Rick Tryon is an entrepreneur, a singer-songwriter, and is currently serving a four year term as a Great Falls City Commissioner. Helping Montana become an even greater place to live, play and work is Tryon's passion.
I happened to be reading a Facebook comment thread the other day in which quite a few Great Fallsians were weighing in on what they’d like to see in our town. One of the comments, from Great Falls city commissioner Tracy Houck, provides an example of how public officials and politicians skew and massage facts to make themselves look better or avoid accountability.
Houck starts her comments with “Just a few clarifications here…”, but what follows aren’t really clarifications at all, but rather lies of omission and spin.
There are public officials at all levels, including here in Great Falls, who assume that the public is under-informed as to the details of public policy and official activities. This assumption, which many times is correct, can lead to folks like Houck taking advantage and trying to slip little deceits and sneaky lies into the public dialogue.
So let’s unpack Houck’s comments line by line and attempt to uncover the tracks she tried to cover up. In response to a thread comment which suggested that the City of Great Falls lost $200,000 in grant funding, Houck writes the following:
“Another clarif, no one, including the city, lost a $200,000 grant this year.”
The fact is that in a February 5, 2018 (this year) letter from HUD it was confirmed that $199,153 in 2017 CDBG local funding was suspended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). That money had been approved for NeighborWorks Great Falls, Great Falls Development Authority, Habitat for Humanity, Opportunities Inc., and Rural Dynamics. The removal of funding for those local nonprofit organizations was due to conflicts of interest, including by Houck, in the CDBG fund distribution process.
Contrary to Houck’s misleading statement, those local Great Falls organizations lost their funding. In addition Paris Gibson Square (Houck’s employer) had their funding, $27,927 denied retroactively by HUD due to Houck’s own conflict of interests.
So while $200,000 was not technically “lost” to the City of Great Falls, Houck knows full-well that several local organizations lost almost exactly $200,000 in funding and we taxpayers may still be required to pay back $522,252 in already spent CDBG funding if all the corrective requirements aren’t met to the satisfaction of HUD, as outlined in the letter linked above. All because of Houck’s, and others, intentional conflicts of interest since 2012.
Here’s another line from Houck in which she attempts to further obscure the truth and deceive the public in order to evade responsibility:
“When I saw the final scores of the CDBG allocations, I questioned the process.”
Questioned the process? Actually what Houck did was to try to use her position and influence as a city commissioner with access to inside information in order to reverse the decision made by the Community Development Council to not fund PGS, her employer, an action for which she was reprimanded and warned in a hand-delivered letter from the City Attorney.
Once again, the HUD letter makes it very clear that Houck’s actions in this instance are a conflict of interest and a violation of HUD rules and standards, as she is listed as one of 14 individuals who had access to inside information etc.
“With regard to the City of Great Falls, we consider any member of the City’s Commission or Community Development Council to be in a decision-making position and able to gain “inside information” on the CDBG funding process. The City’s letter dated December 20, 2017 identified 14 individuals who participated in the Commission or Council between 2012 and 2017, and who would also be identified as persons covered by Section 570.611(c). In total, $522,252.00 was awarded by the Commission and Council between 2012 and 2017 to entities from which the 14 members noted above, or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, obtained a financial interest or benefit.”
I wish public officials like Houck would just be honest and stop with all of the obfuscating and intentional deception. We’re not children or fools who are incapable of understanding facts or what’s going on in our local government.
Citizens now have the tools and resources to inform themselves and we are becoming more and more aware. The phony, pretty little lies will no longer work.
“One has to understand the ‘special’ relationship between the City Commission and the Great Falls Public School District. In many respects, I think the school district has more influence on what goes on in Great Falls than does City government.”
Having researched and written several pieces here and elsewhere about the topic, I know something about the good ol’ boys and gals club in Great Falls and our current dishonest, do-nothing city commission. There is no longer any doubt that the current crony system is still alive and well here in River City. If anyone doubts it I would refer them to the following:
But back to Faccenda’s contention about a special relationship between the City Commission and the school district – I did a little digging. And it didn’t take too many shovelfuls to discover that the relationship is not just ‘special’ but so cozy as to be downright intimate.
