Category: City Commission

_______________________________________________________________________

Last week a concerned citizen sent us an email he/she sent to each Great Falls city commissioner concerning the secret meetings going on between two commissioners, Moe and Robinson, and the MaClean Animal Foundation. These negotiations continue to be conducted secretly in order to intentionally exclude public scrutiny and input.

Four commissioners responded to this taxpayer’s concerns, one did not – Tracy Houck. Below is the content of the email and the responses, all of which are public record.

“Dear Commissioners,

I have been following the articles about the addition to the Great Falls Animal Shelter Cattery. I congratulate the Citizens of our community who donated all the money needed for this addition. I am very proud of this group of people.

On the other hand I am not very happy about the City Commission deciding some kind of merger should be put in place between the Maclean Foundation and the City Animal Shelter. I feel this deal is a bad one. It leaves City taxpayers paying all the bills for a private foundation. This is another poor decision by City Commission.

Taxpayers voted for the Park Plan increases and now the golf courses have been turned over to a private identity and the Natatorium is shut down due to unsafe conditions. Why don’t you spend your time working on updating items which help the taxpayers of this city instead of wasting our money on a private foundation. This City losses more money on stupid ideas than any place I have ever seen.

I will not bother to itemize the 15 and quarter million dollars lost in the last decade to stupidity. The City does not need to take on yet another waste of money project. Please start working for the benefit of our citizens and taxpayers.”

Bill Bronson’s response:

“Thank you for your e-mail and your comments.

I agree with your comment concerning the cattery.  That is why I was not in agreement with the initial decision to postpone consideration of the successful bid, and why I supported the initiative to rescind that action, bring the matter back, and allow the bid and construction to go forward.  The cattery is very much needed at this time, given the size of the abandoned cat population and the need to treat these animal humanely while they await adoption by caring individuals.

As to your statements about a proposed “merger” with Mclean, your e-mail presents an opportunity to set the record straight as to what is actually before the Commission. There is no proposal of any kind for the City Commission to consider at this time, let alone a “merger” plan.  It is true that my colleagues, Commissioners Moe and Robinson, have had some communications with representative of Mclean, but they have not presented anything back to the City Commission for consideration as of this date.  At the last work session, Commissioner Robinson indicated that he and Ms. Moe are planning to present a summary of their communications to the full commission at a work session in July.  This is a public meeting, during which anyone can come and listen to their presentation.  This will also give interested members of the public and opportunity to digest any of their recommendations before any final proposal comes before the Commission.

Any final proposal that is brought forward will have to be vetted by our staff, especially as the the financial aspects and any legalities associated with it. It will then have to go before the full Commission, in a public meeting, with opportunity for public comment, before any decision is made.

I acknowledge that some people think that some kind of a proposal has already been made to the full Commission, or has been acted upon.  It hasn’t.  I also know there is a document out there that lays out some ideas for a working relationship between the City and Mclean.  I have seen that document.  Frankly, I would not support the essentials of that proposal, as laid out, for several reasons, but I won’t get into those, as I doubt that anything of that kind will ever make its way to the full Commission.

I appreciate your concerns and would invite you to continue staying tuned to the process, and to comment on any final proposals that may come forward.  I will need input from the interested public before making any decisions of my own; the subject of animal care and protection is a complicated one, and I will need all the factual information I can get in order to make good decisions.

Thank again for reaching out.

Bill Bronson,
City Commissioner”

Mary Moe’s response:

“Dear —–:

Thank you for contacting me directly. My interest in a partnership with the Maclean Animal Care Center is based solely on the public interest in providing at least the same quality of care for animals while accruing substantial savings and/or increased revenues to the City. When we are unable to allocate the public funds necessary to staff our police and fire departments sufficiently, it is difficult to justify duplicating animal care services that other entities provide.

If the discussions Commissioner Robinson and I are engaging in with representatives from the Maclean do not arrive in a partnership that will be significantly beneficial to the City from a financial perspective, neither of us will bring a proposal forward. There’s a lot of work to do before that day comes, but I continue to believe the potential benefits to the City are worth the effort.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

Best,

Mary Moe”

Bob Kelly’s response:

