An Open Letter To City Commissioner Mary Moe

Dear City Commissioner Mary Moe:

It was about Columbus Day, and I was seriously asking.

I first asked it on Facebook on October 11. Around the same time, the same text appeared in the Tribune as a letter to the editor. On December 7, I reposted it on E-City Beat. Four days later, I followed up with yet another post, asking:

“Should the citizens of Great Falls expect Mary Moe to pursue and advance such a policy to selectively rewrite history and act as judge and jury for naming rights and the rescission of existing historic acknowledgements?”

And what was your response to my legitimate inquiry? Crickets.

Perhaps it is inconvenient for you, as an elected official, to have to answer policy questions from constituents. All the same, I have been asking — for over three months now — first as a voter and now as a constituent, a question that you curiously refuse to answer, despite its straightforwardness: as a city commissioner, what should be the city’s monument policy?

As a legislator, and to a sympathetic audience in the Montana Cowgirl blog, you called for an end to Columbus Day as we know it. Fair enough. You and I, along with others on both sides, can agree to disagree.

But I can’t help but wonder… what is the logical bounds of your virtue signaling? In other words, Columbus was a “brutal maniac” as you write, but Merriwether Lewis and William Clark, both so central to the historical and cultural heritage of Great Falls, were slaveowners. Clark in particular was a brutal slaveowner who badly mistreated his “property.” Does that not also bother you? If it is morally upright to legislate an end to Columbus Day, shouldn’t local governments also do whatever feasible to eradicate monuments against, you know, slavery? Oh, and by the way, just overlooking city offices in Gibson Park (and on city property) stands a statue of Captain John Mullan:

Keith Petersen’s book, John Mullan: The Tumultuous Life of a Western Road Builder, asserts that John Mullan was a racist. He was upset that the Civil War was being waged on behalf of African Americans and slavery rather than maintaining the union, yet also felt that secession was a “fraud” and that war would only lead to devastation. He believed that government was “a white man’s government” and that laws should be written “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” He believed “negro suffrage was forced upon the people”, opposed Asian immigration (except for commercial purposes, such as coolie labor), and opposed naturalization of Asian immigrants. “There is no way to whitewash Mullan’s racism,” historian Keith Petersen has written. “Even for his time and that place, his opinions were vile”

Will you crusade against Mullan, too? Where do you personally draw the line? From a policy standpoint, if the killing of others should earn symbolic disqualification from the Montana Capitol (and presumably, from the Civic Center chambers as well), shouldn’t a similar standard apply for monuments inexorably tied to the the enslaving and torturing of other human beings? In your estimation, should Great Falls embrace or abandon its past — one discovered and developed in part by its slave-beating masters? I would sincerely like to know.

Lest anyone think this isn’t a small matter that you’re not personally invested or conversant in, I would remind them that in your bid for city commission, you dedicated an entire section to monuments on your campaign website: “Refining Our Processes” (I love the title, by the way)…

“We recently saw several examples of cities tearing down monuments in the heat of the reaction to the events in Charlotte, NC. [Author’s Note: I believe you meant Charlottesville, Virginia, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Many people confuse the two locales.] Having written policies for establishing and/or discontinuing such memorials forces a community and its governing body to take a step back from the emotion of the moment and apply the standards created for such a situation in the cool voice of reason. Does the City of Great Falls have a naming policy for monuments and memorials on city property? We should – and the policy should provide guidance for how that honor might be rescinded.”

OK, then. So using “the cool voice of reason” (and/or, your own personal standard of moral relativism), would you mind imparting to me and the rest of your constituents exactly what the city’s monuments policy should look like?

I’ve been asking for three months now, and you’ve said nothing. And it’s not just me. I’ve received dozens of comments from folks across the political spectrum who would simply like to know where you stand. I also know you’re reading this blog. Two days ago, Angry Reader Dennis Granlie popped off with another ad hominem drive-by (thanks for your substantive contribution as always, Mr. Granlie), one that you “liked”:

I realize it’s easier to passive-aggressively join in league with one’s ideological tribemates on social media as you did here than to earnestly articulate an actual position. Bravo. But as a concerned citizen and taxpaying constituent of the City of Great Falls, I would rather hear from you where you actually stand on an issue — this issue. We may (again) agree to disagree, but I think you owe the public a substantive and honest explanation of your position.

I sincerely hope that, on this if nothing else, we can at least agree.

Very truly yours,

Philip M. Faccenda

Missing A Few Pieces Of The Puzzle

Mr. Cahill’s recent piece, “Promises Made and Promises Kept” in response to a November 26, 2017 post, “Why is Great Falls Tax Money Leaving Great Falls?” accurate? Mr. Cahill’s explanation of the results of the Great Falls School District’s use of taxpayer’s dollars appears on the surface to be factual, but a few pieces of the puzzle are missing.

The explanation that $37 million for the Great Falls High School project did not leave Great Falls is true for now, but did not include the fact that the architectural fee calculated at 8%, or close to $3M will leave Great Falls and go to Bozeman and Seattle architectural firms except for a minor amount for some local engineering subcontracts. Is this $3M of taxpayer’s money “a small portion of the project budget” as Mr. Cahill reports, just chump change?