Here are some facts concerning our current city commissioners:
Bob Kelly – On her LinkedIn profile, Sheila Kelly, Mayor Bob Kelly’s wife, is listed as a “Community Organizer” for the local political action committee Kids Education Yes (KEY) from “Dates volunteered Apr 2006 – Present Volunteer duration12 yrs 3 mos…KEY advocates for a strong school system, educates voters on school funding issues and mobilizes community resources to ensure adequate funding for Great Falls Public Schools.”
Tracy Houck – Houck is currently the Executive Director at Paris Gibson Square Museum which is housed in a school district (taxpayer) owned building and property. That property is leased from the District for $1 per year contingent on yearly District approval.
Mary Moe – Moe is a former GFPS Board of Trustees Chair and longtime advocate for and employee of our local public education system.
Owen Robinson – Robinson donated $10,000 in 2016 to the Yes For Kids political action committee to promote and advertise for the passage of the taxpayer funded $98 million local Great Falls school infrastructure bond.
Bill Bronson – Bronson as a city commissioner in 2010 encouraged a GFPS Facilities Task Force to get some city Community Development Block Grant funds because there was some “grumbling” going on in the City about how those funds were being distributed and apparently he was concerned that the dishonest, crony process would change before the District could get some. You can find the details here.
Is there anything inherently wrong with these kinds of City Commission/school district relationships? No, not at all. In fact in most of the cases listed here the work by these folks is quite admirable and worthy of respect and kudos.
“When it comes time for our current City Commission to vote on or to exercise their individual or collective influence on any matter at the nexus of City and District interests, it appears very clear where their biases lie.”
But these relationships are also informative and in the interest of transparency the public should be aware of them. When it comes time for our current City Commission to vote on or to exercise their individual or collective influence on any matter at the nexus of City and District interests, it is very clear where their biases lie.
In addition, since apparently these city commissioners have never met a local tax increase they weren’t in favor of, whether it’s a Park District or a School District tax increase, it makes one wonder who’s looking out for taxpayers like Joe and Betty Sixpack here in Great Falls.
The current District construction projects within the city are one such example in which we’ll see this intimate relationship between the City Commission and the GFPS District play out.
A Facebook friend of mine recently sent me this screenshot of a comment thread he was involved in just a couple of days ago. The Trump hater in this thread is also a Great Falls resident.
The last comment in the thread is particularly troubling. It appears it’s now just commonplace to label our fellow citizens and neighbors with which we disagree politically as Nazis. In just the last few days on national television I’ve heard otherwise intelligent folks compare the family separation tragedy on our southern border to concentration camps and the Holocaust. I’ve heard Trump referred to as Hitler and anyone who doesn’t participate fully in the unhinged hate-Trump orgy as Nazis and Brownshirts.
Among the several disturbing problems associated with playing the ‘Nazi card’ and comparing 21st Century American issues, social context, and contemporary politicians with Hitler and Nazi Germany are the following:
It ignores actual history. People who make such comparisons only prove their own historical ignorance.
Such comparisons dumb down and cheapen the real horrors of the attempted extermination of an entire race during the actual Holocaust.
It’s dangerous. The extreme acrimony and hatred have reached a boiling point and will result in violence if it continues unabated.
Why is it dangerous? Because when you point at those who support or voted for the President and paint them with the Nazi brush you turn them into the worst villains imaginable. Your neighbors, friends, folks standing next to you in the grocery store checkout, sitting next to you in the pew, even your own relatives are transformed into killers, torturers, monsters. Because they don’t hate Trump sufficiently?
It dehumanizes your fellow citizens, your fellow Montanans. And when you make them less than human, when you make them evil personified, then any kind of action against them seems justifiable. After all, the world is better off without those evil Nazis so it must be for the greater good to hurt them. To kill them. Who could blame you for hurting or killing a damn Hitler loving Nazi Brownshirt?
“After all, the world is better off without those evil Nazis so it must be for the greater good to hurt them. To kill them. Who could blame you for hurting or killing a damn Hitler loving Nazi Brownshirt?”
Don’t believe me? Just look at Peter Fonda’s despicable Tweets:
So if you’re a Trump Nazi family member or Brownshirt Cabinet official, or even staff, then it’s okay to whip you, strip you, poke you, rape you etc. Because, you know, Nazis deserve it.
Of course, most of those who oppose or who hate Trump and compare him and his voters to the Third Reich don’t intend to hurt others. But there are plenty of unstable folks out there who listen to the Nazi nonsense being spewed out by others and who could take such language as not just a justification but an invitation to harm others.
