ELECTION PROTECTION OR PARTISAN DEFLECTION?

Jeni Dodd on May 12, 2023

The Election Protection Committee, headed up by former Cascade County
Commissioner Jane Weber and Pete Fontana, brother to former Cascade County
Clerk and Recorder Rina Fontana-Moore, has created a media maelstrom over their
claims against the Cascade County Elections Office. The office is currently run by
republican Sandra Merchant who took over this year after winning against
Fontana-Moore in the November 2022 election.

What’s most confounding is the Election Protection Committee seemingly dons
their blinders for the time when democrat Rina Fontana-Moore was in charge of
elections.

For one, they are up in arms over reports that duplicate ballots were sent out during
this election. I’m not going to dispute or confirm that here. But I merely want to
point out that ballot delivery mistakes are nothing new. Let’s look at the West Side
Flood Control and Drainage District election in 2021, shall we?

District Court Judge Elizabeth Best declared that election invalid after the Cascade
County Elections Office, run by Fontana-Moore, sent ballots to every voter in that
district, not just landowners as is the law. Media at that time reported some 830
ballots were mailed out when only 519 ballots should have been sent. Judge invalidates drainage district election, county will redo election for that seat | The Electric (theelectricgf.com)

Flood District commissioners serve three-year terms. This Flood District election
certainly wasn’t Fontana-Moore’s first rodeo. One wonders how the experienced
Fontana-Moore, who had headed up Cascade County elections for fourteen years at
that point, could make that kind of mistake. Where was outrage at that election
debacle from Election Protection Committee folks and their ilk? Did it perhaps not
matter to them because a democrat was in charge?

On the May 3 during Montana News Right Now, a reporter read a quote from
Jasmine Taylor, a member of the Election Protection Committee, complaining that
the Elections Office at the annex was closed and locked on Election Day morning,
so folks couldn’t pick up ballots. Is she not aware that when Fontana-Moore ran
the elections office, it had become standard practice to move the elections office to
the fairgrounds about a week in advance of the elections and that voters had to go
to the fairground to pick up ballots? Or does Taylor think we would forget that
fact?

Here’s the text from the Cascade County Elections Office webpage from
November 2022 as an example:


“We will move our office to Exhibition Hall at Montana Expo Park on Monday,
October 31st, 2022 through election day on November 8th, 2022. If you would
like receive your ballot during this time period, you will need to come over to the
fairgrounds.”

Further, folks that attended election judge training in 2022 claim that Fontana-Moore’s son worked in the elections office while she was in charge. A son hired to work for his mother? Isn’t that nepotism? But not one word about that from folks that are now involved with the Election Protection Committee.

Seems to me this Election Protection Committee has a “rules for thee but not for
me” attitude.

The Election Protection Committee mentioned to the media that they filed an
ethics complaint against Merchant. Pete Fontana filed the complaint with the
Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (MT COPP), and it was received by
the agency on April 20 (Fontana v Grulkowski, Merchant, and Biddick.pdf). The
complaint was rejected.

To summarize the contents, I’d opine that it contains some of the most ridiculous
allegations I have ever seen.

It seems the Election Protection Committee has an issue with freedom of speech
and expression. Regarding Cascade County Election Office volunteers, Fontana
wrote:

“Several of these individuals provided controversial and vial [?] testimony at the
Great Falls City Commission meeting against the Great Falls Library Levy.”

“Several of the volunteers’ cars display the VOTE NO ON THE LIBRARY
LEVY.”

“A number of these individuals signed a petition to the Cascade County
Commissioners requesting the County eliminate the mail ballot process….”

“Moreover, witnesses have also reported that this group of volunteers and the
County Clerk and Recorder Sandra Merchant, begin each day with a prayer. That is
highly inappropriate in a public office or county property.”

It appears the Election Protection Committee expects people to give up their First
Amendment rights if they volunteer in the elections office under Merchant. If your
car has a sticker they don’t agree with; if you signed a petition limiting mail-in
ballots to overseas military, disabled or other qualified persons; if you provided
comment at a city commission meeting against the library levy; if you prayed at
your job — then the Election Protection Committee thinks that’s fodder for an
ethics complaint. That’s ludicrous!

Someone needs to remind the Election Protection Committee that what folks chose
to support or oppose on their own time and their own dollar, certainly don’t equate
to ethics violations — ditto for prayer amongst coworkers, which when I last
checked, is legal as long as it was voluntary, and is protected by the Constitution.

Oh wait someone did. Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Chris Gallus
wrote in the rejection letter (MT COPP letter-Fontana.pdf):

“Your complaint does not detail or otherwise describe any specific alleged
violations committed by a named public employee for me to consider. I would
point out that the statute applies specifically and exclusively to public employees,
and does not include elected officials of a local government. Similarly the statute
does not “restrict the right of a public employee…to express personal political
views,” including placement of campaign bumper stickers or related material on a
personal vehicle.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg and I encourage all to read the complaint and the
MT COPP response letter.

Related to all of this is another interesting event.

On April 3 of this year, “Liberty and Values Project,” a group opposing the library
levy, was registered with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices as an
independent political committee. This is necessary once a group makes political
expenditures or receives political donations on a ballot issue.

But the next day Jasmine Taylor registered that same name, “Liberty and Values
Project” as a business name with the Montana Secretary of State. She then sent a
cease and desist letter to the Liberty and Values Project committee. This is
documented it on her What the Funk blog – https://wtf406.com/2023/04/wtf406-
forces-anti-library-group-to-change-its-name/

Although a case can be made for the committee’s prior use of the name “Liberty
and Values Project,” the organizer told me it wasn’t worth the fight. The committee
simply added “MT” to their name and registered that with both the MT COPP and
the Secretary of State—problem solved.

Draw your own conclusions, but I have my doubts that Taylor has any interest in
using “Liberty and Values Project” as a business name. Seems instead like she saw
an opportunity to harass a committee she opposes; one that had actually established
prior use of that name.

The “progressive” left seems to know no bounds when it comes to attacks and if
you think we are immune to their antics here in Great Falls, Montana, I’m hoping
the examples given here will open your eyes.

Dodd Says GF Library Drag Queen Story Hour Claim Is ‘Bald Faced Lie’

Jeni Dodd on February 24, 2023

The Electric article (here) covering the Great Falls Public Library levy which
the City Commission voted to put on the ballot in June, is far from
balanced and fair and shows an obvious lack of research.

I was at that commission meeting and I wish to set the record straight
and give my perspective. The Electric quotes are italicized with
quotation marks, followed by my responses in plain text.

The Devil’s in the Details

“The proposed special election would cost about $48,000, according to
city staff, and the library will use the library fund to pay that expense.”

Conveniently left out of the article is the fact that the library fund is
taxpayer dollars. Library Director McIntyre’s repeated claims “the
library would be paying for it” from the library fund were a bit
disingenuous, as she wasn’t forthcoming when questioned about the
origins of the library fund by Commissioners Hinebauch and Tryon.
Commissioner Tryon finally asked Melissa Kinzler, City Finance
Director, who confirmed it is our taxpayer dollars.

“Initially, library staff planned to put the library levy question on the
May school ballot, but legal staff determined that wasn’t an option under
state law.”

