“I Want To Be A Good Neighbor”

Rick Tryon on January 19, 2018

Watch the short video below.

It’s Rhett Hulett, owner of M&D Construction which employs 30 folks here in Great Falls, making his case for a Conditional Use Permit at the January 2, 2018 Great Falls City Commission meeting.

“I want to be a good neighbor”

“We want to be a positive part of that part of town.”

“We look forward to staying there.”

So, sounds like granting the CUP should be a common sense decision, right? Especially since the city planning staff, NHC #7, and the planning/zoning board ALL recommended approval.

Thank you, Mr. Hulett for employing Great Falls folks, paying taxes and working hard to be a good neighbor. We appreciate your efforts.

So what do y’all think our illustrious City Commission did here?

I’ll have all the gritty details for you next week. Stay tuned.

Hocus Pocus — More Moe

Philip M. Faccenda on January 15, 2018

Yesterday, and perhaps against all odds, I was able to suss out an actual response from City Commissioner Mary Moe.

Originally, I had intended to more substantively respond to Commissioner Moe today, but alas, life got in the way.

But I offer the following as a teaser for tomorrow’s piece…

On our Facebook post, reader Robert Rutherford proffered the following:

According to Rutherford, Moe dodged answering this simple and straightforward policy question.

But, is he right?

It would appear to be so!

Back in October, Citizen Rutherford asked Candidate Moe her position on monuments:

Now, go to Mary Moe’s city commission Facebook page, and cross-check this exact post from October 28 — what do you see?

Well, you will see this:

Hmmmm, now what’s missing? It’s not the obsequious praise from Electric City Power shill and serially angry despot, Failed Mayor Dona Stebbins. Rather, it would appear to be the innocuous, yet earnest policy question posited by Mr. Rutherford.

Nevertheless, inveterate advocate of “transparency” that she is, Moe appears to have deleted it. Hats off to you, Mary. Very impressive.

Now you see it, now you don’t. (Thankfully, after reading yesterday’s piece, someone caught it and sent it to us. A Democrat, no less!)

So, yes… I will be writing more tomorrow, much more.

An Open Letter To City Commissioner Mary Moe

Philip M. Faccenda on January 14, 2018

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

Principles Or Politics

Philip M. Faccenda on December 11, 2017

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?

Philip M. Faccenda on December 7, 2017

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

How Are We To Select A Great Falls Ethics Committee?

Rick Tryon on December 5, 2017

Let’s say you needed to find a watchdog because your henhouse was recently raided by some foxes.  Would you go to the local fox den and ask the occupants therein, some with feathers still clinging to their little chins, to select the best watchdog to keep an eye on your cluckers? 

The Great Falls City Commission is accepting applications for a newly created Great Falls Ethics Committee. The deadline is December 15 for applicants to the three-member advisory board. 

So an ethics committee will be appointed by a City Commission which has one member, Tracy Houck, who was found guilty of and fined for violating Montana campaign finance practices. And who later in a separate incident required a hand delivered reprimand and warning from the city attorney for her blatant conflicts of interest surrounding the allocation of taxpayer funds, $29,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds which have been subsequently revoked by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development due to her self-serving conflicts. 

The very same Houck who also repeatedly lied to the public and press about sending reports to the State’s Commissioner of Political Practices, backdated official documents to avoid accountability for cheating, and attempted to deposit leftover campaign contributions in the bank account of the organization by which she is employed, Paris Gibson Square. 

An ethics committee to be appointed by a City Commission which has another member, Bill Bronson, who has repeatedly voted to allocate taxpayer funds to two separate local organizations, Paris Gibson Square and NeighborWorks Great Falls, organizations which employed his immediate family members. Conduct which has triggered HUD to require an investigation and audit going back three years for which our tax dollars are now paying. 

An ethics committee to be appointed by a City Commission which has another member, Mayor Bob Kelly, who not only has said and done nothing about the misconduct of the commissioners mentioned above but who also served on both the Great Falls Development Authority and NeighborWorks Great Falls boards and then voted to allocate CDBG money to those organizations shortly after resigning from those boards and against explicit HUD policy. 