It also works the other way. How long will it be before some Trump supporter somewhere isn’t going to take being called a murderous Nazi with patience and civility. Think about it.
Time to tone down the rhetoric. We can do better. We must do better.
I am very optimistic about the future of Great Falls, in part because so many citizens are starting to pay more attention to local public affairs and officials.
Recently someone sent me the minutes from a May 25, 2010 Great Falls Public Schools Facilities Task Force Focus Group meeting at which then and current Great Falls City Commissioner Bill Bronson was a guest. I found Bronson’s comments at that meeting 8 years ago to be very interesting in light of the recent fiasco surrounding the City Commission’s disbursement of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) taxpayer funds.
I also found those comments to be further confirmation of what I and others have been saying concerning the blatant conflicts of interest within our City Commission – and that is that Bronson (and others) knew that what they were doing was wrong. Their self-serving conflicts of interest were entered into intentionally and possibly with full knowledge that the City’s CDBG allocation process did not comport with the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) standards, ethics and rules.
Here is the portion of the minutes reflecting Bronson’s comments to the Facilities Task Force:
“Also keep in mind that within the city, there is a little grumbling how we are allocating the City’s CDBG Community Development Block Grant money. He expects changes will be made over next few years. They might want to look at a few big projects and fund them now and get them done; have the other projects wait until the bigger ones are accomplished.”
In other words, “get as much money as you can now before they change ‘how we are allocating’ the CDBG funds, because there’s some grumbling going on.”
In hindsight we now know that the Community Development Council, members of which were appointed by Bronson and others on the City Commission, was comprised of folks who were applying for funds at the same time they were voting to decide who got the funds. Nice little racket, huh?
“In hindsight we now know that the Community Development Council, members of which were appointed by Bronson and others on the City Commission, was comprised of folks who were applying for funds at the same time they were voting to decide who got the funds. Nice little racket, huh?”
“With regard to the City of Great Falls, we consider any member of the City’s Commission or Community Development Council to be in a decision-making position and able to gain “inside information” on the CDBG funding process. The City’s letter dated December 20, 2017 identified 14 individuals who participated in the Commission or Council between 2012 and 2017, and who would also be identified as persons covered by Section 570.611(c). In total, $522,252.00 was awarded by the Commission and Council between 2012 and 2017 to entities from which the 14 members noted above, or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, obtained a financial interest or benefit.” (emphasis added)
Of the 14 individuals referenced in the HUD letter as being “in a decision-making position and able to gain ‘inside information’ on the CDBG funding process” since 2012 only Bronson is named by the City for each year – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 – as being in conflict and violation because as a City Commissioner Bronson voted to approve hundreds of thousands of CDBG dollars to NeighborWorks Great Falls while his spouse was employed there.
From the HUD letter: “Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to ‘inside information’ and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.”
But now it appears that Bronson knew something wasn’t exactly kosher about the process back in 2010 and even encouraged the Facilities Task Force to get it while the gettin’s good.
If you read the minutes carefully you’ll also see that “Carlie and Bill also stated that their committee Weed and Seed may have an account…” etc. What’s not mentioned in the minutes is that Bronson’s wife was the paid Director of the Weed and Seed program at the time.
The ‘grumbling’ Bronson referred to back in 2010 has now turned into a loud roar and HUD has severely chastised the City of Great Falls for allowing the dishonest distribution process to go on for so long. In addition HUD has revoked and rescinded tens of thousands of dollars and identified over $500,000 in CDBG funds improperly allocated in Great Falls. We taxpayers may have to pay some or all of that back.
Why are we in this position? Because public officials like Bronson betrayed our trust and continued wallowing in their self-serving conflicts of interest even when they knew it wasn’t right. Let’s make sure those days are over.
Last week I took a trip to Bozeman, MT and spent a couple of days in the area. Wow, talk about an eye-opening experience! I hadn’t been there in a good many years and I assumed it was pretty much the same Bozeman I knew from back in the day and have since heard about: a smallish college town with the attendant economic and cultural advantages and average growth. Oh boy, that doesn’t even begin to cover it, folks.
The Bozeman area is booming. What do I mean when I say ‘booming’?
Well, just driving around the area for awhile my wife and I were amazed at the new construction going on everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Both commercial and residential – lots and lots of residential.