City legal staff, both of whom were in attendance at the commission
meeting, didn’t speak up to confirm this with any type of legal citation.
I’ve since seen the city attorney’s legal determination. But before that, I
had called the MT Secretary of State/Elections and they stated that the
library levy could be added to the May ballot. Conflicting information
but at this point it doesn’t matter. The city commission has voted to put
the library levy to the people in June.

“It would have cost the city roughly the same amount to put the question
on the May ballot and the election cost for the city will likely be similar
in November, but that will include the mayor and commission election
and potentially the public safety levy.”

I gotta wonder why The Electric revisits the May ballot toward the end
when earlier in the article, it states city staff claims the May ballot isn’t
even an option under state law. But if the library levy would or could
have been added to the May ballot, the cost for that May election would
not be the same as in November. It would have been split between the
city and the school district, resulting in a cost savings for both,
according to the Cascade County Elections Office, whom I spoke with
on February 22.

It’s all about the Benjamins

“She said the library would probably go down to being open five days a
week and below the minimum of 50 operating hours per week required
by the Montana State Library standards and would result in a loss of
$30,000 of state funding.”

$1.5 million in additional taxes to preserve $30,000 in state funding
doesn’t sound like a good deal for the taxpayers.

“Without the levy, the library is projecting a $120,000 shortfall for the
next fiscal year, which begins July 1. In that case, McIntyre said they’d
have to cut staff, hours and services.”

If the shortfall is $120,000 why is the library asking for $1.5 million?
This obviously is not a levy to save a library in dire straits, as McIntyre
seems to want us to believe when she speaks. A shortfall of $120,000 is
not $1.5 million.

The following bullet points in the article show a dramatic expansion of
the library’s hours and function:


“If passed, the levy would, according to staff:
• expand library hours to be open seven days a week
• expand Bookmobile services to six days a week providing more
services to daycares, schools and seniors
• expand youth services programs including early literacy outreach,
school age programming, and college and life preparedness for
teens
• provide more lifelong learning opportunities including expanded
collections, electronic resources and adult and senior programing
• restart and expand outreach services including the homebound
program”

McIntyre doesn’t just want to solve a shortfall—she wants to build an
empire.

Also, why did the article fail to mention the impact of the levy on
property taxes? The increased in taxes for a $100,000 property valuation
is $20.25 and $40.50 for $200,000 valuation.


Down the rabbit hole

I would opine that many of us in this city are opposed to the ever-increasing woke policies and practices of the Great Falls Public Library. We remember a library that was not political, but sadly, that library is gone.

“McIntyre said the library has not hosted a drag queen story hour nor do
they have plans to do so.”

Yes, she did say that and it is a bald-faced lie. The Great Falls Public
Library did indeed host a drag queen story hour, on June 12, 2021. The
library removed the YouTube video but here is the link from their Facebook page as well as screen shot proof:


“One of the things included in the proposed levy that has some
opponents upset is a mental health counselor.”

The actual proposal indicates hiring a social worker, not a mental health
counselor. There’s a huge difference. Either way, this is not a normal and
traditional function of a library. But the American Library Association,
of which the Great Falls Public Library is a member, has initiated a
nationwide push for social workers in libraries, likely in an effort to
remain relevant in a time when information and resources are readily
available by computer in the comfort of our homes.

“McIntyre said there’s a process for patrons to submit concerns over
materials in the library collection that are reviewed by staff and if
needed, the library board. She said in her nearly 18 years working at the
library, no complaints had risen to the library board level and they’d
had maybe five complaints submitted overall.”

I would be willing to bet most folks in Great Falls haven’t searched the
library for concerning materials nor are they aware of a process to
request review of them. So McIntyre’s insistence that complaints are rare
doesn’t prove anything.

My comments at the meeting included two books I had concerns with,
Gender Queer and This Book is Gay. McIntyre claimed Gender Queer
was in the adult section, but a search of the GFPL online catalog reveals
it is classified as “comic book.”

She claimed to not know whether This Book is Gay in the library, but a
quick search of the online catalog reveals it is there and is classified as a
“juvenile literature.”


My concerns aren’t based on the LGBTQ theme. I’m concerned about
any explicit sexual content that is accessible to children in the library. If
anyone questions the inappropriateness of these books for children, I
would direct them to these links, which include excerpts from the books.

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21d/WY-MR-Library-Books-more/5-Gender-Queer.html

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21c/WY-MR-Library-Books/1-Gay-book.html

“Some of those who spoke in opposition were active last year in
claiming that local elections had been fraudulent, despite no evidence of
those claims locally, and advocated for eliminating mail ballots and
counting all ballots by hand.”

How is this relevant to the library levy? It isn’t. It is a patronizing,
condescending example of faulty logic and insinuation—and certainly
not news.

Mob Rule Dominates Great Falls Public Education Meeting

Jeni Dodd on January 4, 2023

Amid a chorus of boos and shout-downs, there were few brave souls that dare to express opinions unpopular to the summonsed mob. In one sentence, that was my overall impression of the recent meeting organized by Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) Director Elsie Arntzen, intended to give parents and other member of the public a voice with OPI and local legislators.

I was alerted to the potential for this to be a contentious meeting through an email forwarded to me.

The email from the Cascade County Democratic Central Committee alerted folks to come to a public meeting on December 19 at Great Falls College MSU with Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) Director Elsie Arntzen. It piqued my interest. I found there was much more to the email than a dismissive glance would reveal (see attached).

It appears Great Falls Public School Superintendent Moore originated the communication by sending an email to Great Falls Rising, who then forwarded it to the Cascade County Republican Central Committee, who sent it via Mail Chimp to their mailing list.

In Moore’s portion of the email, he appears to allude to not receiving notification about Arntzen’s meeting and urges his “partners” to attend. Moore wrote:

“Good afternoon, Partners!

I received this (notice of meeting) from Rob Watson, School Administrators of Montana Exec. Director this morning. I had a phone call yesterday from Dr. Stephanie Erdmann, Dean @GFC-MSU, informing me that OPI had called and asked to reserve a room at Heritage Hall on Monday Dec. 19 from 4-6:30 PM. I had heard on Wednesday that the Supt. of Kalispell Schools caught wind of a similar meeting in his area.

Last night I called and spoke with Supt. Arntzen and she informed me that she will be holding four of these seasons in specific areas around the state, Kalispell, Billings, Great Falls and Stevensville. None of the Superintendents have received personal invitations to attend, nor have they been asked to help facilitate these forums. According to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, these sessions are designed to engage our parents and newly elected legislators in discussing issues of mutual interest prior to the upcoming legislative session.

My suggestion is that we all plan on being there and encouraging ALL of our parent, business and community partners to attend and let the elected officials know what our priorities are for our children and our schools here in Great Falls…”

Moore’s use of the phase, “caught wind of a similar meeting” semantically implies that the OPI kept this meeting a secret from him and other superintendents.

Not true according to Arntzen, who stated at the meeting that superintendents were made aware of it. An OPI staff member whom I talked with after the meeting concurred.

