Montana House Rep. Kirk Wagoner, R-Montana City, wants to protect public employees who blow the whistle on government misconduct. He has introduced two bills, HB 202 and HB 208, “that would criminalize attempts by supervisors to retaliate against state employees who report corruption,” attorney and former Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman writes.
While Wagoner’s proposals — in lockstep with the First Amendment — should not be about partisan politics, Monforton doubts that House Democrats and the Governor’s office will act accordingly:
Democrats (another group that supposedly looks out for state employees) weren’t impressed. Governor Steve Bullock will never sign a bill that immunizes employees who open closets holding his skeletons.
For his part, and to his credit, Rep. Wagoner has pledged to work with Democrats. From the Helena IR:
Wagoner said he would work with opponents to tweak his bill. For instance, he said he would reduce the penalty so it was not a felony, specify the case would be a private action that could go straight to a judge without investigation, and clarify the law does not cover local governments.
But will Democrats work with him? Monforton offers some excellent suggestions for Republicans in the face of Democrat obstructionism.
This week, the Great Falls Landlords Association unanimously opposed a measure that would grant NeighborWorks Great Falls assistance from the Montana Board of Housing for its proposed Rockcress Commons development, a 124-unit apartment complex to be built south of Great Falls College-MSU. Local and state chapter President Ricky Linafelter submitted a letter to the Board, urging its members to deny funding for the project.
Linafelter argued that Great Falls no longer faces a housing shortage, and that the current rental market is tough on landlords:
There was a survey done approximately two years ago concerning the shortage of housing in the Great Falls area. When this survey was done, the shortage of housing was due, in part, to the extra short-term workers in town revamping the refinery. This project has since been completed. We now feel that there is an ample amount of housing available. I, myself, have 6 units of my 24 units vacant at this time. I surveyed the members at the meeting last night, and the majority of them have vacancies. The estate of my previous vice-president, who passed away last month, has 5 units of the 20 units vacant. I had one other landlord tell me he has 16 vacancies at this time.
The landlords also took issue with the prospect of NeighborWorks’ partner in the project, GMD Development, a for-profitcompany from Seattle, drawing income in Montana and receiving Montana grant money, while not contributing sufficiently to our state’s economy:
We do not feel that Montana grant money should be given to an out-of-state for-profit company. Furthermore, we do not feel that on out-of-state company should be able to acquire income generating property in Montana and not be required to pay property taxes as required by Montana residential property owners. In addition, we do not feel that an out-of-state company should benefit from money collected as Montana rental income and spend that money outside of Montana. This project will result in an out-of-state company benefitting from rental income generated in Montana without requiring that company to contribute to sustain Montana’s economy.
Today, the Montana House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 194, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, that would prohibit local governments from imposing “restrictions on [the] use of mobile communications devices while operating a motor vehicle.” We published Trebas’ prepared remarks two days ago.
In testimony opposing Trebas’ bill, City Commissioner Bill Bronson included a letter from our very good police chief (and arguably the City’s finest department head), David Bowen. It reads:
Members of the House Judiciary Committee:
In order to take a proactive step in reducing distracted driving crashes that result in property loss, personal injury and even death, cities like Great Falls have passed local ordinances to prohibit the use of electronic hand-held devices in order to equip law enforcement with the tools necessary to address this rising problem.
By prohibiting the ability of the local communities to help curb this problem, you are endangering the welfare of our citizens that we have taken an oath to safeguard. I am opposed to HB 194 and would strongly encourage our lawmakers to consider the consequences of how this bill affects the motoring public.
David Bowen
Great Falls police chief
Trebas thinks his bill will make it out of committee, but is unsure of its chances on the House floor.
Even if it does, we can’t imagine Governor Bullock would sign it into law.
Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls (HD-25), submitted to us testimony he will add to to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, January 17, at 8:00 a.m. Here is the full text:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Today I am presenting a unique bill to you, House Bill number 194. It is unique because it goes in the opposite direction of most if not all other governments, State and Local, in the U.S., on the topic of cell phone use while driving. While most are getting harsher in their penalties for driving while using a cell phone, this bill proposes that we stop the enforcement of cell phone bans, at least until they are shown to be effective in protecting public safety.
Why should we put a stay on the bans? The short answer is that they don’t really seem to be working, meanwhile cities are charging citizens large fines and in at least one city in Montana, instituting mandatory community service for 2nd and 3rd offenses, at 20 hours and 40 hours respectively.