We went downtown on a Friday morning and there was no place to park for blocks and blocks (no meters either). There was quite a bit of both foot and vehicle traffic in all of the commercial and business areas we visited. A “bustling downtown” would be a big understatement for sure with shops and restaurants and stores all doing a very brisk trade.
We saw a busy diverse nightlife, a vibrant cultural scene, and lots and lots of younger folks everywhere we looked. There is a palpable atmosphere of excitement and activity in Bozeman that is pretty rare in my experience and basically non-existent in Great Falls, which seems like a sleepy little retirement community in comparison.
Soon after we returned from our trip a friend sent me a Bozeman Chronicle newspaper article written almost a year ago by a former Great Falls resident and GF Tribune reporter, Eric Dietrich. Following are several quotes from Dietrich’s piece which I found to be especially relevant and poignant because of his unique Great Falls-to-Bozeman perspective as a journalist.
On crime and poverty – “Plus — compared to Cascade County, which includes Great Falls — Gallatin County has a quarter less violent crime, half the child poverty and a third the teenage birth rate.”
On population trends – “Great Falls, its economy anchored by Malmstrom Air Force Base, is in a similar boat. Hovering around 60,000 for decades, the Census Bureau’s most recent estimate is that its population dropped by 370 people between 2015 and 2016.”
Source – US Census Bureau (from Dietrich Bozeman Chronicle article)
On age demographic – “At one point, I swung by a young professionals group in Great Falls hoping to make friends, only to realize that their cut off for “young” was age 40…
Nearly half our (Bozeman) population is between the ages of 18 and 34, according to census data, compared to just a quarter of Montanans as a whole. Of the 47,000 Montanans in that age range who hold a college degree, Bozeman is home to 12 percent of them — three times our share relative to our portion of the state’s overall population.”
On crime and poverty – “Plus — compared to Cascade County, which includes Great Falls — Gallatin County has a quarter less violent crime, half the child poverty and a third the teenage birth rate.”
There’s no doubt that the Bozeman/Belgrade area is booming with opportunity, enthusiasm, economic activity and cultural vibrancy. There’s also no doubt, however, that along with all of that there are problems as well, like sky-high housing and other cost-of-living prices.
I think many folks in Great Falls need to take off the rose colored glasses and stop pretending that we’re “doing just fine” here. We’re not. Take a couple of days and go to Bozeman and really look at what’s happening there. Compare what’s going on in Great Falls with what’s going on there – it’s two different worlds.
If we want more money for public schools and infrastructure in Great Falls we’re not going to get it by hitting up the same aging demographic of taxpayers living on fixed incomes time after time.
“If we want more money for public schools and infrastructure in Great Falls we’re not going to get it by hitting up the same aging demographic of taxpayers living on fixed incomes time after time.”
If we want local small business to prosper and have a chance to be sustained long-term in Great Falls then we need a growing population and higher incomes.
If we want to attract modern industries and higher paying jobs then we need a skilled workforce, leadership with a vision and an end to the crony politics, not-in-my-back-yard attitude, and small-town good ol’ boy mentality that currently reigns in River City.
I love my hometown of Great Falls and I’m not moving anywhere, not yet at least. I’m also not suggesting we should or could be exactly like Bozeman, Missoula, Helena, Kalispell or Billings, all places on the move while we continue to struggle to remain stagnant – but we can and should do a better job of creating opportunity and prosperity.
One way to help do that is to find out what others are doing and learning to adapt and adopt their vision and success.
As I have chatted with folks around Great Falls over the past two weeks since the May 8th mail-in school district levy and Park District 1 election, folks have expressed some surprise that the school levy failed while the Park District proposal passed. I’ve wondered the same thing myself because the school levy was a much smaller tax increase proposal, $1.49 million, than the Park District proposal, $1.5 million annually for the first three years up to approximately $12.6 million over 20 years.
Now it seems likely that one of the main reasons that happened is because a lot of voters may not have been aware that the creation of Park District 1 carries with it a significant tax increase for property owners.
Why wouldn’t voters be aware of that important piece of information? Because it wasn’t included on the ballot as required by Montana law as I and many others read it.
The ballot language for the school district tax increase included the required information – total amount ($1,349,047.67), total mill 9.84 mills, and annual cost of the tax increase per home market value ($100,00 = $13.28 and $200,00 = $26.57)
In contrast here is the exact ballot language, on the same ballot, for the creation of the Park District.