I also noticed that in his email he states he didn’t receive a “personal invitation.” I call those “wiggle words.” He may have indeed been alerted to the meeting but wasn’t “personally” invited by Arntzen. For Moore to receive a “personal invitation” or “be asked to facilitate” this meeting were unreasonable expectations in my opinion. The meeting was meant as an opportunity for parents and community members to express their thoughts directly to the OPI and legislators. No additional parties were necessary to run the meeting.

In the next step “Gerry,” apparently from Great Falls Rising, forwarded Moore’s message to the Cascade County Democratic Central Committee after adding the following commentary:

“Please read the following from Tom Moore, Superintendent of Great Falls Public Schools, about a forum, organized by Elsie Arntzen, Monday, September 19th from 4:00 to 6:30 PM in Heritage Hall at Great Falls College MSU. This is an invitation that was not issued to the superintendents around Montana and was discovered only by hearsay. The Director of OPI has not been forthcoming about her plans for reorganizing education in Montana. It is imperative that residents of Great Falls who are interested in continuing with our excellent education in Great Falls are present at this meeting. We know that she is inviting her supporters…”

As you can see, Gerry claims Moore only learned of this meeting through “hearsay” and seems to infer that Arntzen is inviting primarily her supporters. It’s also interesting that Great Falls Rising, despite calling themselves a “nonpartisan” organization, appears to have spread information about the meeting to only one side of the aisle. They forwarded it to the Democratic Central Committee but I’m not aware that they sent it to any Republican group. I’m on the Republican Central Committee mailing list but didn’t receive this email through them. It pretty much disproves Great Falls Rising’s claim of nonpartisanship if they share information with only one party’s central committee.

Did Moore pass this information along to those he knew would not be critical of Great Falls Public Schools administration— his so-called “partners?” He ignored arguably the most important group of people for this meeting—school district parents as a whole. Shouldn’t ALL of the parents with children in Great Falls Public Schools be his “partners?” If he really cared about what parents want for their children, wouldn’t he have sent out a district-side message and invite all parents?

Instead, Moore’s call-to-action email to his “partners” brought mostly former and current educators, school administrators and leftist leaders, who overwhelmingly dominated the meeting. Any comment they disagreed with was met rudely with loud boos and shout downs—mob behavior.

Here are just two examples of comments that triggered them:

“School choice/money should follow the student…”

“Teachers aren’t paid enough/cut administration to pay teachers more…”

The behavior of Moore’s summonsed bunch was alarming and likely intimidated some folks from speaking. The meeting also seemed to devolve into a bitch session for that same bunch to express their hostility to Arntzen.

One of the criticisms/questions that kept coming up was whether Moore had received notice of the meeting. It was a criticism by those who believed the narrative put forth in the email and a question for the few that didn’t automatically assume that narrative was correct.

As I stated earlier, Arntzen asserted at the meeting that she did let Moore and other superintendents know about these meetings, which were being held in different locations around the state. On the other hand, when questioned, Moore failed to confirm or deny whether he’d actually received notice of the meeting. When asked, he made a comment that he wasn’t going to address whether or not he received notice and promptly changed the subject.

I found that to be quite evasive, especially since it was a major part of the narrative put forth in the email. So I reminded everyone that Moore never answered that question.

Moore approached me after the event and I was surprised when he ask me if he had answered my question. I told him that he had not. I also let him know I had seen the message he sent to so-called “partners” and asked, “Who were these partners?” He answered, “I sent an email to Great Falls Chamber, Yes to Education and the education advocacy group Great Falls Rising.” By the way, his words, not mine, categorizing Great Falls Rising as an “education advocacy group.” I would beg to differ.

I don’t know about you, but when someone won’t give a straight yes or no answer and instead, deflects questions and redirects to another topic, it makes me uneasy and suspicious. I subsequently told Moore, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen him evade and avoid answering questions.

This meeting, which Arntzen had told Moore was meant to engage parents and taxpayers with the OPI and legislators, was hijacked in my opinion. I’m aware of an OPI meeting in another Montana community where the voices of the public were heard loud and clear. Sadly in Great Falls, the public was mostly silenced. Those involved in public education in Great Falls have their own meetings and channels of communication with Arntzen and her staff. Why won’t they allow the public theirs without interference?

A picture emerged from my attendance at this meeting and it isn’t a pretty one— the picture that far too many of the summonsed bunch that attended don’t want parents and taxpayers to have a voice with OPI and legislators in a public forum— at least not a voice that they can’t control.

Great Falls City Commission Ignores Own Rules In City-County Board Of Health Reappointment

Jeni Dodd on January 3, 2022

Rules? What rules?

I’ve been following the Great Falls City Commission for years and pointing out instances of, in my opinion, questionable conduct of business. I and others here in Great Falls would say the commission at times appears to make their own rules while ignoring city code when it suits them. The latest instance of this occurred at the December 21 city commission meeting. The city commission failed to follow its own codified procedure for city board appointees. I feel it warrants further scrutiny.

Appointment or reappointment of a city representative for the City-County Board of Health was on the agenda. The Board of Health, unlike most other local boards, is not merely advisory— it wields, or attempts to wield, regulatory power. Therefore, it is a very important position in our community.

The city commission reappointed Amanda Ball even though she didn’t submit an application for reappointment. The city also failed to advertise the position to the public to solicit for other applicants. To me, this is a clear example of the city doing what they please instead of what is required.

The procedure for board appointments is codified in Resolution 10235, Establishing a Policy Concerning Appointments to Boards and Commissions, which was passed by the city commission on June 5, 2018:

“In the case of a member eligible for and interested in reappointment, if the member is in good standing and the applicable board or commission recommends that the member be reappointed, his or her application shall be brought before the City Commission for consideration for reappointment without advertising for other citizen interest”

The Board of Health chose not to make any recommendation as is documented in the meeting agenda packet.

So then, in order to follow their own rules, the City of Great Falls should have advertised for applicants—but they didn’t.

They also failed to require Ball to bring forth an application for reappointment.

Most of the public, along with Commissioner Tryon who began his term in 2020 and newly appointed Commissioner Heinbauch, would have no way of knowing what Ball’s qualifications are, unless they accessed her original application from April 2019. Why not provide the commissioners and the public her application?

There were two other folks that sent in applications, even though the city didn’t open it up for applications as required. One applicant, Katrina Lewis, is a doctor and the other applicant, Jonathan Martin, a retired pharmaceutical representative. Their applications are attached to the meeting agenda packet found here:

https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/greatfls-pubu/MEET-Packet-f120724c58a140db8ae4e69899b7629a.pdf

Commissioner Robinson, who also serves on the Board of Health and is in fact, chair of that board, was the main proponent for Ball. The December 21 city commission meeting is posted at link below. The discussion about reappointment of Ball begins @ 00:13:00.

https://greatfallsmt.viebit.com/player.php?hash=pS5wqM3uGkne

At @ 00:16:00, Commissioner Tryon weighs in that the two other applicants deserve to be considered and brings up Resolution 10235. At @ 00:20:10 he asks the question of whether it is standard that the Board of Health doesn’t weigh in on appointment or reappointment of candidates to the board, to which Commissioner Robinson, at @ 00:20:24 states, “The answer is yes.”

But that is not true. The Board of Health has, in the past, weighed in on candidates.