These are the foxes – oops, I mean folks – who will be selecting our local watchdog ethics committee? A committee which is supposed to serve as an extra layer of transparency and help resolve ethics issues for not only city staff and other appointed boards but for the City Commission and its members. 

In my opinion a better way to select the three members of the Great Falls Ethics Committee would be to either elect the members at large during regular city-wide elections or to have the nine Neighborhood Councils each nominate a candidate from their respective areas and then have the Council of Councils elect the final three. 

Personally I prefer the Neighborhood Council selection method because it emulates a district or ward system of representation (a system I would like to see us adopt for electing our City Commission) and because it gives the Neighborhood Councils some extra heft and responsibility. 

Unfortunately, as I understand it, either of the two alternative systems for selecting an ethics panel I mention above would require a provision to be inserted into the City Charter, which in turn would require a vote of the people during the next municipal election. And to even get such a provision on the ballot would require the City Commission (yes, the same Commission which is about to select an ethics committee) to pass an ordinance or adopt a resolution – or by a referendum petition requiring signatures from at least 20% of the city electorate. Not much hope this City Commissions will choose to do so.  

For now it appears that we’re stuck with the current City Commission making the decision as to who their own watchdog will be. A City Commission with members who have been pelted with numerous conflicts of interest and ethical issues both in appearance and in reality. Again unfortunately, because of this lack of credibility, any Ethics Committee appointed by this City Commission will lack the vital confidence and trust of many local citizens. Including me. 

GREAT FALLS CITY STAFF, ZONING BOARD AT ODDS OVER FOX FARM DEVELOPMENT

Jeni Dodd on December 4, 2017

An interesting new wrinkle in a Fox Farm area planned unit development (PUD) for a hotel complex has city staff at odds with the city planning advisory board/ zoning commission. The proposed ordinance covering the change, Ordinance 3182, comes to the city commission with a negative recommendation from city staff and a positive recommendation from the planning advisory board/zoning commission.

The city commission will consider whether or not to allow a major change to a previously approved Tietjen Triangle Addition PUD at their December 5 meeting. The commission approved the PUD for the dual-branded Mainstay Suites and Sleep Inn hotel building at their May 2 meeting. This will be the last opportunity for public comment on Ordinance 3182, which would eliminate a condition of approval in the PUD.

That particular condition of approval required the applicant, Billings Holdings LLC, to legally secure access from the proposed hotel development site onto Alder Drive. The city incorporated the following language into the PUD document:

“The applicant is required to obtain an access easement through the property legally described as Country Club Addition, Section 14, Township 20 North, Range 3 East, Block 003, Mark 6. This will allow motorists accessing properties in the PUD to legally utilize an already established vehicle circulation point from Alder Drive. Proof of easement, future design of this access, and associated directional signage on Alder Drive and Fox Farm Road must all be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit for the 2.6 acre tract in the PUD.” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

On October 24, 2017, the planning advisory board/zoning commission recommended the city commission approve the request from the applicant to remove the access easement condition of approval from the PUD. Billings Holdings LLC requested the major change to the PUD because it failed to secure the access easement.

However, Great Falls planning and community development staff recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

“Staff finds that the applicant has not provided complete or compelling information sufficient to remove a previously approved condition of approval,” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

The planning advisory board/zoning commission disagreed and by a vote of 8-1, the board supported the applicant’s request and brought it to the city commission. The proposed ordinance seeks to amend a previous ordinance approving the PUD, Ordinance 3152.
It is important to note that the city refers to the applicant’s request to drop the access easement requirement as a MAJOR CHANGE. What does this mean according to the Official Code of the City of Great Falls?

In the OCCGF 17.16.29.100 , Changes in Planned Unit Development, it states that:

“Major changes in the plan of development or supporting data similarly approved shall be considered the same as a new petition, and reapplication shall be made in accordance with the procedures for a new application.”

From my reading of the city code, it would then appear that the applicant must reapply/re-petition for the PUD, since the city has categorized the removal of a condition of approval as a major change. Can the city simply use an ordinance to amend the original ordinance in this case?

It would be helpful if the city included in their documentation why a reapplication/ re-petition is not required or requested. I tried to clarify that with the city commission at the first reading of the ordinance but didn’t get an answer from them.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, either for or against this project, but I do feel that the city commission should follow city zoning codes with all applicants and in all instances, hence my concerns. I’d like to hear from other folks—Do you feel the city commission is following the code on this zoning change?