Mr. Cahill reports that it is impossible to know if the general construction/construction manager contract will be awarded to a local company since that decision will be made in mid-February and that “The (School District) Board of Trustees are required by state statute to award the bid (contract) to the lowest most responsible bidder without regard (to) where the bidder is headquartered”. This statement is not true because the general construction/construction management contracts awarded for the Giant Springs Elementary School and the CM Russell Facility Additions were awarded using an “Alternate project delivery contract”. This is a method used to eliminate the conventional construction bidding process and is authorized by MCA 18-2-502. One of the determining requirements for use of this statute is that “the project has significant schedule ramifications and using the alternative project delivery contract is necessary to meet critical deadlines by shortening the duration of construction”.

The School District is now concurrently trying to complete four major projects within the bonding requirements that call for bond proceeds to be spent within 5 years. Is it possible that the District has bitten off more than they can chew and the resulting completion schedule’s “ramifications” are self-imposed?

This massive project could have and probably should have been done

in phases allowing more time for comprehensive design and

competitive bidding rather non-competitive financial construction

contract awards. Competitive bidding has always produced more bang

for the buck for taxpayers.

By using the “Alternative project delivery contract” the selection process used by the District changes from an objective process to a subjective process that is no longer based on a numerical bid amount, but on the selection committee’s subjective assessment of a responding construction company’s dog and pony show. This opens up the possibility of favoritism or bias, which the enabling statute clearly warns against. Would the selection committee favor a particular construction company, or the principal of one, who made a donation to the group that worked to get the bond levy passed?

Here you can find the June 23, 2016 C-6 financial report detailing contributions to the ‘Yes for Great Falls Kids’ political action committee advocating for the $98 million school bond issue. Click the link to see if there are any local contractors on the list of donors.

https://ecitybeat1.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/321Z18Q_01Y1DYK5N0024TF.pdf

At this point, one might reasonably ask where the school district’s decision to use the “Alternative project delivery contract” originated since they confess that the District hasn’t built a new project in over 50 years and how does this non-competitive bidding process benefit the citizens of Great Falls. Mr. Cahill is right when he concludes by saying, “Taxpayers expect wise use of their hard earned tax dollars”. Is the adopted process a shortcut, or are the taxpayers being short-changed?

Take the E-City Beat poll now.

[poll id=”8″]

In the next installment, we will provide more pieces to the $98M puzzle. Stay tuned.

 

 

Principles Or Politics

A couple of months ago during the Great Falls City Commission campaign, I posted a Facebook request for then candidate Mary Moe calling for her to provide voters with a definitive position on historic monuments and references to local figures. The Columbus Day post was recently reposted to E-City Beat.

I think it is safe to say that most notable memorialized individuals from our collective history were not without flaws, especially when taken out of historical contexts and judged by today’s standards. Now historic statues are being vandalized, or removed from public property, and streets are being renamed to progressively purge any reference to notable individuals and causes not to our liking.

History is a continuum and our references to individuals should be viewed as celebrations of their accomplishments, not necessarily their personal faults, or commonly held views and practices of the times in which they lived.

In Great Falls, we have only a few statues and monuments to those who have influenced and contributed to the development of our region, but we also have schools named after national figures as do almost every part of our country. Local monuments and references include Lewis and Clark, Charles Russell, Paris Gibson, and Captain John Mullan. We know that both Lewis and Clark were slave owners and that Clark was particularly brutal to his human property.

Captain John Mullan’s statue is located at the southern end of Gibson Park and honors his work in constructing the Mullan Road which In 1978 was named a National Historic Engineering Landmark. 

John Mullan, Jr. (July 31, 1830 – December 28, 1909) was an American soldier, explorer, civil servant, and road builder. After graduating from the United States Military Academy in 1852, he joined the Northern Pacific Railroad Survey, led by Isaac Stevens. He extensively explored western Montana and portions of southeastern Idaho, discovered Mullan Pass, participated in the Coeur d’Alene War waged against the area’s native inhabitants, of whom 17 were hung, and led the construction crew which built the Mullan Road in Montana, Idaho, and Washington state between the spring of 1859 and summer of 1860.

Keith Petersen’s book, John Mullan: The Tumultuous Life of a Western Road Builder, asserts that John Mullan was a racist. He was upset that the Civil War was being waged on behalf of African Americans and slavery rather than maintaining the union, yet also felt that secession was a “fraud” and that war would only lead to devastation. He believed that government was “a white man’s government” and that laws should be written “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” He believed “negro suffrage was forced upon the people”, opposed Asian immigration (except for commercial purposes, such as coolie labor), and opposed naturalization of Asian immigrants. “There is no way to whitewash Mullan’s racism,” historian Keith Petersen has written. “Even for his time and that place, his opinions were vile”

(Petersen, Keith (2014). John Mullan: The Tumultuous Life of a Western Road Builder. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University Press. ISBN 9780874223217.)

Will a city commissioner Mary Moe offer a motion to haul off Captain Mullan into the sunset and rename the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center, simply the Corps of Discovery Interpretive Center?

The following by now commissioner elect Mary Moe appeared in her Facebook campaign site: https://www.moe4citycommission.com/refined-processes/

“We recently saw several examples of cities tearing down monuments in the heat of the reaction to the events in Charlotte, NC. Having written policies for establishing and/or discontinuing such memorials forces a community and its governing body to take a step back from the emotion of the moment and apply the standards created for such a situation in the cool voice of reason. Does the City of Great Falls have a naming policy for monuments and memorials on city property? We should – and the policy should provide guidance for how that honor might be rescinded.”