I have some statistics from a recurring study to present to you, which serves largely as the basis for my argument to take a wait-and-see approach as far as bans are concerned. The study is conducted by The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They are the organization that you hear quoted in commercials about vehicle crash data. They give out the “Top Safety Pick” awards to vehicle manufacturers. I think you will find them to be an unbiased and reputable source of information. Their studies have indicated no discernible difference in collision rates prior to and post bans in States that have made cell phone use illegal while driving. In fact, one of their studies indicated a slight increase in collision rates post ban. There is speculation as to why that happened, and two main reasons stick out. One reason is that people try to hide the activity by lowering their phone down into their vehicle to avoid detection, causing their eyes to be further from the road than they otherwise would be. The second reason is that while the bans decrease use of cell phones among law abiding citizens, the bad drivers out there are just going to continue being bad drivers. So again, collision rates do not decrease because of these bans. I’ve heard the argument that we just have to give them time to work. I would tell you that the study I referenced was first published in 2009, and then they ran tests again and published another study in 2011, and yet again in 2013, with increased special enforcement in their most recent study. If these bans were working, there should have been an indication by now, proven out by the statistics.
I would also like to say that I know unbanning an activity that is dangerous makes some of you uncomfortable. I get that, and I understand that being distracted while driving is dangerous and there are also studies and statistics that point that out, which I acknowledge. But we are picking one small area of distracted driving and saying that it is the worst form, while numerous other distracted driving activities go unenforced. There is already a law on the books to enforce distracted driving, we don’t need a special category just for cell phones, which as I hope I have made clear, just doesn’t work to increase the safety of the public, however counter-intuitive that may seem.
So, some questions I have received in the 4 years I’ve been making this argument include, things like, “How about just a texting ban?”
The studies from IIHS included the study of texting while driving, and banning it only seemed to cause people to try and hide the activity, by further lowering their phone and their eyes down into the vehicle and away from the road. It didn’t help reduce collision rates.
Or “Why can’t people just use a Bluetooth/Handsfree device?”
It is not the device, necessarily, that distracts a person, it is the conversation. While engaging in conversation, whether it is with a person inside the vehicle or on the phone, the brain switches to a part of the brain called the parietal lobe, which takes away some of the focus necessary for driving. So it is not the device that distracts you but the conversation. It is still legal to have someone sit next to you in the vehicle and distract you by talking. It’s also legal to have kids fighting in the back seat. Sometimes talking on the phone helps mitigate greater distractions while driving.
Some people ask whether I have ever received a ticket for driving on my cell phone?
No. The City of Great Falls instituted their ban in August of 2012 and I have not received a ticket. I’m a fine, upstanding, law abiding citizen, most of the time…
And lastly, “Don’t we have more important things to work on?”
Yes and no. There are more important issues to work on, but this issue is important to those that are receiving fines and community service sentences in the name of public safety, when no increase in public safety has actually occurred.
Thanks for your attention Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’ll field any questions you may have, and I reserve the right to close.
With Mary Moe’s resignation from SD-12 imminent, Cascade County Democrats must submit three names to the Cascade County Commission, which will then appoint Moe’s replacement to the Legislature.
Mike Henning Garrett Lankford Bob Moretti Carlie Boland Zach Angstead Ron Szabo Don Ryan Kathleen Galvin Halcro Albert Ferderer Angie Rolando Hannah Pate
The word is, from People Who Know Things, that Boland and Lankford are the clear front runners, at least within the CCDCC.
With the search to succeed Patrella still ongoing, important questions persist for the City, and for its taxpayers.
The Master Plan, conceived by Indiana-based PROS Consulting, recommends much in its 176 pages. Primarily, it identifies $12,614,160 in “critical” capital improvement programs — “Maintaining What We Have.” Among the expenditures are $102,575 for the Americans Little League Complex, $114,010 for Boston Heights Park, $1,020,000 for “Charles Russel [sic] Park,” and $2,935,000 for Gibson Park, among many others (p. 140).
PROS Consulting also details $1.15 million in “sustainable” capital improvements — “Improving What We Have.” The consultants suggested the City spend $100,000 to convert six tennis courts to pickle ball courts (pickle ball?), $500,000 to add five large picnic shelters at Gibson, Grande Vista, Jaycee, and Meadowlark Parks, $150,000 for two more dog parks, and $400,000 for additional master plans (p. 141).