For example, consideration for reappointment of Peter Gray, with the statement, “During the November 7, 2018 Board of Health meeting, the Board recommended reappointing Mr. Gray,” is found here:

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_commission/meeting/packets/157301/agenda_2018_11_20_cc_meeting_packet_revised_3.pdf

And there are other examples as well, including Sue Ann Warren in 2008 and 2015. So Commissioner Robinson’s claim that the Board of Health’s policy is to refrain from recommending reappointment is blatantly false.

Also disappointing, with the exception of Commissioner Tryon, is that the commission appeared to accept Ball’s brief statement at the November 16 city commission meeting as equivalent to a written application.

I, along with many other city residents, wouldn’t consider an introduction by a city commissioner and a brief statement by a potential board candidate as an application. Indeed Commissioner Tryon made that very point.

Commissioner Robinson introduced Ball at the Nov 16 city commission Zoom meeting. She spoke briefly about wanting to remain on the board. By the way, this is listed in the meeting agenda as a Community Health Update, but I don’t consider it as such. It is Commissioner Robinson assisting Ball’s quest to be reappointed to the Board of Health. Here’s the link:

https://greatfallsmt.viebit.com/player.php?hash=ukwZ3BgrDmOl

At @ 00:12:07: Robinson stated:

“I hope that ah, I think the board of health, under, under my, ah, ah recommendation, will recommend her to be, re, re, ah, re, ah, removed, ah, re—there she is she’s on their right now—reappointed, and so Amanda if you could just unmute yourself and show your face if you can hear us. And there she is, good. I don’t know whether you heard anything I said, but it was all good things, so. Anyway, I’m hoping that Amanda, ah, will, that the city commission, ah, the first meeting in January will reappoint her for another two year term.”

At @ 00:12:50, Ball begins her statement. She stated she works professionally in child welfare for the State of Montana. Then goes on to offer the following:

“I want to be clear that I am not speaking as a representative of the State of Montana,” she stated. “I am only representing myself and what I’ve found to be true for the majority of the children I’ve interacted with.”

Ball follows this some time later with what might be the most revealing statement of all:

“It is rare to hear a child complaining about a mask or social distancing themselves.”

It seems to me then that her reappointment would maintain the status quo of the current Board of Health, as far as mask mandate decisions.


Interestingly, public comment was received about unsolicited applicant Dr. Katrina Lewis who appears to me to be highly qualified for appointment to the Board of Health. The comment, from a Kathy Davis, states:

“Please reappoint Amanda Ball for the BOH. It is crucial to have members of that board science based thinkers. Dr. Lewis has been vocal against mask wearing , and espouses conspiracy theories.”

That comment, which is part of the public record, is found here:

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_commission/meeting/257158/fw_all_city_commissioners_board_of_health_appointment.pdf

These actions by the city bring up so many questions for me. Isn’t it a bit prejudiced to allow a city commissioner to personally introduce a potential board appointee and sing her praises? How can a commissioner who does that still be fair and balanced in order to vote on the matter? Doesn’t a personal recommendation by a commissioner give that person an unfair advantage over anyone else interested in the board position?

Further, Did Lewis’s unsolicited application contribute to the urgency in the city commission reappointment of Ball while Commissioner Robinson was still seated, instead of in January as originally proposed by Robinson at the November 16 commission meeting?

Are the city’s actions in this an indication that they will refuse to consider highly qualified applicants for the Board of Health, merely because those applicants are outspoken against mask mandates?

Sadly, as always, there was very little public comment at the December 21 commission meeting. Julie Bass makes her comment on reappointment beginning @ 00:27:04 and is summarily chastised by Mayor Kelly about using a good-old-boy reference. So much for free speech. My comment begins @ 00:44:41.

Heritage Area Opposition Accused Of Bribery By Commissioner Houck

Jeni Dodd on July 12, 2021

A friend texted me Friday morning asking if I’d seen the latest Great Falls Tribune article about the National Heritage Area. I admitted I had not. It is behind a paywall, but here’s the link.

After reading the article, I thought this might be a new low for the Tribune—publishing an anonymous hearsay bribery accusation spouted by a Great Falls city commissioner. Actually, it may also be a new low for a Great Falls city commissioner.

In the article, City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who is also a former board member of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area corporation, states she was “previously approached by someone who said that they were against the Heritage Area and in their conversation that person told her they were being paid by the opposition.”

She adds, “All I would ask is that we have an open dialogue that we have both parties invited to represent.”

I’ve been on the forefront of this NHA opposition since early in 2019. I’ve offered no one money to oppose the NHA nor have I heard of anyone doing so. Of course, I can’t vouch for every individual who opposes this NHA.

Still, an accusation of bribery to smear the NHA opposition is highly suspicious to me.

Unlike the National Heritage Area corporation, the NHA opposition is not a single formal organization; it is a grassroots effort of individuals and organizations opposing the imposition of yet another layer of federal government bureaucracy and the will of a non-governmental organization upon local government entities and private land.

City Commissioner Houck is irresponsibly passing along an anonymous, secondhand accusation of bribery against an unnamed entity or private individual(s) and the Tribune is irresponsibly printing it—that’s unprofessional and unethical for both parties.

Regarding Houck’s comment on meetings, her former organization, BSCNHA Inc, failed to support any open dialogue in their three so-called “community conversations” where the community wasn’t allowed to ask questions or comment during the meetings.

BSCNHA Inc gave presentations to some groups and organizations in order to gain their support, but then listed groups and organizations as potential partners in their Draft Feasibility Study that never expressed support for the NHA, like the Montana Grain Growers.

I and many others don’t want more so-called “community conversations” held by the BSCNHA corporation where members of the public have no voice.

I also don’t want BSCNHA Inc’s idea of an open dialogue where “we have both parties invited to represent” their views. Invited—that’s merely BSCNHA Inc handpicking who represents NHA opposition in order for them to control the dialogue in some quasi-stakeholder meeting.

Any and all members of the public have the right to be heard in open public forums on this important issue.

But It’s Part Of The Growth Policy—Not!

Jeni Dodd on July 6, 2021

Last summer I submitted an ethics complaints to Cascade County Attorney Josh Racki regarding the use of government resources and facilities by both the City of Great Falls and Cascade County to benefit the private nonprofit Big Sky Country National Heritage Area Inc. I alleged there were violations under the Montana Code Annotated and the Official Code of the City of Great Falls.

The county attorney forwarded the city complaint to City Attorney Sara Sexe. The county attorney forwarded the county complaint to the Montana Attorney General, citing conflicts of interest in that the county attorney’s office would be tasked to defend any county official named in the complaint and therefore, can’t consider it (see attached—Racki response).

My complaint about the city, city officials’ responses, background information, etc can be found in the meeting agenda packet here.

The city attorney’s response to me and her attached memorandum, can be found at that link, starting on page 92. It indicated the city was acting to assist the National Heritage Area mainly because of a mention of an NHA in the 2013 Growth Plan and that the violations Sexe found would be dealt with internally. But I wanted a hearing before the Ethics Committee so I pushed for one, until finally, one was granted on February 3, 2021.

I also just noticed that the video of the ethics hearing regarding my complaint is online. Some of you may want to watch it, or at least skim through it. It starts at 10:45 on the video found at: https://greatfallsmt.viebit.com/player.php?hash=6k9j6BW2lj3w

So here’s a short breakdown of a few of the key points in the video along with my commentary after the fact.