Should the citizens of Great Falls expect Mary Moe to pursue and advance such a policy to selectively rewrite history and act as judge and jury for naming rights and the rescission of existing historic acknowledgements?

We recently witnessed the gravity of the issue with the resignation of a school district trustee over the naming of the New Roosevelt School. Quite frankly, Mansfield Elementary sounds pretty good to me, or maybe it could have just been named Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary.

Be it Principle, or Politics, I think you owe us an answer, Commissioner-elect Moe.

Columbus Day: Will The REAL Mary Moe Please Stand Up?

Editors note: the following comments originally appeared on Facebook and in the Great Falls Tribune in early October, 2017 – prior to the Great Falls municipal election. Subsequently Ms. Moe has been elected to the City Commission. We are publishing the letter here as a prelude to a follow-up piece coming soon. Stay tuned.

Like many Italian Americans I will be recognizing Columbus Day as a way to take pride in my Italian heritage. Great Falls far left City Commission candidate Moe seeks to eliminate the celebration of Christopher Columbus the Italian explorer, who was first honored in America in 1792.

In her Montana Cowgirl blog piece of Feb 15, 2017 she referred to Columbus as “not a hero, but a brutal maniac”.
(http://mtcowgirl.com/2017/02/15/whitewash/)

Candidate Moe, who supported MT HB 322 which would have eliminated Columbus day in Montana, should be singing the Sam Cooke song “Don’t know much about History”.

The more relevant issue than Moe’s knowledge of history is whether she can represent the people of Great Falls with her far left views.

We know how she feels about Columbus, but how does she feel about the fact that Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame, held slaves, or St Patrick who mistreated the Druids. Will she vote to eliminate the statues of Lewis and Clark and the celebration of St Patrick’s Day in Great Falls? After all fair is fair.

We should take off Moe’s mask hiding her liberal record after Halloween by voting for the candidates who can represent Great Falls values.

Philip Faccenda – Proud First Generation Italian American

Point Counterpoint

This morning, we published a post by George Nikolakakos, leader of the Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens group opposing the slaughterhouse.

In the interests of balance, several days ago we also reached out to Todd Hanson of Norseman Consulting Group, who has been working with project developer Friesen Foods. We hope Hanson will take us up on our offer to write.

Since this is a such an important community issue with many layers to it, I would also invite anyone else who has some degree of knowledge and who can write to please do so.

We want your IDEAS!

We’re Back

After several months of inactivity, E-City Beat is back! We have spent our hiatus adding contributors and developing an improved reader-centric site and we think we have succeeded. Our core values remain the same: to examine and to comment on important and timely issues that matter to residents of Great Falls, our Central Montana region and our State. We will continue, with your help and commentary, to advocate for Accountability and Transparency in our various units of government, be it our City Commission, our School District, or our Montana Legislature and State Bureaucratic maze.

Remember that you own the resources of our community, its City government, its Parks and its Schools. If you are tired of USA Today and Associated Press sourced and slanted reporting, then E-City Beat will be for you and you won’t have to keep your thoughts under 250 words, or wait 60 days before you can comment again on issues you care about. E-City Beat is all about YOU, whether your focus is on Economic Development, creating a more business friendly environment in Great Falls, the importance of Art in our community, or if you just want to share the world’s best brownie recipe, we want to hear from you. As Brett Doney recently said: “Great Falls needs to Retain and Recruit Talent”. We need your IDEAS.

We invite all points of view from writers and cartoonists on relevant issues facing our City and State.

Former Mayor Michael Winters Goes On The Record

On Tuesday, May 16, Gregg Smith wrote a post about the City’s CDBG allocation process, our fifth and most recent article on the topic. Since the publication of our first CDBG content on April 27, this blog has received nearly 8,000 page views. Suffice it to say, then, that this has swelled into an issue of significant community interest.

Things picked up over the past week. The blog (and I, personally) received a number of emails and calls from members of the public.

I can report with confidence two things: 1) people are starting to pay attention to local government, and 2) most of these folks are really, really unhappy with the CDBG shenanigans. One of the dozen or so folks who wrote to us recently was our former Mayor, Michael Winters. He said he wanted to chat, and graciously agreed to be interviewed about CDBG, the City Commission, and the state of Great Falls.

Below is the transcript of my interview with Mayor Winters…

Enjoy!


You reached out to us, and said you wanted to chat. What’s been on your mind these days, Mayor Mike?

I think what’s been on my mind as we go into the summer months (and I don’t pay much attention to the City Commission meetings for the most part), but I’ve seen some different things that I’d question. The business with the one commissioner.

I just have to say, is it youthful ignorance? Is that commissioner not aware of what appears to be a conflict, or does this commission just not give a rat’s tail about conflicts or not? A good example of that is all the political activity going on Paris Gibson Square. I remember they had Governor Bullock there and the whole lineup of Democrats for some rally before the election, but only on the one side. Then they use it to get people to the women’s march. I don’t believe an organization that is sponsored by the people’s funds should be doing such. I don’t think our tax dollars should be supporting a place that encourages political activism, no matter who it would be. In this case, it’s totally for the one party. It’s a museum, and I don’t believe that’s the workings of what a museum ought to be. They should be neutral. People have their own feelings and agendas and should be able to express them, but not through the properties that are commonly held.