“Good morning —-,
Thank you for your note below. The decision on any change regarding the current relationship between the Maclean Animal group and the City run Animal shelter will be contingent on the taxpayers of Great Falls achieving substantial savings and animals receiving the same or better care. Absolutely no decision has been made regarding changing this relationship; there are merely exploratory conversations between the interested parties. If, in fact, a proposal does come forward, it will need to be placed on a City Commission agenda for approval. The public will have an opportunity to comment and question any part of the proposed agreement. Again, we are trying to create efficiencies with taxpayers funds and would hope to direct any realized savings to other areas of concern, including public safety. Our goal is certainly NOT to increase our expenses for animal care.
However, at this time, no proposals have come forward to the City Commission. Your concern and comments will be appreciated when, and if, there is a recommendation to change the current relationship.
Please stay in touch.
Best,
Bob Kelly”

Owen Robinson’s response:

“Dear —,

Thank you for your inquiry concerning possible cooperation between the City’s Animal Shelter and Maclean. It is very early in the research phase, so it is not possible to predict any proposal which may be forthcoming nor the acceptance by the other three Commissioners to such a proposal. However, I can tell you that both Commissioner Moe and I will not make any proposal to the full Commission unless it can produce significant savings for the City – savings which could better be used for urgent needs such as public safety. So to your point, our goal is to save money which will be used “updating items which help the taxpayers of this city”. If we can’t find significant guaranteed savings for the City, we will move on without making a proposal.

Again, thank you for your inquiry.

Owen Robinson
City Commissioner”

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What someone does in their private life is none of my business, we all have our own character flaws, sins and foibles. But when a local public official lies, cheats and tries to cover up to avoid accountability then it is my business. It’s your business too, literally, because it directly affects you, your family and everyone else that lives in this community.

That’s why when I learned that Tracy Houck has filed to run for another term as a Great Falls city commissioner I was very troubled.

By way of a brief reminder here is the record and legacy left by Houck in her tenure so far as city commissioner.

• Lied to the public repeatedly about the status of her campaign finances. Lied to the local press repeatedly about the same.
• Lied to the Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices in her official written responses to the COPP about the status of her campaign finances.
• Was found guilty and fined $1200 for violating Montana’s campaign finance laws.
• Attempted to deposit left over campaign funds into the bank account of her employer, Paris Gibson Square.
• Used her position as city commissioner to get a do-over and change Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding decisions to benefit her employer, Paris Gibson Square.
• Was named by the federal Department of Housing and Urban development, along with Bill Bronson and Bob Kelly, as one of 16 Great Falls individuals engaging in intentional conflicts of interest surrounding the disbursement of CDBG funds.
• Had to be warned and reprimanded in a hand-delivered letter from the city attorney for her blatant conflicts of interest concerning CDBG funding.
• Was brought up on an ethics complaint in February and found to have been engaged in an appearance of an ethical violation surrounding the improper use of her commission Facebook page.

This list is not comprehensive, nor is it simply an outline of my opinion. These are all documented, readily provable facts.

In addition, these examples are not exaggerations of innocent clerical errors, naive missteps or as Mayor Kelly put it, “pettiness”. No, these are examples of intentional dishonesty and corruption by a local public official who is now asking us to vote for her again.

To add insult to injury, Houck has never owned up, asked the public she deceived for forgiveness, or admitted to her blatant dishonesty.

And while there was a small measure of accountability when she was found guilty and fined for violating campaign finance law, there has been zero accountability for her repeated lies to the public about that matter and zero accountability for her continuing corruption and self-serving dishonesty.

Here’s Houck’s chance to take responsibility and salvage what little integrity she has remaining. I’m asking her publicly to answer these three questions honestly and truthfully:

1. Do you still swear that you twice sent amended C-1 forms to the Office of Political Practices during your first campaign, as you repeatedly promised the public and local press including in a Great Falls Tribune article by Jenn Rowell?
   “Houck told the Tribune on Monday that she did send an amended (C-1) form in mid-July by mail (to the Office of Political Practices)…Houck said she used a copy of that form to open a campaign bank account in July.”  Or were you lying to us?
2. Did you intentionally and fraudulently backdate official COPP finance documents and submit them to the state in an attempt to cover up the lies you told as mentioned in question #1?
3. Who rejected your failed attempt to deposit your leftover campaign contributions into your employers bank account, and why was that attempt rejected?

These three simple questions are the first of several more to come.

And I hope Ms. Houck remembers that I have copies of all the pertinent documents obtained through public records requests that prove the truth about these matters beyond doubt.

If Houck doesn’t answer, or answers less than truthfully, I’ll immediately make all of those documents widely available to the public. They speak for themselves.