@15:20: City Attorney Sexe begins her rationale for city support of the NHA as a city supported project.

When you watch this, keep in mind the main rationale for the city staff assisting assist the National Heritage Area corporation is the 2013 Growth Policy.

In the past though, a deputy city manager offered a reason to dispute use of the 2013 Growth Policy as rationale that the NHA is city-sanctioned or city-sponsored. At the City Commission/Staff Agenda Meeting on July 10, 2013, “Deputy City Manager Jennifer Reichelt reported that Ida Meehan will present a general Growth Policy update at this work session. The public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed update to the Growth Policy is scheduled for August 6, 2013. It was explained that the Growth Policy is a guiding policy and NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT” (emphasis added, see attached—Not a regulatory document).

Yes, there we have it—not a regulatory document.

City officials have also used the passage of a resolution in December 2019, in which the city agrees to apply for a grant for the Great Falls Development Authority to pass along to BSCNHA Inc, as proof that the city commission voted for the NHA.

That is false—the commission didn’t vote to approve the NHA and that is backed up by City Commissioner Houck statement at that same meeting. “We’re not saying that we’re endorsing the National Heritage Area, we’re endorsing a grant that increases our economic impact and those are aligned with our city priorities” (City Commission meeting video, December 17, 2019,  @ 1:33:40)

So what gives city staff the right to assist a private nonprofit using city resources? Why of course, they give it to themselves.

@18:24: Sexe’s primary opinion is no violation of Montana statutes and she uses the Montana Attorney General office’s response as rationale. She states the county attorney advised that my ethics complaint was provided to the Montana Attorney General who declined to address alleged Montana statutory provisions.

That is only partially true. Yes, the Montana Attorney General declined to address it, but only because that office claimed the jurisdiction for considering the complaint rested locally, with the county attorney (See attached—Attorney General response).

@18:49: City Attorney Sexe admits that with regards to the Official Code of the City of Great Falls, there were issues where technical violations occurred…

In addition, on pages 10 and 11 of the Ethics Committee Agenda packet, Sexe expresses her determination that violations of Official Code of the City of Great

Falls § 2.21.050 (B), (F) and (L) did occur. However, she determined these were addressed internally by the city manager and recommended the Ethics Committee not forward the complaint to the county attorney.

@31:58: City Planning Director Craig Raymond begins response to the allegations.

@32:45: Raymond claims a coordinated attack on the concept of NHAs.

No, I coordinated with no one in bringing this ethics complaint. I discovered what appeared to me to be violations regarding ethics and conflicts of interest snd took action.

@33:08: Raymond accuses NHA opponents of false statements and taking issues and situations out of context.

I’ve made no false statements regarding NHAs, nor have I taken issues and situations out of context. I can only vouch for my own opinions and statements, which I developed and made only after careful research of NHAs. I do not vouch for the statements of others in opposition.

@33:20: Raymond continues accusing NHA opponents, “….and now harass, bully and impugn the character and professional reputation of those who would dare support this worthwhile effort to benefit the community.”

Guess what, City Planning Director Raymond—you’re a city official and are paid by the taxpayers. The citizens of Great Falls have every right to question city officials’ actions on city time, if the citizen perceives a problem. You are accountable to the public. It’s criticism, and nothing more.

I’d like to remind Raymond that I have reached out a number of times to BSCNHA Inc board members, some of whom were also public officials, and my questions and concerns have either gone unanswered or have been met with hostility, every time.

@35:15: Raymond expresses that he’s in the “uncomfortable position of defending and protecting the question of my ethics.”

As a city employee, running a city department, you are a public figure. You are paid with and use our tax dollars. Do you really believe taxpayers have no right to question or criticize your actions?

@41:42: Raymond says, “In my opinion, what was in the Growth Policy and the resolution specifically, this is very direct support and license to join and partner with groups in order to support the NHA in the fashion that we did.”

The 2013 Growth Policy mentions an NHA, but not as a project. I explained this earlier and also talk about this in the video. The resolution, as I mentioned earlier, was only the city commission’s vote to assist Great Falls Development Authority with a grant, the ultimate recipient being BSCNHA Inc. The city commission did not vote to approve the NHA.

@42:08: Raymond begins his assertion that the Civic Center meeting space provided free to BSCNHA Inc is justified, in direct conflict of City Attorney Sexe’s opinion.

He further states, “I find each of the criteria (regarding free meeting room use) have been met during these meetings at the Civic Center.”

That he“ finds,” is attorney talk, yet he is not an attorney. The city attorney did find providing the free meeting room was a violation.

@46:08: In my opinion, this is perhaps the most disturbing statement of all by Raymond and in my opinion, really shows the nature of the beast—that is, the true nature of our city and attitude of some city officials.

Raymond states, “I’ll be honest though, even if the city commission had not adopted the Growth Policy as is written, as they did, I still would have offered the same level of support and encouragement for this project. It was simply the right thing for our office to do, in the fashion that we did. I mean, after all, we helped inspire it, we helped to start it. And actually, my question is, why on earth would we not have done it under the circumstances?” He goes on to say, “I have no regrets on any of our actions regarding the NHA.”

The first shock is that a city official would admit he would offer the same support even if he knew it wasn’t a city-sanctioned or sponsored project. To me, that speaks volumes.

It also appears to me the NHA idea originated not with the city planning department per se, but with the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (HPAC). Although HPAC is under the city planning umbrella, it is supposed to be an ADVISORY entity for the CITY COMMISSION, not an entity which makes decisions for the city. At least that’s my understanding of a city advisory commissions/boards. But HPAC seemed to overstep its bounds.

Here’s the details regarding HPAC and the NHA:

“TOURISM ASSESSMENT GRANT – HPAC received a $5000 grant from the SHPO for Heritage Planning. The grant will be matched by funding from the TBID ($2600) and in-kind from the City of Great Falls ($2846) The TBID is additionally providing funding to conduct a 3rd party assessment for Great Falls Tourism ($7000) Ellen and Lee working on Tourism Heritage oriented area to promote area visitors” (Great Falls/Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Minutes from the August 13, 2014). Note—SHPO is State Historic Preservation Office and TBID is Tourism Business Improvement District

“Mr. Nellis said the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission has had a goal for many years of creating a National Heritage Area (NHA) along the Missouri River that would stretch from Fort Benton to Tower Rock. Staff received $5,000 in grant funds from the State to study this project, and the Tourism Business Improvement District is providing a match of about $9,000. Staff is providing work hours.” (Great Falls Planning Advisory Board/Zoning Commission Minutes, December 9, 2014)

“In 2014, the Great Falls-Cascade County Certified Local Government (CLG), began to discuss the concept of an NHA in Montana as such entities gained more popularity in the western United States. The City of Great Falls and the Great Falls – Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission asked the community to join them for the “Grand Tour” event in January 2015 that encompassed the whole region.” (BSCNHA Draft Feasibility Study, p 11)

“Brief Update: There was a follow-up meeting February 26th on the Tourism Assessment & Heritage Area. After a lengthy discussion, Ellen reiterated that the HPAC will be organizing for the National Heritage Area and will form an ad-hoc committee to proceed onward.” (Great Falls/Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Minutes from the March 11, 2015 Meeting)

“The Upper Missouri River Heritage Area Planning Corporation (UMRHAPC) was legally established in May 2015. The first meeting, held at the Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center in Great Falls, included the organization of a board of directors.” (BSCNHA Draft Feasibility Study, p 11)

All of the above show me that a National Heritage Area was not part of the 2013 City Growth Policy voted on by the city commission. It seems apparent the NHA is not an official city-sanctioned or city-sponsored project

@50:04-58:17: My comments begin. It’s a little over eight minutes but I think it’s worth a listen.