The prior commission showed integrity, and they showed the wherewithal to do the right thing, all the time. I don’t see that we have a great deal of leadership right now. We need accountability. This issue with the conflict is, this is the right opportunity for the mayor to offer a public statement about this, yet the mayor has said nothing. Is that leadership?

It appears to the people who have talked to me (and people will stop me in the stores), and they question the integrity of what’s happening in the city. What is integrity? It’s doing the right thing while nobody’s watching. Some can’t do the right thing when the people are watching! And if you can’t do that, then you can’t possibly represent all the people.

The idea of conflicts of interest, there should never be a conflict of interest. You’re not there to serve your own interests or ideas, you’re there to represent the people in the people’s house, and that’s the Civic Center. You have to put your own ideas in your back pocket and listen to what the people have to say.

I wasn’t what you would call the typical mayor. What we had was a huge influx of money from upper-echelon people to replace me. The election was financed on different skillsets, however, the community knew my skillsets. But who is being represented now? Are we representing the elites in town, or are we representing the average, hard-working community supporters?

I think the important part of being a commissioner or mayor is knowing how to get along with people. It doesn’t mean you always capitulate, but you must be able to read people, understand people, and you’ve got to listen to people. When my phone rings, it didn’t matter what time it was, I would always answer it. When they would call, they weren’t practicing dialing the telephone, they wanted to talk to the mayor. Our commission addressed everyone’s concerns equally. The prior commission also worked to the point where the department heads addressed people’s concerns and people over time were able to put trust back in city government, and that is just a fact.

If you were still mayor, and these conflicts presented themselves on your commission, how would you handle the situation?

The mayor is only one representative, but you really are the number one citizen in a lot of ways, and I think within the parameters of what he can do, I would have put a stop to all conflicts of interest, and I would have no problem whatsoever letting all the commissioners know that I would do that. I would say so publicly, and I would put a stop to it on the spot. Now unfortunately, that hasn’t happened here.

The last commission brought back a higher level of understanding, of integrity, of trust, that the working class person could call a commissioner and get a straight answer. We did the same working with the city manager and the departments, that the people are the ruling clan, and that we need to represent them correctly, and strongly.

Employees of the city government are employees of the general public, and the general public are the customers – you have to listen to them, respect where they are coming from, and if they have problems that can be negotiated or comprised, that’s what you have to be doing. You have to be representing the entire community, not just certain special interest groups – and that’s what seems to be happening currently.

What do you attribute to the relative lack of growth in Great Falls, and what would you like to see happen?

It’s our attitude. Community attitude. “Not in my backyard.” It’s OK to have the small community atmosphere and attitudes, but that impedes growth. And rather than accepting what’s given to us, let’s reach out to other potential businesses. When I was mayor, I reached out to a number of businesses and asked them to come here, businesses that would have added to our potential growth. One had considered us seriously, one major company in particular was interested in coming here. They sent their real estate person here to look us over. But we had a snowstorm in December when he came, and the attraction unfortunately wore off in a hurry.

I also don’t view Great Falls as just Great Falls. It stretches out to Simms, Augusta, and beyond the physical borders of Great Falls. At the Veteran’s memorial, and I did this for the memorial and our community, now we have 250 Blackfeet warriors’ names on our memorial. We did that by reaching out. You have to reach out.

We have the potential of serving and being an example of all the communities within our reach, we could absolutely be the shining star on the prairie. It’s what we the people want and if we the people want our community to grow, then it’s about reaching out to the people we want and who need us. That’s growth.

One of the largest and major concerns I have is the “not in my backyard” philosophy. We want growth and we want to stimulate the economy, we want jobs and industries, as long as it doesn’t impede the flow of traffic, or their views, and I don’t mean their political views. For the most part, the community wants to come to the commission meetings and air their views when there is a conflict, when they feel like they’re being stepped on, and when they feel like their personal standard of level is being compromised, and a good example of that was the conflict in the Fox Farm interchange.

There are other things we can do, though.

What has the community done to reach out to the universities? We have a private university that graduates people, but what have we done as a City to encourage them? What kind of programs have we offered as a community to help those folks out? Have the city offices made it easier for people who want to come here? Have we made it more appealing for people who want to come here? Have we as a community said, “Hey, this is an enticing place”? Yeah, we have a river, 50-some miles of a trail, but most of it is never touched. There could be a rowing club, there could be more festivities and events on the river. The community needs to pick up and work in unison with city government. City government cannot and should not do it alone. You need the cooperation of everyone in the community.

People say, we need this industry to come here or that industry to come here, but wouldn’t it be nice of some of those folks actually invested their money to bring those industries there themselves? That’s the only way it’s gonna get done.

If you don’t like something, how can you help correct it? How can you make our community more pleasantly appealing to other folks? We’re a very friendly, accepting community, we’re a generous community. At the same time, if you want to attract other people, there must be something more fundamental and on the ground to make people come here.

You served three terms as mayor. Of all the commissioners, who did you most enjoy serving with and why?

I enjoyed all five of us working together, and we relied on each other for different guidance. The one commissioner that I felt the most in tune with was Bob Jones. He and I both have the sound basic structure that we both understand the public. And I like Fred Burow because of his common sense approach to things. I like Bronson because he has a legal background, though he sometimes over pushed that. We came together and worked together as a team. I liked Mary Jolley a great deal. She was a very good commissioner, and I’m sure she’s an excellent judge. She spoke her mind, and she understood exactly where she was in life as it pertains to being a commissioner, and she was a very, very good representative.