“Great Falls Park District Number 1
Shall the proposition to organize Great Falls Park District Number 1 be adopted?
(By voting yes, you support creation of Great Falls Park District Number 1 for the purpose of providing certain maintenance, purchasing and improvement services for City-owned facilities, land, and equipment under the responsibility and care of the City of Great Falls Park and Recreation Department and providing for other matters properly relating thereto.)”
That’s it. Not one word about how much it’s going to cost you, or even that it’s going to cost you, if you vote “Yes”.
Montana Code Annotated states very clearly that “…The form of the ballot must reflect the content of the resolution or charter amendment and must include a statement of the impact of the election on a home valued at $100,000 and a home valued at $200,000 in the district in terms of actual dollars in additional property taxes that would be imposed on residences with those values if the mill levy were to pass. The ballot may also include a statement of the impact of the election on homes of any other value in the district, if appropriate.” –http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0150/chapter_0100/part_0040/section_0250/0150-0100-0040-0250.html
It’s possible that a lawyer could argue what the meaning of the word “is” is and claim that the above MCA language only pertains to levies, technically, not to special district assessments but that seems a stretch to me since the resolution proposing Park District 1 includes the fiscal impact: “…the estimated 2018 assessment for a property with a 2017 Market Value of $100,000 would be $22.92 per year.”
But a simple, common sense reading of other applicable MCA language seems to close the door on any “assessment vs levy” loophole.
Then there’s this from the City Park & Rec website: “The cost of the proposed improvements for the district is $1.5 million annually for the first three years; …the assessment method will be based on taxable value; The amount of the assessment can be adjusted annually and must be set by resolution and adopted by the City Commission.”(That last sentence ought to scare the poop out every Great Falls citizen.)
Here’s my question: Was the Park District 1 fiscal impact language intentionally left off the ballot in an effort to deceive voters, making it more likely they would vote “Yes”?
“Here’s my question: Was the Park District 1 fiscal impact language intentionally left off the ballot in an effort to deceive voters, making it more likely they would vote ‘yes’?”
Who’s watching out for us, the taxpayers who pay ALL the bills? Certainly not our do-nothing, failed city commissioners and mayor who should have been on top of this to make certain that the ballot language was “the whole truth”.
I have just recently learned that a local citizen has written a letter referring this issue to the Cascade County Attorney and was told that “it would take some time for them to respond”. I will keep readers informed on the progress of this development.
In the meantime we should all be writing letters and making our voices heard – this apparent ballot sleight of hand is unacceptable and should not be allowed to stand in my opinion. I believe the appropriate course of action would be to send the issue back to the voters with the required information included on the ballot. In fact we should demand it.
A local good old boys and gals club does exist in good ol’ Great Falls, and it has real impact on our community. Despite those who yell that I am just being negative, the facts tell the story.
Crony capitalism exists to some extent everywhere and at every level, including right here in Great Falls. Anyone who believes otherwise is either naïve or intentionally ignorant. Unsurprisingly it is often the case that those who most adamantly deny the existence of a Great Falls good old boys and gals club are the same ones who benefit most from it.
In this article I will show one example of how the local crony system has worked, who has benefitted and what the consequences have been to the rest of us.
First is my definition of the good old boys and gals club, hereafter referred to as The Club:
The Club is the relatively small group of people who know each other, have common financial and political interests, often socialize together, and belong to the same clubs and organizations. They serve on each other’s bank, business and non-profit boards of directors and work together behind the scenes to effect policies that benefit each other. The Club poobahs are very good at nominating and appointing their friends and business associates to government and non-profit organization (NPO) advisory boards over those who are just as qualified but not part of the clique.
Many who belong to The Club are in the same or similar economic, social, and professional ranks – lawyers, NPO executives, CEO’s, politicians and former and current government officials etc. They contribute to each other’s political campaigns and give public and private support to each other. You can usually determine who’s “in” by looking at the political contributions of some who hold elected positions of power and seeing who gives them support. Follow the money – and the influence.
They trade in political/professional/financial favors and scratch each other’s backs. One thing The Club hates more than anything is someone who is not afraid to ask questions and call attention to conflict of interest issues, or someone who simply wants there to be full transparency and some public scrutiny.
“The Club poobahs are very good at nominating and appointing their friends and business associates to government and non-profit organization (NPO) advisory boards over those who are just as qualified but not part of the clique.”