The plan also solves the long-standing community riddle of the City’s failing indoor aquatics program: build a 50,000 square foot “Multi-Generational Center that replaces the existing Recreation Center and Moronoy [sic] Natatorium” (for over $20 million). As for golf, the second and final line-item under the plan’s “Visionary Recommendations” (p. 142) reads: “Re-Master Plan Anaconda Hill [sic] Golf Course and convert Campground/Adventure Area through private public partnership.” In other words, shut down Anaconda and convert it into a zip-line/ropes course/BMX course/campground. The cost of this “re-mastering?” “Only” a quarter of a million dollars.
And how might the City pay for all of this, you might ask? By implementing a City-wide Parks Maintenance District. In other words, by raising taxes.
Mike Svetz of the aforementioned consulting firm pointed to Billings, which implemented a parks district a few years ago. Under its model, Billings households chip in about $6/month. With Great Falls’ comparatively smaller population but higher expenses, residents could see $15-20/month assessments per household… just for the parks district. In addition to this extra assessment, and to construct a multi-purpose structure to replace the Nat and the Community Rec Center, Svetz & Co. recommended a tax levy bond that could last for up to 15 years. The numbers start to add up quickly.
Master Plan: $34 Million To Upgrade Great Falls’ Parks
Now, to be fair, the Master Plan is “not a work order,” as the Tribune pointed out. It’s a guide to direct City priorities moving forward. But it does raise some important questions: Will Patrella’s replacement embrace the Master Plan, and will the Commission enact its central recommendations? And if not, then why? The City spent $89,970 on this document.
What do you think? Did the consultants get it right?
Andrew Higgins, Moscow bureau chief for the venerable New York Times, the “newspaper of record,” snuck in two glaring admissions about the recently-released intelligence report concerning Russian “hacking”:
But the absence of any concrete evidence in the report of meddling by the Kremlin [emphasis added] was met with a storm of mockery on Saturday by Russian politicians and commentators, who took to social media to ridicule the report as a potpourri of baseless conjecture.
Now, surely Higgins didn’t intentionally (and so casually) cite the report’s lack of evidence as if it were fact. Or did he? He continues:
The report provides no new evidence [emphasis added] to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow’s long record of trying to influence America’s political system.
The three intelligence agencies’ report pointedly declines to tell us what specific information gives them such “high confidence” that they know the operation of Vladimir Putin’s mind. They plead that the nature of their work does not allow for that: To tell us how they know what they purport to know would compromise intelligence methods and sources. Fair enough. The problem, though, is that if you’re essentially going to say, ‘Trust us,’ you have to have proven yourself trustworthy over time.
It’s a little early, but since the Tribune reported that GFPS is exploring the possibility of another school levy this year, we thought we’d ask:
[poll id=”3″]
Proponents will point to belt-tightening at the Legislature…
This is our opportunity to share where we stand and let them see what we see through our crystal ball, so to speak,” said Brian Patrick, GFPS director of business operations. “It’s a little harder with this legislative year coming up. There probably won’t be any new money for schools.
While the eventual winner may indeed come from the Legislature, maneuvering from outside the Capitol chambers has brought far more intrigue, especially recently. Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer all but took himself out of the running, endorsing political newcomer Rob Quist yesterday. From Troy Carter in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:
Nothing against the other candidates running, but I think we need a different kind of person in Congress,” Schweitzer said of Quist. “He hasn’t been contemplating running for Congress for 30 years; he’s been contemplating what it is that’s special about Montana and the people who live in it, and he’s been writing it down, writing it in verse, and singing that song.
Will Democrats rally behind Quist, or will establishment insiders from the Helena-Butte-Missoula corridor steer the party to defeated, retread candidates like Denise Juneau, Jesse Laslovich, Melissa Romano, John Lewis, Amanda Curtis, et. al.? Casey Schreiner and Kelly McCarthy deserve a look, but barring a major GOP scandal, the nomination by Democrats of any conventional candidate will virtually ensure they will lose this election. Now, however, they just might have been gifted the Hail Mary they needed to contend: the chance to embrace a popular entertainer and a political outsider who was not only endorsed by Schweitzer, but who was called and encouraged to run by Schweitzer.
But if you write well and have something interesting to say, chances are we will publish your work. We aren’t interested in running a “rant sheet,” but we do welcome submissions from across the political spectrum.
If you have a query, or even a full piece that’s ready to go, send it to info@ecitybeat.com and we will be in touch with you.