Rick Tryon and Gregg Smith wrote about this before. How do you assess the state of Great Falls as it stands today?

I think we are poised for continual slow and gradual growth, a potential that we can realize if we work together. We have the potential of working more with Malmstrom, having Malmstrom more involved with our community and the City, the potential of having both the universities working with us more and us with them more. I think we’re poised for a great potential jumpoff point. We have to want to reach out and understand that while some things are a given, we have to reach sometimes a little harder and a little further. We don’t have to accept the minimum.

I was very critical of the City Commission for denying Calumet a tax abatement after Calumet invested an additional $450 million into our community. What did you think of the City’s decision?

I’m not sure that it was the right decision. I think the total number [of the requested abatement] was maybe too high. But I thought the City and Calumet could have negotiated that down to a smaller number and over a longer period of time so it didn’t hit taxpayers as hard. All it did was put up a red flag to other businesses that said, “Yeah, they want us to come there, but they don’t want to help us out.” It was too high, but I thought it was a mistake to let it go entirely.

What are your thoughts on the City’s proposed parks maintenance district?

When you look at that perspective, we just had water and sewer rate increases, each time the increases happen, the people paying for them by and large don’t have the extra spendable income to kick into our local businesses, and I think that’s something that isn’t being considered. I don’t want to see the parks district. It’s too large and too much. Park and rec is my favorite department, but what we have to do is put in place some analysis into the process, to see that each arm of government is operating more efficiently. So let’s start with efficiency of departments. Then let’s adjust how efficiently they’re functioning.

I think we should consider selling some park land that isn’t being utilized. The land up by Gore Hill, the City should consider selling it. The people who have the adjoining property, they’re parking there anyway, so sell it to them. There’s a park with an active railroad on the West side, where no mother would let her child play, the City should consider selling that also.

I think we should make our parks more gorgeous, and the community can help do that too. Community interaction is just so important.

For a community that’s been losing people for the past few years, and with all the fixed incomes we have, we keep raising taxes and fees. At some point we have to hold the line.

A lot was made about the City’s cell phone ordinance down in Helena, specifically with Rep. Jeremy Trebas’ bill. Your commission instituted the ban. What say you?

I cant imagine for a moment that a legislator representing the people of Great Falls would go to the Legislature and try to enact limits on how we govern ourselves. I would have gone to the Legislature like Kelly and Bronson did. Legislators should focus on state business, and we as city commissioners should focus on city and local business.

What are you most proud of accomplishing in your tenure as mayor?

I think I’m more proud of working with the city commissioners, together as a team, working toward a common goal, and that was always to help out the community. We ended the fiasco with the ECP business, we were on the hook for $60 million flat out cash. We got out for 3.5 [million], and then were some blunders that the city already owned in debts, water credit debts, and that was included. We negotiated that $60 million down to $3.5 million.

One might argue you saved the city.

We did save the city! There’s no doubt about it. We were sitting head long into bankruptcy. We were on the course of disaster, but we got out, and it was our commission that did it – collectively. We had James Santoro, who was the City Attorney at the time and excellent counsel, and they gave us choices, but our commission made the right choices and we did it.

If you were given the opportunity to do it all over, would you do anything differently? and/or would you run again for any office?

Yes, I would have. I would have acted more professionally. I have maintained my principles and I never compromised my integrity, but I could have acted more professionally in conducting our meetings. I wouldn’t have changed a vote, and I feel like I did the job right. I could have used 50 cent words instead of 5 cent words, but I’m a straight talker and I talked how I talked.

Would I run again? I have been considering running for a spot on the city commission. I’d like to stay involved. The strongest thing any elected person should be able to say without tongue in cheek is, “I don’t know what kind of mayor or commissioner I was.” That’s up the for the public to decide and to tell me. People will ask me, “Mike, were you a good mayor?” and I’d have to say, “Well, I don’t know, you tell me, and you’d have to ask the people. That’s for everyone else to decide.”

Conundrum

noun  co·nun·drum

Our City Commission seems to be faced with a difficult decision, or as Commissioner Bill Bronson says, “it’s a conundrum.”

Here’s the issue; to vote for a zone change which would allow a four story motel, approximately 50 feet high, close to the 10th Ave S/Fox Farm intersection, or to vote against it in order to stem the proliferation of casinos — although none are immediately proposed — in the same area. The proposed change from a C-1 zone to C-2 zone would only be necessary to increase the allowable height restriction from 35 feet to 65 feet.

Re: Great Falls, Montana Code, Land Development Chapter 20, 17.20.4.020, Exhibit 20-4.

Some say that we don’t need anymore motels and those new jobs aren’t really economic development, or that the potential property tax generated by the project would not decrease our existing residential property taxes. Both of these arguments are false and here’s why. Any project built in Great Falls that provides jobs, both construction jobs and permanent jobs, is economic development, something we sorely need, even if at the very least it replaces jobs we have lost for the past several years. Simple enough to understand.

Also, any project that grows the City tax base lessens the burden on residential tax payers because the cost of government, if it remains somewhat constant, requires smaller contributions from each taxpayer.