The December 6 city commission meeting agenda, containing documents pertaining to Ordinance 3179, can be found at:

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_commission/meeting/packets/126981/agenda_2017_12_5_commission_entire_meeting_packet.pdf

On Tax Abatements: Billings Says “Yes” Where Great Falls Says “No”

Rick Tryon on November 29, 2017

Back in the day, oh, forty or fifty years ago, there was an ongoing friendly competition between Great Falls and Billings as to which was the best and biggest city. The two Montana big dogs battling for bragging rights. I remember because I was a young sprout at the time, delivering the Great Falls Leader, going to the Liberty Theater for Saturday matinees and ice skating at the indoor Civic Center rink.

Well, Great Falls has been left in the dust by our one-time rival Billings. According to the US Census Bureau, Billings’ population as of 2016 is 110,323, and Great Falls is 59,178.

According to a presentation by Great Falls Development Authority President Brett Doney at a recent neighborhood council meeting, Billings has an industrial tax base of around 19% while Great Falls is at about 3%.

Why? There are several reasons, like the closing of the Anaconda Mining Company, a reduced BN railroad presence, no major college, we’re off the east-west interstate highway etc., but with each passing year the various “reasons” begin to sound more and more like excuses.

A good example of why Billings won the dogfight and continues to win can be found in a recent article from the Billings Gazette.

Two weeks ago, Yellowstone County approved a tax break for the Phillips 66 oil refinery in Billings for a $298 million project:

“The project added 18 full-time positions, bringing total workforce to 320 full-time and two-part time positions. Average wage of new employees is $71.30 per hour, including benefits.”

In contrast, in December of 2016 the Great Falls City Commission voted to deny a $6.3 million tax abatement spread out over 10 years for Calumet Montana Refining Co., which had just completed a $450 million expansion here in Great Falls. Approval of the abatement could have meant more jobs and more economic activity for local business. From the city staff report:

“Staff Comment: The expansion of the refinery has had a very positive impact on employment opportunities within the City. According to data provided by Calumet, the total cumulative effect of adding 40 full-time refinery jobs is anticipated to produce 276 jobs in the industry. It is not known how many of the 276 jobs will be located within the City of Great Falls or Cascade County.”

But no.

To be fair, I was conflicted about the approval of the Calumet tax abatement at the time and reluctantly opposed it after having read the city staff’s reasoning in their recommendation to oppose. Hindsight is always 20-20. I was wrong.

My reasoning at the time was basically that homeowners, especially those living on a fixed income, were going to end up paying more of the cost of local government and infrastructure if we didn’t spread those costs out more to our industrial tax base.

Boy, was I wrong. In the intervening year and a half we have seen our local homeowner taxes continue to go up, up and away with no end in sight. The relief and breathing room for working class citizens and small business I had anticipated has not materialized.

We’re not really in a friendly competition with Billings anymore. They’ve left Great Falls in the dust when it comes to growth and opportunity. But we can get back on track if we’re willing to look at what other state and regional communities are doing to prosper and expand and if we’re willing to adapt and adopt their winning policies and strategies here.

Shots Fired In City Parks Gun Debate

Jeni Dodd on November 25, 2017

The national gun debate has nothing on what is poised to be a hotly contested local
Second Amendment battle.

Yes, concealed weapon permit holders are currently allowed to carry their weapons
in city parks, including the River’s Edge Trail, according to our City Attorney Sara
Sexe. Sexe reported at the November 17 city commission meeting that she had
researched Montana Code Annotated references and looked at the history and
intent of the 1997 city commission, before determining that permit holders are
allowed to carry concealed in city parks. She put that opinion on the record at that
meeting and again at the November 21 city commission meeting.

I concluded as much from my research of the Official Code of the City of Great
Falls and the Montana Code Annotated more than two years ago. When I expressed
my finding that it was legal to acquaintances who kept telling me it wasn’t legal,
they vehemently disagreed with me. So I was vindicated when Sexe confirmed
what I had already determined to be true.