In the meantime I urge all concerned citizens who care about the direction of our community to contact Houck and insist she answer these first three questions ASAP. Here’s her contact information:

Tracy Houck, 781-8958, thouck@greatfallsmt.net

________________________________________________________________________

Recently, I asked Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly if he intended to endorse Tracy Houck in the 2019 City election, just as he did in 2015.

Yesterday, I emailed him this:

On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Phil Faccenda <philipfaccenda@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mayor Kelly,

In an E-City Beat post on May 24th I asked if you would be endorsing Tracy Houck in the upcoming city commission election. I, and other voting citizens of Great Falls would appreciate your answer. The election looks to become very interesting. Please email me your response. I have attached a link to the E-City Beat post in the event that you haven’t read it.

Thank you,

Philip M. Faccenda, Editor

E-City Beat

In other words, no endorsement. Now, surely Kelly’s backers in the local establishment will say that he’s waiting to see the entire field of candidates before committing to endorsing anyone. Which is sensible, in and of itself.

That said, Bob Kelly pushed hard for Tracy Houck in 2015. He has worked alongside Houck for three and a half years while on the City Commission. He knows as well as anyone about Houck’s temperament, whether or not she’s a problem solver, what kind of worth ethic she has, and moreover, what kind of character she brings to the job of representing all of us, the citizens of Great Falls. Kelly had every opportunity to rant and rave about Houck, but when asked, he didn’t even mention her name.

I appreciate the Mayor for taking the time to respond. Once the roster of candidates is set after the June 17th filing deadline, I will be sure to ask him this question one more time.

We all know how Bob Kelly’s City Commission is conducting itself in dealing with the Maclean Animal Adoption Center. But how did the City tackle this issue under its previous mayor, Michael Winters?

Winters jumped onto the E-City beat comments to tell everyone just that, and he did not mince words:

Whose style of leadership do you prefer, Kelly’s or Winters’?

_______________________________________________________________________

The developments with the potential city/Maclean Animal Center are quite disturbing to me. Yes, legally two commissioner can apparently meet with members of groups, including the Maclean. They claim these meetings are not secret because Commission Robinson mentioned investigating a city partnership with the Maclean as a commission initiative back in February. Mayor Kelly even stated that Commission Moe and Robinson’s efforts were exploratory at best.

However, documents I secured in a FOIA revealed that the effort of the commissioners are much more than exploratory, as revealed in a previous article in E-City Beat.

I want everyone to read Commissioner Moe’s comments at the May 7 commission meeting where the cattery project was finally allowed to proceed. Then I have followed with some questions I want everyone to think about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_AD0My5DA8&feature=youtu.be

Commissioner Moe speaking on the potential Maclean partnership and the Cattery decision Transcribed from City Commission meeting on May 7, 2019. Moe’s comments start at approximately 1:53:47.

“I hinted at our last meeting what I considered to be the problems with the proposal that is in front of us and I think Commissioner Bronson has alluded to the larger issue which is of greater concern to me than the one in front of us tonight.

And the larger issue is that it doesn’t make sense for a community that is as tax sensitive as this community is, to turn its back on the fact that we are duplicating services; that there are ways that we can work with the foundation to meet the missions of both and that the potential for cost savings is extraordinary.

As an example, Commissioner Robinson and I recently visited Heart of the Valley Animal Shelter in the Gallatin Valley and for a fraction of what we are paying annually, they contract with the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, at

least one other community, Belgrade, and Madison County, I believe, and if we contracted with them under the same circumstances, we would save five hundred thousand dollars a year—half a million dollars a year.

And I’m not saying that these discussions will lead us to anything close to that number but I am saying that if we can save money and provide an equal or better product, we have to let the grievances of the past go. We have to find a way to make it work. We owe that to all the other departments in this city that are struggling to perform their missions.

So I have been focused on that bigger picture at the same time that I would not want anyone in this room or beyond it to conclude that I have anything but the highest respect for the shelter staff, particularly its director who I admire greatly, or that I care less for the animals that are there which is not the case at all.

And in fact, I really wrestled with this decision because I think it takes us one more step in the wrong direction. But, and I would point out to you that when we turned down the bid a year ago, the bid at that time was for seven hundred and five thousand dollars I believe, to do the cattery. And it’s come down two hundred and fifty grand. So let’s re-examine the idea that oh, if we put this off we’ll never get that good a bid again. That may not be true.

But what seems to me is true is that more cats will be sick and probably some of them will die, and they will be in conditions that we should not say as a city that we can tolerate, so that’s animals first.