Bronson’s “conundrum” that is keeping him awake at night is not a musical instrument, but it can be beaten. If the City Commission is too afraid of casinos, the solution that everyone can live with is a no-brainer and it does not require a zone change, only a project specific height variance for the potential four story motel property. The variance allowed under Chapter 20, 17.16.32.040 would not adversely affect the area since the motel site is a stone’s throw from the tallest building in Great Falls, the Country Club Tower, which itself is eleven stories high.

The existing C-1 zoning would remain intact, require substantially more landscaping and setbacks than a C-2 zone, and not allow additional casino development in the area.

So what’s actually going to happen? According to the Great Falls Tribune, it’s likely Commissioner Bronson will personally intervene to complicate what should otherwise be a simple process:

Bronson recommended that time be used by city planners to develop an alternate “Planned Unit Development” proposal that would give the City of Great Falls greater control over the scope and nature of development in the area.

The problem with this misguided approach lies within the City’s Municipal Code, which states:

“17.16.29.010 – Generally.

A Planned Unit Development may be proposed as a subdivision or as a single development project with multiple buildings involving a homeowners or property owners association.”

The creation of a PUD for a single building with a single owner does not satisfy the intent of the code. In this case, you would have a property owners association for governance of the PUD with one member. If you included all the properties in the existing C-1 zone, it could not be defined as a single development since those properties have already been developed.

By not finding a solution that makes sense and adheres to governing codes, the attitude of the City Commission, particularly Bronson, appears short-sighted and antithetical to City’s adopted 2013 Growth Policy;

Eco3.4.2 Promote a “business friendly” attitude and support the use of an ombudsman role in all facets of business development.

Sure, a PUD district will allow Bronson to position himself as a “compromiser” on a thorny issue, but if government refuses to get out of the way, as Gregg Smith calls for, the obvious compromise here is much simpler: it’s to grant a height variance, not create a single-property PUD.

Fred Burow On City’s CDBG Funding: “I Think It’s A Black Eye On Us”

If you skipped last week’s City Commission meeting (like the Great Falls Tribune did), then you missed a real doozy.

Unreported by local media, City Commissioner Fred Burow unloaded on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding process at the April 18 meeting:

“I have a lot of heartburn with this… I think the whole process should be called into question and reevaluated, personally, because of a conflict of interest complaint, apparently… there are other members on the CDC that are recipients of funds out of this deal… It does give a very bad appearance from the word go when you have people that are receiving the funds making decisions on who gets the funds.”

Commissioners accepted the proposed CDBG funding for 2017/2018 and set a public hearing on the matter for May 16. Within the Public Facilities portion of the agenda, Paris Gibson Square (PGS) is set to receive $27,927. However, on February 23, the Community Development Council, which recommends the allocations, agreed to deny any funding to PGS. The February 23 CDC meeting was supposedly the final meeting on these allocations.

Then, on April 3, the CDC met again and the allocations for Public Facilities changed. Now PGS is on the docket to receive the $27,927. What changed and why?

This question was partially answered at the April 18 City Commission meeting. During Commission discussion, City Attorney Sara Sexe explained there had been a complaint from an applicant for Public Facilities funding about a potential conflict with a CDC member. Sexe said she determined there could be an appearance of such a conflict along with a procedural issue and decided it would be best to reconvene the CDC to again review the presentations on those projects.

So who filed the complaint, when was it filed, and what was the nature of the complaint?

The following exchange between Commissioner Fred Burow and City Attorney Sara Sexe at the April 18 Commission meeting offered some glimpse of what had happened:

Burow: “You had a complaint. Who filed the complaint, may I ask?”

Sexe: “It was one of the applicants.”

Burow: “I asked who?”

Sexe: “Paris Gibson Square.”

Burow: “And they originally were turned down for a grant… for $38,000… I did hear some of that, probably not all of the discussion on it, but I did hear some of it, and it didn’t seem that anyone on that committee had anything against Paris Gibson or anything of that nature; it was just more of, they didn’t think that project was a viable project at the time. They just didn’t recommend it.

“So now to find out we have a whole new thing here, and what really is hard for me to go along with this it that when we have a City Commissioner that works for Paris Gibson and it’s not in a janitorial position — if I remember right, it’s CEO or something of that nature, who says hey, we’ve got to file a complaint here because something wasn’t done right and we didn’t get our allotment here or our grant.

“Not to say that that happened but that’s the perception that I see coming out of this from the public. And that’s what I’m concerned about is the perception of it. But then to see that, oh, we went back and rediscussed that and um, hmmm, we did decide to give them $27,927. I can’t quite get over that from the perception point of it.

“I think it’s a black eye on us; I do not intend to support it. I just, like I said, it just looks like a black eye. I’m sure in the public’s mind, we’ll see quite a lot of comments in the paper in the coming days about backroom deals and things of that nature, and I just refuse to have any part of that.”

Sexe went on to say that no matter who had made such a complaint, the same action would have been taken to try to remove the alleged conflict.

While Sexe is simply doing her job as City Attorney, the public heard nothing else about this (was there an actual conflict or was it hearsay?), about specifically who submitted the complaint, as well as the substantive nature of the complaint. Where’s the transparency?