I’ll admit that at first glance the city code appears to ban concealed weapons in city
parks. Even the Great Falls Tribune got it wrong on their website. In articles dated
April 7 and November 17, the Tribune featured a video which further perpetuates
the myth that it is illegal to carry firearms, whether open or concealed carry, in city
parks in Great Falls.

Now that the city commissioners are aware of the “loophole” in the city code, it
seems at least two of them would likely push the opposite agenda, which would
make it illegal for permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.

The matter was made public at the October 17 city commission meeting, when a
group of local residents asked the commissioners for clarification of city laws
regarding concealed carry for weapons permit holders in city parks, including the
River’s Edge Trail. Some of the commenters were from the Missouri River Women
Shooters, a local organization that educates and supports women in the proper use
of firearms. Many had heard a variety of interpretations of local law and thought it
best to hear from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Commissioner Burow mentioned that he had heard from some folks recently, who
wanted clarification about the code. Mayor Kelly wanted to have City Attorney
Sara Sexe to do further research on the matter before more discussion took place.

The city code currently reads:

9.8.020 – Prohibiting and suppressing the possession of weapons.

A. The carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons (MCA 45-2-101 (76), and as
such statute may hereafter be amended) to, on, or at a public assembly, publicly
owned building, park under City jurisdiction, or school is hereby prohibited.

B. Exceptions are as otherwise provided by MCA 45-8-351(2)(b) which allows for
display of firearms at shows or other public occasions by collectors and others,
and MCA 45-8-317 which states what persons are allowed to carry weapons, and
as such statutes may hereafter be amended.
(Ord. 3158, 2017; Ord. 2732, 1997).

The exception refers back to the Montana Code Annotated 45-8-317 which
provides for concealed carry for permit holders, except where prohibited under
state law.

What further muddies the water is MCA 45-8-351. It contains contradictory
language that leads off with a subsection restricting local governments from
enacting more restrictive weapons laws, except as provided in a later subsection
which allows them to do so for public safety reasons.

In November 1997, the Great Falls City Commission passed Ordinance 2732. The
commission meeting minutes state:

“The purpose of Ordinance 2732 is to exercise the power given in MCA 45-8-351
by establishing an ordinance prohibiting the carrying of concealed or
unconcealed weapons into a public building or to a public assembly.”

Note that the city commission back in 1997 didn’t include concealed carry in city
parks in their statement of purpose. By also inserting the reference to MCA
45-8-317, it seems their intent was to allow permit holders to carry in city parks.

At the November 7 commission meeting, even more Great Falls residents came
forward to show support for concealed weapons carry in the parks and to get an
official clarification. The fact that folks want to see this more clearly defined and
codified, speaks volumes about the public’s perception and mistrust of the city
commission and city government. A city attorney’s interpretation of the law isn’t
enough for them.

Commissioner Bronson made it clear that he wanted to hear from the opposition.
“It’s true that while we have rights of ownership I was always taught that having
a firearm is also a privilege. It’s a privilege from the standpoint of listening to
what my neighbors and friends have to say about it…

“We have to have a community conversation about this because, quite frankly,
after the presentation three weeks ago, I was approached by some people and
what they told me is they were scared of what they heard here that night. I said,
“Why are you scared. I know a lot of these people, they’re wonderful folks.
They’re no threat to you.” Well, they think you are. They’re afraid of people who
carry guns. And while I don’t share their fear, I understand where they’re
coming from….”

Mayor Kelly also made it clear that he wanted to postpone any action on the issue
until after the newly elected commissioners were seated.

“This conversation is appropriate and it’s timely and is driven by concern and
fear, which is warranted. There’s an opportunity to continue this discussion and
I hope to do that in the new year….

“Anytime you talk about increased gun availability, gun usage, gun issues, it’s an
emotional side. As I said three weeks ago, we’ve heard from one side and we
haven’t heard from the other. There’s time to do that and we will do that. My
goal here is to have a community dialogue about this, perhaps not even in these
chambers, but as a community forum, so that the sides, the different sides of this
issue can look at each other and talk about their fears and their concerns,
because there’s warranted discussion on both sides….I’d also like to give an
opportunity to the two new commissioners who are going to be sitting up here an
opportunity to be in that discussion and to listen to the community and go
forward from there.”