One of the main takeaways for me is that the extensive use of city and county resources to benefit BSCNHA Inc should require that corporation be accountable to the public. Use of public resources should mandate transparency. However BSCNHA Inc has shown that as a private nonprofit it will not be transparent or accountable to the public.

No, BSCNHA Inc has shown little interest in connecting with the public at large. If they had, they would have notified all private landowners within the proposed boundaries of the National Heritage Area (all of Cascade and part of Chouteau counties) of their properties’ inclusion within the proposed NHA. They did not

Citizen Responds To GF City Commissioners’ “Conflict Of Interest” Board Appointments

Jeni Dodd on June 3, 2021

Call it what you will—Conflict of Interest by any other name is still Conflict of Interest

The Great Falls City Commission voted 4-1 on June 1 to reappoint Big Sky Country National Heritage Area board members Rich Ecke and Ellen Sievert to the city/county Historic Preservation Commission (HPAC).

Commissioner Tryon, the only dissenting vote, aptly pointed out that according to the City of Great Falls Code of Ethics, conducting business related to the National Heritage Area while a HPAC member, when you also sit on the BSCNHA Inc board, (which is a private corporation) has at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In case you haven’t been to one, city commission meetings are not balanced in that after public comment, the commissioners get to respond to what the public has said and they can say whatever they want—even thinly veiled insults, incorrect information and outright lies—and the public is not allowed to respond. So here are my responses.

In response to Commissioner Moe—You are not an attorney. I am not an attorney either but I did speak with one. It is indeed a conflict of interest for someone to serve on a city advisory board and make decisions and take actions to further the interests of a private corporation when he or she also sits on that corporation’s board.

The attorney’s informed opinion is that I am correct in noting that conflicts of interest have occurred with the city actions regarding BSCNHA Inc.

It was mentioned that the National Heritage Areas is part of the city’s 2013 Growth Plan. You used that as justification for the city’s involvement with the National Heritage Area. Did you even read the document? Actually, the 2013 Growth Policy merely states the following:

Develop, maintain and enhance the River’s value as a public amenity and resource, including resource management determined to be consistent with these values, such as:

Public access, connectivity and viewing

Recreational values

Urban habitat

Leisure, dining and mixed-use development

Education

Designation as a National Heritage area

Please note that the 2013 Growth Policy only provides guidance to develop, maintain and enhance the RIVER’s value to be consistent with values such as a potential National Heritage Area designation. It doesn’t authorize city officials to assist with any National Heritage Area designation.

The 2013 Growth Policy also obviously DOES NOT mandate or direct the city to provide city resources to a private corporation seeking a National Heritage Area designation. growth_policy_update_2013_page 135

In 2013, there was no fleshed-out National Heritage Area plan or even boundaries for such. The National Heritage Area became an actual project only in 2015. It was then known as Upper Missouri River National Heritage Area and included only a narrow corridor along the Missouri River.

So the current National Heritage Area proposal, which has expanded through the years to include all of Cascade County and a portion of Chouteau County, is nothing like what was just an idea in 2013 or what was first proposed in 2015.

In addition, at the July 10, 2013, City Commission Work Session, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Reichelt explained that the Growth Policy is a “guiding policy and not a regulatory document.” I think that statement says it all—it is not a regulatory document. Therefore, the city’s claim that the 2013 Growth Plan authorizes the city’s involvement with the National Heritage Area is false. Growth Plan not a regulatory document.pdf

The city did much of the mapping and associated database work for BSCNHA Inc. That is city time and resources (taxpayer money) to benefit a private corporation. The city also supplied the meeting room for BSCNHA Inc. I filed an ethics complaint against the city after uncovering this apparent misuse of city resources.

I was granted a city ethics hearing on my complaint. I suggest you read those documents and watch the video. Yes, the Ethics Committee decided the city’s involvement with BSCNHA Inc wasn’t a conflict of interest. They, like you, misinterpreted the 2013 Growth Policy and decided the National Heritage Area could be consider “city-sponsored” solely on that document.

But the Ethics Committee is not a court of law, it is another advisory board appointed by the city commission. The Ethics Committee ruling was incorrect according to the attorney I spoke with about it. Unfortunately, the only remaining relief would be to try to prove it in court, and that’s not economically feasible for most Great Falls residents. Sad that there’s little recourse for the average citizen when the government is involved.

If you do watch that video, also note that City Planning Director Raymond makes a statement, the gist of which is—whether or not the National Heritage Area was considered “city sponsored” he would still have allocated city resources to benefit BSCNHA Inc because he feels the National Heritage Area is a worthwhile project.

In my opinion, that shows an incredible amount of arrogance, not to mention that the Montana Code Annotated and the City of Great Falls Code of Ethics seem to forbid the use of government resources for a government official’s personal interest.

In response to Commissioner Houck—don’t be so triggered. Even though you are a former board member of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area Inc, this is NOT all about you. It also is not personal attacks on you or any other city official when citizens raise concerns, express opinions or criticize the actions or question the motives of those who are supposed to be working for us. It’s quite amusing that you are always ready to dish out the criticism to citizens like me but cry foul if you think you’re being criticized.

Yes, BSCNHA Inc did indeed have meetings—with small groups and people of their choosing. As far as public meetings, I went to a supposed “community conversation” at Black Eagle and  the public was offered NO OPPORTUNITY to ask questions or make comments. Others reported the same experience at the Belt “community conversation.” Not much of a community conversation when the public isn’t allowed to speak.

BSCNHA Inc decided to include all of Cascade County and part of Chouteau County—most of which is PRIVATE land—within the National Heritage Area boundaries but didn’t think it necessary to notify all the landowners within its boundaries.

That’s ludicrous! You have no idea how many people I meet that are just learning about this National Heritage Area or never even heard of it. The four ladies who sat in front me last night at the commission meeting (never met them before) told me they had never heard of the National Heritage Area. So don’t tell me it has widespread support or even awareness.

In response to Commissioner Robinson—you totally missed the point when you talked about how people are often on many boards and commissions. Yes, that is true and I know you are on quite a few, likely unassociated boards/commissions. But it’s an entirely different situation when someone is a member of both a city board/commission and a private corporation, when those two entities have dealings with each other.

The Historic Preservation Advisory Commission members that are also on BSCNHA Inc board helped arranged for free city meeting rooms and city mapping work to benefit a private corporation—arguably at taxpayer expense.

It’s reminiscent of when HUD reprimanded the city for certain block grant allocations several years ago.

Some members of the city advisory board tasked to make grant allocations were also members of the organizations that received grant money.

HUD determined that was a conflict of interest. Commissioner Robinson, did you miss all of that?