Let’s review a series of events which transpired in 2017 concerning the distribution of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) taxpayer funds by the Great Falls Community Development Council (CDC) and the Great Falls City Commission. This sequence perfectly illustrates how The Club operates:
City appoints members of organizations which receive CDBG funds to the committee that recommends allocation of those funds, the CDC.
City gets big pile of taxpayer CDBG funds.
In their FINAL 2017 meeting the CDC recommends $0 for Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art.
City Commissioner Tracy Houck is the paid executive director of PGS and she doesn’t like zero dollars for her organization.
Tracy Houck leverages her position as city commissioner to get an unprecedented do-over on the entire CDBG allocation process.
Given time to do some backroom wheeling and dealing PGS miraculously goes from $0 to $28,000 in CDBG funding.
The city commission approves the funding with only two votes out of five.
Someone notices and says “Hey you can’t do that! Two votes out of five means it does not pass!”
City commission gets another do-over and votes again, this time approving the $28,000 for PGS with a 3 to 1 vote.
City commissioner/PGS Executive Director Tracy Houck gets your money. Houck’s daughter was also an employee of PGS,
Commissioner Bill Bronson’s son was also an employee of PGS. Bill voted yes for PGS to get the money.
Fortunately several Great Falls citizens were paying attention and called BS on this whole shady, dishonest process and wrote letters of complaint to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) office in Denver, which oversees Great Falls’ CDBG distribution. As a result HUD began to inquire and investigate.
“With regard to the City of Great Falls, we consider any member of the City’s Commission or Community Development Council to be in a decision-making position and able to gain “inside information” on the CDBG funding process. The City’s letter dated December 20, 2017 identified 14 individuals who participated in the Commission or Council between 2012 and 2017, and who would also be identified as persons covered by Section 570.611(c). In total, $522,252.00 was awarded by the Commission and Council between 2012 and 2017 to entities from which the 14 members noted above, or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, obtained a financial interest or benefit.” (emphasis added)
So how is it that these people were in a position to gain “inside information” in the Community Development Block Grant funding process?
Well, 11 of those 14 individuals were serving as members of the CDC, which was responsible for screening applications and making recommendations as to which local organizations would receive CDBG funding. The problem is that they were at the same time also employed by or board members of the organizations they were screening and recommending funds for.
The other 3 individuals are Great Falls city commissioners who not only appointed the CDC members but were also either employed by, board members of, and/or had immediate family members employed by the organizations applying for and receiving the taxpayer funds. Those same city commissioners make the final decision on which organizations get the CDBG funding, which can be tens of thousands of dollars per organization.
Here are the names of the 11 CDC members who were board members of or employed by the organizations they approved funding for.
Tina Cubbage – CDC Member – Employed by Big Brothers/Big Sisters which received $5,005 (2012)
Sandy Wright – CDC Member – Employed by Children’s Museum of MT which received $6000 (2012), $5000 (2013)
Anita Fisher – CDC Member – Employed by Paris Gibson Square Museum which received $3000 (2012), $5000 (2014)
Jolene Bach – CDC Member – Employed by Rural Dynamics which received $18,000 (2012), $7500 (2013) – Employed by GFDA which received $22,780 (2015), $40,000 (2016)
Dave Sutinen – CDC Member – Employed by Quality Life Concepts which received $7500 (2013), $5500 (2014), – Employed by Rural Dynamics which received $11,250 (2017)
Carry Koppie – CDC Member – Employed by NeighborWorks Great Falls which received $84,903 (2014)
Neil Fortier – CDC Member – Employed by NeighborWorks Great Falls which received $84,903 (2014), $22,780 (2015), $75,000 (2016), $82,903 (2017)
Dave Fink – CDC Member – Board member Rural Dynamics which received $10,000 (2015), $11,250 (2017)
Harmony Wolfe – CDC Member – Employed by Paris Gibson Square Museum
Jennifer Fines – CDC Member – Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity which received $25,000 (2015), $70,564 (2016), $65,000 (2017)
Susan Wolff – CDC Member – Board Member GFDA which received $40,000 (2017)
The level of insider rigging of the system here is stunning and it’s outrageous that it was allowed to go on for so long. This was corruption, plain and simple.”
“The level of insider rigging of the system here is stunning and it’s outrageous that it was allowed to go on for so long. This was corruption, plain and simple.”