But according to a records request passed on to me by a citizen, Commissioner Houck did some substantial whining in a March 13 email to City Manager Greg Doyon, accusing myriad others of having their own conflicts. In “two wrongs make a right” fashion, Houck, the PGS Director, leads her email:

“I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue since the organization I work applied.” [sic]

She also takes aim at Kelly and Neil Fortier of NeighborWorks:

“The other issue I feel insulting is that NeighborWorks, the City and GFDA were proposed to have large surplus grants. The Mayor sits as a board member to GFDA. Neil Fornier [sic], a member of the CDC is a staff person at NeighborWorks.”

But the real problem in Houck’s eyes is CDC member Harmony Wolfe:

“Lastly, I would like more than Harmony present for an update. My last communication from Harmony indicated that she was considering a potential lawsuit to the Square and the GFPS.”

Here’s her entire email:

Twenty six minutes later, Doyon emailed Sexe, telling her, “I’ll visit with you on these concerns.”

At the Commission meeting, the public was told that the conflict of interest exists on the CDC and involves an unpaid community volunteer (Wolfe). So, is Houck’s email the complaint Sexe and Burow are referring to? It sure looks like it. And if so, it warrants mentioning that Houck protested only after PGS was denied funding.

To be fair, maybe Wolfe’s presence on the CDC did pose a conflict. Still, what about the conflict of interest involving a City Commissioner working behind the scenes to advocate for the organization that cuts her checks? Does it not matter because no one bothered to complain about it? Houck can have a fiduciary responsibility to the Square, or to the City, but not to both.

I have no doubt that Sara Sexe, along with the rest of City staff, handled this matter with integrity and did the best they could with this self-dealing. Unfortunately, Houck’s behavior here is nothing new. According to the Great Falls Tribune, she unsuccessfully attempted to donate remaining contributions from her 2015 campaign to the Square — again, the (partially taxpayer-funded) organization that pays her salary. A look at her City Commission Facebook page reveals countless shares and promotions of PGS events and business. Add it all up and one wonders: What does Houck really care about… representing all of us, or leveraging her City office for personal and professional gain?

Commissioner Burow deserves a Rhetorical Pulitzer Prize for publically exposing a pervasive issue that City government entities would like to hide under the bed: conflicts of interest.

Cracking The River City Echo Chamber

“We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” – Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, in the New York Times Magazine.

While a surprisingly candid admission by Rhodes, the Obama administration’s tactics in selling the Iran deal were not in and of themselves revolutionary. It’s called spin, and self-interested government officials are regular practitioners of it. In fact, we have an “echo chamber” right here in Great Falls.

If you consume the Tribune, TV news, or if you follow the City Commissioners at work, chances are you often hear about how “Great Falls is on the move,” that our community is teeming with “momentum,” or any number of other platitudinous forms of cheerleading. It’s been that way here for as long as I can remember. Despite the rhetoric from politicians and a complicit, pro-incumbent media, the “momentum” has never materialized into something truly tangible or measurable. Over the course of decades, Great Falls, in almost every way possible, has either declined or more or less stayed the same.

This “happy talk” reached a nadir in 2015, when Bob Kelly, Bill Bronson, and Tracy Houck won the City elections. Almost overnight, media swooned about a resurgent Great Falls. If you thought Great Falls was going places before, it was really going to be something now. A November 27, 2015 guest editorial from Mike Dalton pointed to a spate of “progressive” politicians newly in power:

Obviously, a new era, an era of solid, dedicated change and growth has arrived with the appointment, hiring and electing of a new generation of leaders to guide our city’s evolution.

To name a few, we have Bob Kelly, mayor; Bill Bronson and Tracy Houck, commissioners; Jane Weber, Cascade County commissioner; Superintendent Tammy Lacey of Great Falls Public Schools; Susan Wolff, dean of Great Falls College Montana State University; Craig Raymond, city Planning & Community Development director; Jolene Wetterau, CDBG grant administrator, and Joe Petrella, city Park and Recreation director.

A January 11, 2016 Tribune headline gushed, “Kelly: Great Falls is on the rise.” Over time, the echo chamber calcified behind a rah-rah narrative built and regurgitated so many times it is now repeated without audit and has finally been accepted as “fact.” The editorial board of the Great Falls Tribune has evidently bought into the notion that it better serves the public by acting as community cheerleaders first and journalists second. When the Tribune endorsed the school bond last year, the editors pointed to our “growing” community:

We don’t buy the old arguments that Great Falls is stagnant and shouldn’t spend any more money on its schools. Great Falls has about 60,000 people and it’s growing [emphasis added]; the city has positive leadership with fine hired professionals such as Lacey and City Manager Greg Doyon, and new, energetic leadership exhibited by Mayor Bob Kelly and others. The future of Great Falls is bright.

A town of “60,00 people and it’s growing”? Amazingly, the Trib shot down its own dishonest talking point just last week, when one of its newest reporters, Seaborn Larson, published Census data showing a population decline over the past four years. (It’s not often that a media outlet busts itself for running “fake news.” Ha ha.)

That all brings us to the present, where Brett Doney wants a pile of cash for the GFDA. Over the course of lobbying the public (demonstrating a “need” for an economic development levy), Doney, in an apparent break from protocol, has actually told the truth about the state of Great Falls. According to Doney, jobs are being sucked out of Great Falls and there is a bit of a problem here — so much so that he has never been this “scared” in his 32 years of working in economic development. Meanwhile, the politicians are as clueless as ever. In the Trib’s Census story:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said the number decline doesn’t scare him. In fact, he laughed out loud when asked for comment on the decline.