In response to Commissioner Tryon—thank you so much for standing up for ethics in city government! You appear to get it, whereas it appears the other commissioners and the mayor do not. It’s a sad state of affairs when only one city commissioner understands the conflicts of interest involved in these reappointments.

City “Aims High” But Does It Miss The Mark?

Jeni Dodd on May 25, 2021

The Great Falls City Commission approved the Aim High Aquatics and Recreation Center Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at its meeting on May 18. Although cooperation between the Malmstrom Air Force Base and the city is promising and a replacement aquatics facility for the defunct Natatorium is long-awaited, I have a lot of concerns and questions about this project that are yet unanswered.

I expressed some of those concerns and questions during the Aim High CUP public comment at the commission meeting. Mayor Kelly, to his credit, asked both City Planning Officer Craig Raymond and L’Heureux Page Werner Architecture president Tim Peterson whether they cared to respond.

Both refused to address any of my questions or concerns. So much for transparency in city government projects.

Prior to the city commission meeting, I had posed the following questions to City Manager Greg Doyon by email. The answers I received about the Aim High facility, in my opinion, didn’t alleviate my concerns. Here’s the content of that email:

City Manager Doyon,

I have some questions about the proposed water recreation facility slated to be built in Lions Park and am hoping you can give me some answers.

1. As you know, soils in the Great Falls area can be an issue for building and even more troublesome for a building the size and weight of a water recreation facility. Have the soils been tested and approved on the new proposed site for this facility?

City Response: Yes. TD&H conducted a geotechnical inspection of the site. This location had much better soils than the previous three locations considered.

2. Has the city taken into account and budgeted for increases in building materials for this project? In March 2020, a 4×8 foot sheet of 15/32” OSB cost me $12.50; current price the same sheet of OSB is $48/sheet. That’s nearly four times the cost from just over a year ago! I am concerned that the city is relying on construction costs from 2020 or earlier and will incur additional expenses not anticipated.

City Response: We are concerned too. We will only know when the bids are let in the fall. There is a contingency available, but that is usually not intended to be used to offset increased material costs.

3. Will more city employees will be hired to run this facility or is the city planning to allow a private contractor to run the facility? I am concerned about the cost of additional city employees versus having a private contractor.

City Response: Yes. There will be additional employees needed to operate the facility. Keep in mind that the facility is combined Recreation and indoor pool facility and the revenue model will be different to better support additional staff.

4. I doubt the new water recreation facility will be self-sustaining and therefore, it seems it will require additional money from the city to operate. Which means more tax dollars and therefore more families negatively impacted by these seemingly never-ending property tax increases. Is the city considering or planning to implement another tax levy in order to run this facility?

City Response: No. Any additional cost will need to come from the General Fund. The City is using a consultant to program the facility in a manner to maximze cost recovery to support operations and avoid exceeding current pool subsidies.

Those answer are what led me to attend the commission meeting where I was ignored.

In particular, my concerns are as follows, in no order of importance:

1. It seems to me the “better soils” statement isn’t equivalent to saying, yes the site is adequate and will work for the building. Can Great Falls citizens get a yes or no answer—will the soils at Lions Park support this facility? Why is no one giving us s definitive answer to that question?

The firm hired for the initial consultation work on the Aim High facility, L’Heureux Page Werner Architecture, was the same firm that designed the previous Natatorium, built in the 1960’s on a previously failed water facility site. I’ve asked this a number of times and no one has answered—why was the Natatorium rebuilt on that site in the 1960’s after the previous failure due to geotechnical issues? Did LPW advise the city to rebuild on that site?

2. Increased facility construction cost with no plan on how to deal with it. Have you priced construction materials lately? It appears the city has no contingency plan for increased cost of construction material.

3. City employees will be added. What does that mean for taxpayers? Take a look at the building site plan.

There are separate offices for aquatics, recreation supervisor, facility manager and sports supervisor. Does that tell you something about potential new city hires to run this facility? Looks to me like four new supervisory positions with associated employees also hired to work under those supervisors. Sounds like a lot of new city employees.

This while we as a city struggle to pay for more law enforcement, which on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (or nearly anyone’s hierarchy of needs) is much more important. Providing for citizen security is a fundamental government function, recreation is not.

4. I have great concerns about the cost of running the facility and whether it can be self-sustaining or whether the city will impose yet another tax levy to support it. Doyon’s answer that potential additional costs to run facility could come from general fund doesn’t alleviate my concerns. Doesn’t general fund money still come from the taxpayers? The money pit city golf courses ran up a cost to the general fund of well over a million dollars until their management was privatized. But I didn’t get an answer on whether the city would consider privatizing management of the Aim High facility.

5. My understanding is that Aim High’s primary purposes were to replace the Natatorium, which provided aquatic recreation and as an aquatics training facility for Malmstrom personnel. Why then, did the designer add basketball courts, an indoor running track, multipurpose/exercise rooms and child care facilities?

Don’t we already have plenty of basketball courts, indoor running tracks, exercise facilities and child care facilities throughout Great Falls for the public to use? Doesn’t the base also already have some of those facilities? Why the duplicative efforts?

Wouldn’t money be better spent on energy savings measures for a basic Natatorium facility rather than an expanded recreation center with duplicative facilities? Doesn’t the increased purpose of this city facility mean it also competes with private businesses such as the Peak and other for-profit multipurpose exercise facilities? Why is the city positioning itself to compete with those private businesses?

6. Why is the city allocating the area in Lions Park adjacent to 10 Ave S for future commercial development under the Aim High CUP? How can the Aim High CUP be used to set aside land for commercial development for a business or businesses not yet identified in the CUP?

Is this commercial development area meant to provide the Great Falls good old boy/girl network with prime commercial development space along 10th Ave S?

7. This project is partially federally funded therefore subject to the Code of Federal Regulations for contracting using federal funds. I hoped the city would have learned its lesson about following regulations regarding federal funds after HUD reprimanded the city for conflicts of interest in allocation of CDBG funds. But I’ve been alerted that the city’s handling of the Aim High project warrants further investigation related to federal regulations.

Despite hearing from many folks in Great Falls with concerns about this project, I was the only person to express any concerns at the meeting. When no one else shows up, it’s easy for the city and its associated cronies to dismiss me as a “Karen” even though I know I’m actually speaking for a lot of people.

I’m urging Great Falls citizens to please get more involved with your local government. Go to meetings, call in by phone or send emails to make your voices heard

Ethics, Great Falls, And A National Heritage Area

Jeni Dodd on February 4, 2021

The Great Falls City Ethics Committee voted on Wednesday, February 3, 2021 to dismiss all allegations of conflicts of interest and ethics violations I made against city officials for providing city employee time and city resources to Big Sky Country National Heritage Area (BSCNHA) Inc.

Their decision seemed to be based mostly on the city’s premise that the National Heritage Area idea began with the City-County Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and is mentioned in the 2013 City Growth Policy Update, therefore it is “city-sanctioned.”

Apparently, if it is “city-sanctioned,” despite what we taxpayers want, the city can and will spend our money on it.

Never mind that the NHA idea expressed in that 2013 document was just that, an idea not a project and that there was no indication in that document that the city would provide city government resources toward the NHA.

