We received the following message from Aaron Weissman this morning, and are happy to help spread the word. Please take a minute and let the School District know which academic calendar you like best, or, dislike the least:
“The school district calendar committee (aka, the “make everyone unhappy” committee) is working on the 2018-2019 calendar and have narrowed choices down to three options. One has a long winter break, one has a long Spring break and one has a long Summer break. The three options can be found here: http://bit.ly/2018-2019options
Can you please publish this and the community survey location? We would like to try and accommodate as many opinions as possible for the 2018-2019 calendar. The deadline for responses is February 29.”
In an article about this Tuesday night’s GFPS budget meeting, Trib reporter Sarah Dettmer pointed to rising K-8 enrollment, but less high school students in the district this year:
According to the final 2016-2017 school year enrollment numbers, Great Falls Public Schools saw an increase in K-8 enrollment and a decrease in the number of high school students.
According to the School District’s own Power Point presentation, though, school enrollment for grades 9-12 actually increased in 2016-2017.
GFPS: 24 more HS students in 2016-2017 than in 2015-2016
Because funds allocated from the state of Montana are based on enrollment figures, the claim that the District is battling (partially) declining enrollment leads one to believe that GFPS — through no fault of its own — must now make due with less. Query: Do you think this “reporting” would help or hurt the District’s ability to sell a mill levy to the public?
What the Tribune did get right, however, is that HB 191will reduce school districts’ funding this year (although inflationary increases will rise the following year):
The original bill inflationary increases offered 1.37 percent for 2017-2018 and 1 percent for 2018-2019. However, the bill has been amended to offer .5 percent for 2017-2018 and 1.87 percent for 2018-2019.
HB 191 was passed unanimously in the Senate and 93-2 in the House as amended by the Senate. Typically, HB 191 is a bill rammed through the Legislature and signed into law quickly, so school districts have plenty of lead time to budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Even the MEA-MFT lauded HB 191 as “a hopeful sign for k-12 school funding.”
What is the District to do, then? GFPS Director of Business Operations Brian Patrick laid out the options:
Patrick said the district can make up this deficit through budget cuts, reducing the number of staff, utilizing reserves or by running a mill levy.
It’s no secret: revenue is down in Montana this year. And while Democrats and Republicans may not agree on what to cut from the state budget, there is at least bi-partisan consensus that reducing spending is necessary. Even Governor Bullock proposed $74 million in budget cuts over the next two years. If the two political parties can agree on belt tightening at the state level, shouldn’t Montana school districts, and in particular, Great Falls Public Schools — recently a benefactor of overwhelming community generosity — exercise similar fiscal restraint?
There’s comedy, there’s high comedy, and then there’s the Montana Democratic Party.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle’s Troy Carter has a story up that Montana Democrats hope will quietly just… go away. Of course, they have no one to blame but themselves:
Montana Democrats have announced that they’re bringing in a New Jersey politician for their keynote speaker at an annual fundraising event in Helena. Executive board member Jorge Quintana tweeted Wednesday that New Jersey’s U.S. Sen. Cory Booker would be coming to the Democrats’ Mansfield-Metcalf dinner on March 18.
Gianforte’s team wasted no time in pounding away at Democrats:
By inviting Booker to Montana, the Democrats have taken their “New Jersey” attack off the table, said Brock Lowrance, Gianforte’s new congressional campaign manager.
‘Montana Democrats spent an entire election leveling false and dishonest attacks against Greg Gianforte and where he is from,’ Lowrance told the Chronicle on Thursday. ‘Being the hypocrites they are, they’ve invited a liberal senator from New Jersey to give them advice following their horrible election year. That’s not irony, it’s satire.’
How did the D’s respond? Crickets…
A spokeswoman for the Montana Democrats did not respond to a request for comment.
Gianforte should send a “thank you” card to whoever thought it would be a great idea to invite a senator from New Jersey. Too funny.
Have you seen the City of Great Falls’ new website? It’s very well done, and is for the most part a user-friendly hub of relevant information. In addition to the City directory and meeting minutes, there is also the City Manager’s Weekly Packet. While not strictly released on a weekly basis, the latest installment contains some awfully interesting items, most of which were from the City Commission’s retreat/strategic planning mission:
After discussion about implementation of the Park Master Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission to pursue a Park Maintenance District, but agreed that the fees imposed should be reasonable and not include golf or the Natatorium. Manager Doyon suggested that a more robust maintenance fee may result in more money in the general fund to support public safety and ultimately less cost to the public versus a public safety levy. The Commission concurred. [emphasis added]
The real question here is, What does the Commission consider to be a “reasonable” fee amount?
On another item, costs to repair the Civic Center are estimated in the $6 – 8 million dollar range. With the golf fund $1 million in debt to the general fund (and continuing to operate in the red), one option the City is mulling to offset these losses is closing Anaconda Hills Golf Course:
Manager Doyon reported that Director Raymond is putting together an RFP for the Civic Center facade project. Staff estimates the project will be $6 – 8 million dollars. Funding the project will be a challenge with the golf fund deficit. The golf course owes the general fund $1 million dollars. With the operating losses, the likelihood is low that the golf course will be able to pay back the general fund. The Commission was receptive to entertaining the idea of writing off the debt and closing the Anaconda Hills golf course. The P&R Master Plan has shown that the City of Great Falls doesn’t need two golf courses. [emphasis added] Golf funds could be used towards other needs instead of paying back the debt. The Commission requested cost figures of closing the golf course, and any land requirements when the property was deeded to the City. Manager Doyon discussed projected revenue increases and options to partially fund the facade project with debt and cash.
While a tax assessment for parks and the closure of a public golf course do not appear to be imminent (as far as we can tell), they are ideas generally supported, and being entertained, respectively, by the City Commission.
He’s young, he’s smart, and he’s getting things done in Helena. (Two of his bills, HB 297 and HB 300, were passed out of committee unanimously.)
Before entering the Legislature, Hertz served a term on the Missoula City Council, where he opposed Missoula’s unconstitutional gun ordinance. As a fiscal conservative, he found himself not just in the minority, but often as the lone dissenting voice on the uber-progressive council. (Note to Great Falls City Commissioners: it’s OK to disagree with each other on occasion.)
The freshman Republican has also shown a willingness to sensibly buck party orthodoxy. See his Facebook post on capital punishment:
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.
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.
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…
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?