With Kelly now up for re-election, and after his touting for over a year the “momentum” in Great Falls — you know, since he’s been in charge — it will be interesting to see if he is capable of graduating from amusement to substantively addressing the issue. The old adage comes to mind: The first step to solving any problem is first admitting that you have one. (Just a guess: Kelly didn’t actually find the population decline funny.)

He did offer more than laughs in the Trib article, though:

‘I think what’s important when looking at any kind of statistic like that is whether it’s the beginning of a trend or the end of one,’ Kelly said. ‘I think that away from the economic aspects, which are driven by the private entities in town, our obligation as a city is to make this town as attractive and safe here as possible.’

Well, first, we know we’re not at the beginning of a trend. The population has been declining since 2013. Last year’s drop was the largest of the four years. Second, what does Kelly mean by “attractive?” Does he mean aesthetically? I’m an architect and planner, and even I wouldn’t suggest that it is feasible or good policy to legislate aesthetics. If Kelly means attractive to private enterprise, then he and his colleagues have failed miserably. Just look at Calumet. When have you ever heard of anyone willing to invest $450 MILLION DOLLARS into our community? Doney and Jolene Schalper of the GFDA are right. We have to retain as well as attract talent. Denying Calumet a tax abatement tells you all you need to know about this City Commission. When a wealthy developer like Brad Talcott wants a TIF for retail and service jobs, the City can’t wait to throw money his way. But if the high-paying manufacturing sector comes calling — the jobs everyone claims to want here — too bad, they’re out of luck. (By the way, I have no problem with the City granting Talcott or anyone else TIF’s. It’s simply worth noting who the City has picked as the winners and losers in business.)

Think about the chill the Calumet decision sent throughout the private sector. If you’re in business and thinking of relocating or expanding here, why would you? It’s better to look elsewhere, to a community that doesn’t produce these types of headlines, one that is unapologetically “open” for business. There are plenty to choose from. And while denying the abatement absolutely devastated Calumet (this year, no employees received raises or bonuses — they didn’t even have a Christmas party), it also affects the companies that do business with Calumet, big vendors like Northwest Pipe Fittings and Loenbro. But the City just had to have that money — $6-7 million spread over 10 years, which of the City’s roughly $100 million annual budget, results in less than 1%. And remember, even if the City had granted the abatement, the amount of tax collected would have still exceeded Calumet’s pre-expansion tax rate. How much is ever enough for the City?

I wish I could tell you that at least one of the City Commissioners took a principled stand on behalf of the business community, but none did. The motion carried 5-0. Put bluntly, what this means is that there is virtually no real vision on the City Commission. For our City leadership, short-term thinking carries the day, and in their minds, nothing they do is ever wrong. Don’t believe it? In January, the City Commissioners went on a retreat at MSU-Great Falls. The minutes are posted here:

“2. COMMISSION INITIATIVES

City Manager Greg Doyon and the Commission began discussion of a look back on past year accomplishments that included:

  •   Parking survey
  •   Arco water rights
  •   Sale of Med Tech lots
  •   Sign Code revision
  •   Library Board Updates
  •   HPAC
  •   Cell phone ban/fines
  •   Holman property
  •   West Bank Landing TIF
  •   Wild fire response
  •   Fireworks town hall discussions
  •   Paris Gibson mural
  •   Final ECP audit
  •   Park Master Plan
  •   August flooding/look at infrastructure
  •   Hired three cops/GFPD good use social media
  •   Purchased fire trucks

The parties discussed the emphasis on making public safety a priority. The City Commission stayed focused and made progress. Discussion continued that, even though emphasis has been on public safety, each department is valued. The parties discussed the positive feedback they have been hearing from the community, and that the attitude of Great Falls has changed. No one has heard anything negative except at City Commission meetings. Great Falls has good momentum in the right direction.” [emphasis added]

If there was ever any question as to whether or not our City Commissioners exist in an echo chamber, your doubts can be put to rest. Great Falls has “momentum in the right direction?” Really? We’re losing jobs, population has declined for four straight years, and crime is on the rise. Meanwhile, the folks who run City Hall seem completely addicted to raising taxes and fees. They also want to grow government, never mind the declining population. How’s that for positive momentum?

Now, lest you think I’m some sky-is-falling alarmist, I can assure you that I am not. I’ve lived here continuously for the past 36 years, and in that time, Great Falls has remained largely the same community it is today. But when we constantly hear about “momentum” in the face of negatively trending big picture statistics (like jobs, population, and crime), at what point does somebody call, “Bullsh*t”?

Politicians like the mayor perpetuate this echo chamber for two reasons. First, they do so in self-congratulatory fashion to bolster their re-election chances, and second, they gin up faux-growth sentiments to convince us it’s OK to expand government and habitually raise our taxes. Bob Kelly campaigned as a “change” candidate who would “hold public meetings and commission meetings at venues that deserve attention, such as the Natatorium, on a public bus if possible, in the welding classrooms of Montana State University-Great Falls College.” I haven’t been on the public transit lately, but it doesn’t feel like the City has made any effort to come to the people. If anything, government is more insular than ever.

I don’t want elected officials whose default is to produce just positive (or negative) rhetoric. Good, bad, or indifferent, I’d just like to hear the truth. If Great Falls is to really move forward, we need to hear the truth.

We can handle it, and moreover, we deserve it.