None of these folks were knowingly violating HUD rules and standards in my opinion but those rules and standards were nevertheless violated by their actions, actions for which there have already been consequences and may well be even more serious consequences to come. And that raises an important point regarding The Club – thinking that “it’s always been done this way” doesn’t make it right and isn’t a justification for participating in a system of cronyism involving public funds. Nor does it absolve any of us from the consequences.
Those who should have known better, and I believe actually did know better but went ahead anyway, are the two city commissioners and the Mayor. For them there is no excuse.
Bill Bronson – City Commissioner – Spouse Employed by NeighborWorks Great Falls which received hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2012 which Bronson voted to approve. From the HUD letter: “Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.”
Bob Kelly – Mayor – Board Member GFDA which received $40,000 (2017)
Tracy Houck – City Commissioner – Executive Director Paris Gibson Square Museum. Houck directly intervened as a city commissioner in the process in an attempt to direct funds to PGS, her employer.
So what are the consequences of this one example of the local The Club? Let us count the ways:
Destruction of public trust in City government
Public officials unable to do their jobs because of their previous conflicts of interest
Some organizations being left out of funding because they didn’t have an employee on the CDC
The very real possibility that the City will be required to repay over $500,000 to HUD
In conclusion, not only has Great Falls been a community shoulder deep in serious cronyism, but Great Falls wins the gold medal in the Good Old Boys & Gals Olympics! Let’s stop pretending otherwise, stop allowing it to happen, and demand accountability so we can move forward with some honesty and integrity.
There’s an interesting development in the Cascade County Sheriffs race between Sheriff Bob Edwards and one of his opponents in the June 5 Democratic primary.
It first came to my attention when I saw that someone had shared Edwards’ May 4th ‘Retain Sheriff Edwards’ Facebook post following the KRTV sheriff candidates debate. In the post Sheriff Edwards alleges that sheriff candidate Jesse Slaughter, who was a Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training (POST) board member, “knew what they were going to do to me” (POST voted to revoke Edwards police and coroner certificates) and that was Slaughters reason for resigning from the POST board and running for sheriff.
Here is a screenshot of a portion of the post with the pertinent comments highlighted:
The post and the implications against Slaughters motives and timing in running for sheriff were widely shared on social media and, reportedly, through email and texts by Edwards supporters. Subsequently Slaughters supporters have fired back and claim that Edwards allegations are unfounded and patently false.
I reached out to Sheriff Edwards and asked him to respond to the counter-claims that Slaughters resignation from POST came before he had knowledge that Edwards certifications would be revoked and had nothing to do with his (Slaughters) decision to run for sheriff.
Edwards responded by sending me an email stating “Attached is the POST agenda for Feb. 7th. The day the said they were going to revoke me.” with a screenshot of the February 7, 2018 POST meeting agenda listing Slaughters resignation letter as agenda item #2.
Subsequently several Slaughter supporters have posted on social media and contacted me directly with documentation directly refuting Edwards implications about the timing and motive behind Slaughters resignation from POST and decision to run for Cascade County Sheriff.
Here is a photo showing Slaughters time-stamped POST resignation letter, dated December 4, 2017.
Here is the text of an email forwarded to me and originally sent to a local citizen from Perry Johnson, Executive Director of POST sent this morning, May 8. I’ve highlighted the portion that appears to directly refute Sheriff Edwards allegation that Slaughter knew about POST actions revoking Edwards certifications and therefore resigned POST to run for sheriff
From: Johnson, Perry <PJohnson@mt.gov> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Jesse Slaughter resignation
Good morning!
Attached please find a copy of the timeline relating to POST interaction/allegation timeline. I have also attached a copy of Jesse Slaughter’s resignation letter. I also provided information about how POST processes allegations against officers and who on the Council has the information about the allegations made and when the information would be known.
Regarding your question about Jesse’s resignation being on an agenda with Bob Edwards allegations, that didn’t happen. Jesse’s resignation was on a regular POST Council meeting agenda. The resignation was on the agenda in February because Jesse resigned in December and the POST Council did not meet again until February and that was the first opportunity to advise the Council.
Bob Edwards agenda dates and times are noted in the timeline attachment above. No mention of the allegations relating to Bob Edwards was ever placed on an agenda for the full POST Council. The only agenda that would have contained information about Bob would have been for Case Status Committee meetings. The agenda for the Case Status Committee meetings did not contain information about Jesse’s resignation. Jesse was not a member of the Case Status Committee and as such, he would not have had access to any information relating to the Committee, their discussion or their decisions.