And the second one is a whole bunch of people gave a lot of money to make this happen. And it’s amazing what they’ve accomplished. And I don’t want to undermine that philanthropy in any way. I think it’s truly extraordinary and as a practical matter, as many of my CPA friends have told me—you can’t give it back. I mean, it’s not like you can just say, we’re going to do that—it’s very problematic in terms of giving it back.

So those two things have been dispositive for me. But I want you to know that I still think that these discussions are important to have, that my vote tonight does not indicate any kind of commitment to anything future with regard to the master plan at all. And that I am fully cognizant that the facility, although I’ve been assured that it will not require additional FTEs, that ultimately I believe that it will. I’ve dealt with expanded facilities and it is an increased liability on its face. So, but that said we have raised the money, we have cats that are in dire

need and so, I’m going to support this. But I want you to give me and Owen a chance to see if we can’t save this community money and the needs of these animals, just as well. And if we can’t, we can’t. But I just have to try.”

So there you have it, Moe on record, and I have several concerns regarding what Commission Moe has said in the above statement. These are but a few of the questions I would have for her:

First, Moe claims she is concerned that the cattery will add additional full time employees to the city budget. But Moe has already authored a proposal for the Maclean/City of Great Falls partnership entitled “Joining Hands” (see here). In that proposal, the city takes over responsibility for all costs for its “mission.”

What is the city’s mission you may wonder— well the city will be responsible for the feeding, housing and medical care for the animals at both the Maclean and the Animal Shelter. That certainly will cost the city additional FTEs, along with other costs they don’t have now.

How can Moe be concerned about additional employees for the cattery and not be concerned about additional employees to run the Maclean?

Secondly, is Moe merely ill informed when she stated the potential saving could be half a million dollars a year? Is she correct? No, on both counts. We know she’s not ill informed because she authored the partnership document which states the fiduciary responsibilities of both parties. She knows the city will take on the lion’s share of costs, including increased staff at city wages. She also knows that the majority of the budget now for the Animal Shelter is “personal services” which is city employee costs—more than half a million a year according to their budget.

So how can she rationalize that the increased staff needed to run both facilities and the increased cost of caring for animals at both facilities would save the city money?

The emails I secured also mention a lease. I’m guessing that means the Maclean will charge the city rent for use of their facility, which the Maclean clearly retains ownership of in the partnership. So, even more costs to the city. Where’s the savings in that?

Moe also mentioned in recent commission meetings that duplication of costs that are currently taking place and alludes to a cost savings once those duplication are eliminated. But it appears to me that the only savings will be for the Maclean, as their duplicated costs of caring for animals and running the facility appeared to be eliminated in the partnership.

Who will ultimately pay for these costs? You the taxpayer will foot the bill when additional costs are passed along to the city.

I believe that, even though these “talks” between Commissioners Moe and Robinson (who is former president of the Animal Foundation/Maclean) are apparently legal, they are not truly in the best interests of the city.

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mayor Kelly:

In the 2015 City election, you offered your full-throated endorsement for then candidate Tracy Houck to the Great Falls City Commission…..

(You wrote this on your campaign Facebook page on October 13, 2015.)

In the same election, Houck was found guilty by the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, Jonathan Motl (a Bullock appointee, one of yours and Houck’s ideological tribemates, no less), and fined to the tune of $1,000, an exorbitant sum for a politician who merely “missed” a filing deadline.

But Houck didn’t just miss a deadline. In actuality, she claimed that two pieces of mail were lost in the mail, on the same day, en route to two different offices in two different Montana cities. (No, really, that was her actual defense!)

And what was your take on your progressive running mate and her manifest transgressions? Oh, that’s right, you wrote it all off — those pesky Montana election laws —  as mere “pettiness”…..

(You wrote this on Tracy Houck’s campaign Facebook page in 2015. It has since been deleted.)

Pettiness? (You mean the law?) You’ve gotta be kidding me!

And that was just in the campaign.

Since then, and as a City Commissioner, Houck’s involvement in a matter she never should have been involved with in the first place spawned an investigation by the United States federal government into the City of Great Falls, in which the Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that conflicts of interest have run rampant in River City under your watch… with Houck and Bill Bronson as chief perpetrators, and you, too, Mr. Mayor.

So what people want to know, Mayor Kelly, is this….. do you stand by your endorsement of Tracy Houck in 2015, and do you intend to endorse her campaign for re-election in 2019?

You once campaigned as a change candidate with a devotion to transparency.

