GOP Congressional candidates were asked policy-specific questions along the lines of, “How will you support President Trump’s agenda while in Congress?” When it was Buttrey’s turn, he was essentially asked why he is running as a Republican when he is really a Democrat. Classy.

Here’s something we don’t understand about this argument: Buttrey first ran for the Legislature in 2010, in SD 13, then a blue district previously held by Democrat Joe Tropila. Part of this area, on the House side, was at the time represented by long-time Democrat, Bob Mehlhoff. If Buttrey were really a Democrat, then why would he file as a Republican in a district where voters traditionally punched blue tickets? To make it harder on himself?

Elevated Comment From The Trib Online

ECB Staff on February 25, 2017

In today’s “The Edge,” the Tribune’s editorial board took issue with Republican Rep. Jeff Essmann’s opposition to a mail-in ballot for Montana’s U.S. House special election.

The Tribune raises a legitimate point, one we agree with:

Shouldn’t we want the most people, regardless of party, voting?

Commenter and occasional contributor to this blog, Rick Tryon, wrote the following:

‘Shouldn’t we want the most people, regardless of party, voting?…

…The counties still are reeling from the $3 million spent on the Nov. 8 general election, which was the most expensive statewide election on record, and are looking to find a way to cut costs in a special election to replace Zinke.

That seems smart to us.’

The problem with the GF Tribune opining and lecturing here is that they are being selective in their concern for wanting ‘the most people…voting’ and ways ‘to cut costs’ in elections.

The Trib editorial board raised no such concerns when the GFPS held a special bond election a month before the General Election last year costing tax payers an extra $25,000 or so and yielding a lower turnout than the General Election. [emphasis added]

Another Tribune double standard.

Poll: Do You Support A State Tax Increase On Gas And Diesel?

ECB Staff on February 24, 2017

Local government officials from throughout Montana, including ours here in Great Falls, are pushing the Legislature to pass an 8-cent tax increase on gasoline, as well as a 7.25-cent increase (both figures per gallon) to the state’s diesel tax. The bill at issue, HB 473, sponsored by Rep. Frank Garner, R-Kalispell, was introduced in the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday.

The Tribune’s very good Capitol reporter, Phil Drake, cited testimony from Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly, City Manager Greg Doyon, and Austin Walker of the GFDA, who all support the tax increase:

Mayor Bob Kelly said the Electric City is a river town and though roads and bridges over the river are not the city’s responsibility, ‘our citizens drive them every day.’

He pointed to the Great Falls Public Schools’ recently passed $100 million bond of an example of a community supporting infrastructure projects and encouraged lawmakers to have the courage to move the bill forward.

City Manager Greg Doyon said communities need the flexibility the bill provides to fund projects.

Austin Walker of the Great Falls Development Authority also endorsed the infrastructure proposal and ‘everything the bill will do in this state.’

We have to admit, we’re a little torn on this one. While we generally oppose net tax increases, the revenue generated from HB 473 would go towards infrastructure projects and the Montana Highway Patrol. With infrastructure comes the adage, “Pay now, or pay more later.” HB 473 would also act as an effective tool to capture revenue from tourists. On the other hand, we’re concerned about the regressive nature of increasing the fuel tax. Montana ranks 49th in the nation in wages, and Great Falls — with over half of its public school students eligible for free and reduced lunch (p. 7) — is, on balance, a low-income community.

This graphic from the Tax Foundation shows where Montana stands in relation to other states’ fuel tax rates:

GasTaxMap

Credit: The Tax Foundation

What do you think? Do you support paying more at the pump? Vote in our poll, and tell us why in the Comments…

[poll id=”6″]