I have provided a timeline and extensive information that I hope will address the questions you presented. The timeline clearly demonstrates the efforts POST made to thoroughly investigate and obtain information relating to the allegations relating to Bob Edwards. The dates clearly show POST made no decision pertaining to allegations relating to Bob Edwards prior to Officer Slaughter’s decision to resign from the POST Council. The timeline shows that there was no conspiracy because no action/decision had been made or taken regarding Bob Edwards at the time Jesse resigned. Jesse’s resignation was unexpected and a surprise to me and the other members of the Council.
Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or if we can be of any assistance to you.
Thanks and have a great day!
Perry Johnson, Executive Director
Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training Council
2260 Sierra Road East
Helena, Montana 59602
(406) 444-9976 Desk
(406) 444-9978 Fax
(406) 475-5524 Cell
Finally here is the timeline that Mr. Johnson attached with the email.
Adding this all up it appears to me that Sheriff Edwards is mistaken in his assertion that Jesse Slaughters timing and motives were based on inside information and were therefore nefarious in some way. Whether Edwards was unintentionally misinformed or intentionally misleading I don’t know. I emailed him and asked for his response or a clarification and have not yet heard back.
I will keep readers updated as this matter develops.
Did you know that if you own property in Great Falls but live outside the city limits you can still vote either for or against the new consolidated Park District 1 tax increase?
I didn’t know that very significant piece of information and I’ve been a voter here for decades. Someone asked me about it on Monday so I called Cascade County Clerk & Recorder Rina Moore and she confirmed to me that, yes indeed, it is a fact.
“If you are a property owner within the City of Great Falls you are entitled to vote in the current election for the City of Great Falls Park District #1. You must go to the elections office with a copy of your property taxes in order to receive a ballot. We are located at 325 2nd Ave N, Monday-Friday 7am-5pm and on election day Tuesday May 8th, we will be located at the Exhibition Hall 400 3rd St NW from 7am-8pm.”
Moore also told me that the elections office posted the information in the Great Falls Tribune three times. Did anyone see it? Usually those “public notices” are buried somewhere deep in the paper and you have to have a microscope to read them. So it doesn’t surprise me that some folks were totally unaware of this option.
“I think our public officials need to do a better job with press releases, social media and more timely notices on their websites to make the public aware of this kind of important voter information.”
I think our public officials need to do a better job with press releases, social media and more timely notices on their websites to make the public aware of this kind of important voter information. In the absence of a more robust attempt to “get the word out”, some people could come to the conclusion that there are those who prefer the public to remain in the dark on issues like this.
Anyway, I encourage everyone to spread the word about this little-known option for Great Falls property owners who live outside the city limits.
Doing some research recently on the local CDBG funding debacle I came across a couple of interesting exchanges from the June 20, 2017 Great Falls City Commission meeting which illustrates why so many folks consider our current city commission to be so out of touch with citizens.
In this first short video Commissioner Bronson is in the midst of a long-winded legal explanation as to why it’s okay for him to not have to follow the clear, unambiguous rules that are laid out in HUD guidelines. The rub here is that Bronson then calls on City Attorney Sexe to publicly validate and corroborate his justification for engaging in a blatant conflict of interest regarding the allocation of taxpayer funds.
Now take a look at another exchange between a citizen, Mr. Haffner, and Mayor Kelly that occurred at the same meeting just minutes later. Here, Mr. Haffner attempts to ask Ms. Sexe a question clarifying a legal matter but is immediately corrected by the mayor and told to direct his questions to the Commission, not Ms. Sexe.
So a city commissioner can direct a city employee in a public meeting to inform the public how justified that commissioner is in allocating our money to an organization his son works for but a citizen can’t ask that same city employee a question?
Have these people forgotten who works for who? Maybe it’s because of some kind of silly protocol but it sure comes across as arrogant and unfair.
Mr. Bronson, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Sexe and all the others up there are servants not lords. Their Cadillac city health insurance, salaries, and even the big table and fancy black chairs they’re perched on are paid for by citizens like Mr. Haffner. Like you and me.
A local good old boys and gals club does exist in good ol’ Great Falls, and it has real impact on our community. Despite those who yell that I am just being negative, the facts tell the story.