Our readership — the voting public — eagerly awaits your transparent response.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Faccenda

_______________________________________________________________________

Here’s another little window into what’s going on at our city commission meetings from May 7, 2019.

In this episode Bill Bronson launches a scoldy, pointy little diatribe against Great Falls taxpaying citizens concerning the secret meetings Commissioners Robinson and Moe were having with the GFAS MacLean adoption center about a possible private-public partnership.

Which reminds me, remember the private-public partnership the City of Great Falls entered into called Electric City Power? That little venture almost sent our city into bankruptcy and nearly into receivership thanks to geniuses like Bronson.

Anyway, back to the scolding citizens were subjected to because they dared to ask questions and point out that something didn’t look right with the backroom deals and the apparent conflicts of interest involving Robinson and Moe.

(If you have trouble playing this video you can see it online here – Bronson’s comments start at around 1:48:00.)

Bronson: “It doesn’t mean my colleagues should not continue to have those conversations…and again, they’ve put up with a lot of abuse over the last month or so and they’ve done a pretty good job of defending themselves to the point where I didn’t feel that I had to step in, but I’m going to tonight.”

“…they’ve put up with a lot of abuse over the last month or so”? Oh my, those poor, poor city commissioners! Can you imagine how abused they must feel?

I mean, how dare the taxpayers of Great Falls abuse and treat their elected public officials so horribly as to attempt to hold them accountable.

Good thing for them that their hero Bill Bronson showed up just in time to “step in” and defend them from those old mean old citizens.

Bronson: “This community, like all communities, has really got to learn you can have a difference of opinion about something and it doesn’t mean that they’re corrupt, it doesn’t mean that there’s conflict of interest…”

Said the guy who was smack dab in the middle of the shameful and corrupt Community Development Block Grant conflict of interest debacle. It’s not the citizens of Great Falls who have “really got to learn” something, Mr. Bronson, it’s you and your “colleagues”.

I guess that by thumping the table and shaking his finger at the hardworking citizens who pay ALL the bills in this community, Bronson thinks it makes him look genuinely, righteously indignant.

Naaaaahhhhh. His pontificating just make s him look like arrogant, out of touch, and undeserving of the office he holds.

This isn’t the first time we’ve had to endure Bronson’s preaching. I for one am sick and tired of him lecturing the good citizens of my hometown while he has presided over a failing status quo and a city struggling to remain stagnant for 12 years now. Go away.

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

For those Great Falls citizens who don’t attend city commission meetings, I thought it would be enlightening to provide a little window into the May 7 meeting along with some of my own observations.

First up is Mayor Kelly explaining why it’s just business as usual for city commissioners like Moe and Robinson to negotiate possible mergers between non-profits and our city government without the benefit of a public record or public input:

This also raises an issue that I and many others have been concerned about for some time now – the focus of our city commission on supporting and emphasizing non-profit and social services programs above private business development.

Kelly: “We go to lots of meetings in tandem, never as three because that’s a quorum and that requires all different types of things, and with a lot of situations around town to find out things about homelessness, about child abuse, about women against violence and about some of the other agencies that are operating in this town.

If we can bring assistance to them from our positions we’ll bring information back to the commission.”

Homelessness, child abuse, and violence are all things we should all be very concerned about. And public resources at various levels are allocated to professionals to address these problems, resources which won’t be there in a stagnant economy which doesn’t maintain a vibrant private sector business environment.

But are these the kinds of things we want our city commission engaged in?

Do we have a city government whose primary responsibility should be to babysit and take care of social services agencies? I don’t think so.

Perhaps Bob Kelly missed his calling and should have been a social worker or a pastor rather than a mayor. Nowhere in his lecture did I hear Kelly mention going out and doing “lots of meetings” with local businesses or with the many folks working three jobs to make ends meet in Great Falls to “bring assistance to them”.

In fact, this current city commission has not just ignored local private business but has actually intentionally run at least one of them out of town – M&D Construction.

In this clip the mayor continues to scold a taxpaying citizen, defend the overtly inappropriate secret meetings with a non-profit held by Robinson and Moe, and inform us that these are “the types of meetings we do every day in this community”. Really?

Why so defensive? Why so offended that you were previously “not questioned to this extent as to the purpose and intent” of the actions you are supposed to be taking in the interest of the citizens and taxpayers of Great Falls?

And finally, here’s the icing on the cake – well Suzie Q. Citizen if you don’t like it go talk to our lawyers.

We deserve better than this.

________________________________________________________________________