One must wonder if the current commissioners, minus Commission Burow, are
postponing any action until the new year in order to get unanimous support for a
government-knows-best political agenda of further restricting firearms within the
city. Commissioner Burow, who came forward in support of clarifying the current
code, rather than opening it up to more debate, would be gone. By all appearances
the two newly elected commissioners, Mary Moe and Owen Robinson, would
support more local governmental restrictions on gun rights in Great Falls.
Moe’s support of a more liberal agenda leads me to believe that she would vote to
ban concealed carry in our parks. I may be generalizing here but it seems to me
that anyone who wants to remove historic statues in the name of political
correctness is probably miles away from the right-to-bear-arms camp.

Owen Robinson would likely oppose it as well. At the October 17 city commission
meeting, Tammy Evans, organizer of the Missouri River Women Shooters, asked
for a show of hands supporting permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.
Most hands in the room went up. Robinson was at that meeting but his hand stayed
down. A pretty solid indication of the way he’d vote.

I hope they both prove me wrong.

At the November 21 city commission meeting, we heard from some opposition to
concealed carry in parks. The gun paranoia was obvious.

BJ Angermeyer stated she was, “Speaking on behalf of many of my fellow citizens
appalled that the guns may possibly be in our beloved parks and trails.”
In response, Mayor Kelly said, “We’ll have an opportunity to hear from you in
greater length etc. at a meeting we’ll have in the new year.”

Sharon Patton Griffin opined that, “We have a past practice of not allowing
concealed carry in parks.” She went on to claim that should have carry some
weight in the matter.

She stated she had a letter from her husband and then explained why he didn’t
come.

“I tell you quite frankly that he was afraid to come tonight because he said you
know, there’s gonna be some gun nut there that will shoot all of us there that don’t
believe in…ah…”

Someone interrupted and said, “That’s ridiculous.”

I’d have to agree. If you don’t feel safe in a room with members of the Great Falls
Police Department in attendance, guns at the ready, where would you feel safe?
Also, permit holders aren’t allowed to bring weapons into public buildings and
know it. The person more likely to enter a public building or public assembly with
guns blazing will not be a concealed carry permit holder—I think that can be
shown by looking at past incidents.

These scared-of-firearms folks should be more worried about criminals who carry
guns and aren’t going to follow the law, than about law-abiding citizens who
follow the law and exercise their God-given and Second Amendment affirmed
right to carry.

A potential rapist on River’s Edge Trail won’t choose to follow the law and not
carry a weapon, just to break another law—that’s ludicrous. The gun paranoia
folks, by banning concealed carry in city parks and trails, will just create more soft
targets. The Great Falls police can’t accompany ever citizen who wants to walk the
River’s Edge Trail. What’s it going to take for these folks to realize we are better
off with an armed citizenry, instead of a disarmed citizenry unable to defend
against armed thugs?

The debate is on and it looks like it’s not going away as some had hoped.
Interestingly, weapons include more than firearms under Great Falls and Montana
law. For example, knives having a blade 4 inches long or longer are among the
objects defined as weapons by the MCA.

Consider this: if you brought a 4 inch, or longer blade knife to Gibson Park to cut your picnic watermelon this Summer, and you are not a concealed carry permit holder, did you break the law?

CDBG Records

Gregg Smith on May 23, 2017

In an earlier piece, we pointed out that City Commissioner, Tracy Houck, complained about an alleged conflict of interest by a member of the Community Development Council, which allocates CDBG funds among various local government entities, charities, and other groups.

Houck had gotten wind of the fact that a particular individual had down voted the Paris Gibson Square’s application and complained about that fact to City staff. (Houck made this complaint as a City Commissioner which was pretty clearly improper, and resulted in Houck’s receiving a letter from City Attorney, Sara Sexe, directing Houck to recuse herself from further proceedings on the application.) Of course, Houck ‘won,’ and the applications were reconsidered and Paris Gibson Square received some money.

I am addressing one minor bit of the story. After she complained, Houck was given scoring sheets and other information about the Community Development Council’s process. Some suggested this was “inside information,” but City Staff told me it was public record. So I requested it.

Here is the February 23, 2017, scoring sheet, the April 3, 2017, scoring sheet, and related audio files of the meetings (one, two, and three).