Never mind that the narrow corridor along the Missouri River originally envisioned as an NHA has since expanded to include all of Cascade County and a major portion of Chouteau County. There are people that supported an NHA then that don’t support one now. But the city doesn’t care about that.

While I’m dismayed that the city spent any money, at any time, on this NHA, there is certainly no justification in my mind for the city to have continued to support of the NHA after a separate private nonprofit was created.

Maps were made on city employee time; maps that city planning now claims were also used by the city. I find that hard to believe, since that the NHA map, with its GIS layers, is specific to the NHA.

Meeting rooms were provided for free. The city claims it makes meeting rooms available to other nonprofits for free. But when I called about a meeting room for a nonprofit, I was quoted a fee. When I told the city employee on the phone that BSCNHA Inc was meeting there that evening and they aren’t charged, I was told that was because it is a “city meeting.” I guess those free meeting rooms are only for “city-sanctioned” nonprofits.

In the HPAC meeting minutes, I discovered that the city was accepting and holding funds for BSCNHA Inc because they didn’t have a bank account set up. What I didn’t know until this hearing was that the city continued to hold the nonprofit’s funds for FOUR YEARS.

It doesn’t take that long for a nonprofit to get a bank account, in fact most new nonprofits get a bank account within a month. It seems rather odd to me. Why should the city serve as a bank for a private nonprofit for that long?

Did the city maintain those funds in a separate account or were they commingled? Is the city still holding funds for BSNHA Inc? Did the city keep track of the total gross receipts per year of BSCNHA Inc? If not, how do they know how much money belongs to BSCNHA Inc and what year it was deposited?

Of course, I wasn’t allowed to ask questions of the staff at the hearing.

Unfortunately, we may never know. Despite the city’s involvement with BSCNHA Inc, the city denied my Freedom of Information request for the organization’s associated records including their financials and meeting minutes. The city stated that I must request them from the organization. The request was then made to BSCNHA Inc, but the organization denied the request, claiming it is a private nonprofit and not subject to disclosure of those records as is a government agency.

So the city treated BSCNHA Inc like a separate and private entity when they denied my request for information, but then on the other hand, treated them more or less like a part of the city budget when justifying spending taxpayer dollars on their behalf. In my opinion, the city can’t have it both ways.

City Planning Officer Craig Raymond likened my complaint to harassment of him.

When city officials like Raymond and City Commissioner Houck cry harassment and personal attacks if a citizen voices serious concerns about city operations, that is chilling to free speech, government transparency and the right to petition government for redress.

At the hearing, Raymond reiterated his claim that even if the NHA wasn’t city-sanctioned (which I don’t accept that it is), he’d still provide city support to BSCNHA Inc because it’s a “worthwhile” project.

Worthwhile is a subjective opinion and to me, his attitude smacks of smug superiority. I take issue with a city official who would deem a project “worthwhile” of spending my tax dollars for five or more years without a vote of the city commission and without public comment.

I take issue with a city official who states that those who disagree with his “worthwhile” project are “spreading lies and misinformation.”

When the City of Great Falls bends over backwards in working with only select nonprofits and not others, it tends to validate citizens’ perceptions of city favoritism and cronyism.

Why are some projects and private nonprofits “city-sanctioned” while others are not? Seems much of the city decision-making is far too subjective—subject to the personal desires, whims, or relationships of city officials.

Did the city learn nothing from their HUD CDBG grant debacle, in which HUD found serious conflicts of interest with the city in the grant dispersal to certain nonprofit agencies?

Commissioner Houck Requests Closed Ethics Hearing Claiming A “…Personal Attack On Me”

Jeni Dodd on February 2, 2021

Last summer, I submitted a formal complaint to the Cascade County Attorney against the City of Great Falls regarding use of government resources (aka our tax money) to support a private nonprofit—Big Sky Country National Heritage Area Inc. I cited portions of both the Montana Code Annotated and the Official Code of the City of Great Falls that I felt were violated.

BSCNHA Inc is the organization pushing National Heritage Area designation for ALL of Cascade County and a large portion of Chouteau County. This includes ALL PRIVATE LAND found within the NHA’s proposed boundaries.

The county attorney referred my complaint to City Attorney Sara Sexe.

By law, the Ethics Committee is an initial step before the county attorney can consider the complaint.

After many months of waiting, I’ve been granted a hearing before the City of Great Falls Ethics Committee. The hearing is 3 p.m. on Wednesday Feb 3 in the city commission chambers (Civic Center).

Strangely, unlike other city meetings this one will offer no opportunity to comment by phone, nor will it be broadcast online. However it is a public meeting, so interested folks can attend in person.

Through extensive research, I have proof that city officials provided mapping services, space for meetings and more, to BSCNHA Inc, using city employees on city time and with city resources. City officials have also admitted in their responses to having assisted BSCNHA Inc.

The city’s main argument for providing assistance to this private nonprofit’s project is that the NHA is “city-sanctioned.” The city claims that the following ambiguous statement, found in a 2013

Great Falls Growth Policy Update, proves that the city “sanctioned” their support of the NHA:

“There is great interest in designating the Missouri River and its association with Lewis and Clark, as a National Heritage Area. Such a designation would further bolster the tourist potential of Great Falls.”

Please note that this statement came before BSCNHA Inc was formed in 2015 and certainly, long before the NHA draft feasibility statement was released last year detailing the NHA proposal and area boundaries.

So how can the city claim they were on board with this NHA project in 2013, when it was not a project then, but merely an abstraction?

Further, the proposed boundaries of the NHA have changed over the years and currently bear little resemblance to its earlier concept, which was mostly a narrow corridor along the Missouri River.

Also note that the statement makes no claim that the city will commit employee time and resources to the National Heritage Area effort or to BSCNHA Inc.

In fact, the city commission never voted on providing our government resources to support this private nonprofit. Instead, certain city officials through the years deemed the NHA was a “worthwhile” project and that was enough for them to justify allocating taxpayer-funded city resources to BSCNHA Inc.

Even though my complaint contains no specific allegation against her, City Commissioner Tracy Houck asked for this hearing to be a closed (not public) meeting, stating—“This appears to be a personal attack on me.”

Wow, does she really think everything is about her or is she merely attempting to quell the public’s free speech and right to petition government with her phony accusation? Either way, it’s reprehensible.

Houck has served on the city commission since 2016 and is still apparently ignorant of the criteria that would warrant a closed meeting.

In my opinion, her request that this complaint alleging city malfeasance be relegated to a closed meeting, is, in itself, a violation of public trust.

By the way, I only discovered the changes in meeting rules I mentioned earlier by accessing the agenda packet here: https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/greatfls-pubu/MEET-Packet-cd5ab08251354a07b6fede78acd47fc0.pdf

So do you think the city could have mustered the common decency to let me know by directly communicating with me, the complainant, that their meeting rules had changed? Or is that too much to expect?

I invite interested citizens to come to this hearing to show support for holding our city officials accountable for their actions. Written comments will also be accepted.

Email comments to: kartis@greatfallsmt.net. Include “Ethics Complaint Agenda Item #3” in the subject line, and include the name of the commenter and either an address or whether the commenter is a city resident. Please ensure that comments arrive before 10 am on Wednesday. February 3, 2021.