Category: City Commission

Editors note: The following email was sent by Montanans Opposing Big Sky Country National Heritage Area leader Rae Grulkowski to all five Great Falls City Commissioners and to E-City Beat on Wednesday.

Mr. Mayor and Commissioners:

Regarding your discussion at the end of meeting of August 3, stating the only reason Montanans oppose a National Heritage Area being private property rights – you deeply misspoke.

To further believe the community would believe the City Commission in interpreting what a National Heritage Area is – Cascade and Chouteau County community members have educated themselves because the entities pursuing designation have not come forward to address their concerns. Additionally, City Commissioners meetings fall under Open Meeting protocol and anyone may speak during Public Comment.

Lastly, yes, there certainly have been City community members speaking of their opposition to establishing an NHA.

If elected officials would simply “listen” when the people they serve are speaking, emotional disgruntlement could be alleviated and progress made toward mutual agreements.

Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, Inc. is completely capable of operating as a private entity, accomplishing City goals, WITHOUT federally designating private property (which entails more than “private property” issues), thus eliminating animosity forever in our community. Think outside your box.

From comments heard, I do not believe many of you read my letter to you, dated 6-08-2021. Please do so. This is not a dead issue.

The Feasibility Study is to be a joint study. The guidelines for the Feasibility Study and statements of engaging community interests are found in the National Park Service Feasibility Study Guidelines and is mentioned in my letter, copied the City Commissioners, dated 7-21-2021, requesting to establish community wide, well-advertised information meetings.

A Feasibility Study is just that – a study to discover feasibility . . . or not. It does not mean pursuit at any costs.

Our discoveries and input (again read my letter and information in packet dated 6-8-2021) demonstrate the idea of an NHA as proposed, is not appropriate.

The private corporation you assisted in forming, is exercising their rights to closed meetings and not providing information nor interaction with the community involved.

This puts you in the position to act as hinge-pin to bring the diversity together for a successful outcome.

FOIA information gained by an inquiry into a simultaneous Kansas/Nebraska NHA effort is currently being shared on our Facebook Page.

Specific documents received demonstrate nefarious activity in establishing federal land designations, with communications containing comments such as, “Not worth our while to have public meetings until Feasibility Study is in motion because they will have to be part of that process.” Please read that again. This was written by the woman who compares to Jane Weber’s current position as Chair of BSCNHA, Inc.

Feel free to visits our Page at Montanans Opposing Big Sky Country National Heritage Area on Facebook. This social media address, you will also find in literature given to you in 6-08-2021 packet.

No need for an agenda item for a Resolution. This is not our goal with approaching the City. We know the outcome already. We request jointly orchestrated (citizen opposing, City Commissioners, BSCNHA, Inc.) well-advertised, community meetings be set in place to paint a clear picture of everyone’s concerns and credits.

Gratefully,

Rae Grulkowski
Stockett, MT
406-788-3204
rae@3rivers.net

I’ve been asked by several Great Falls citizens why the City’s 2013 Growth Policy advocates support for the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, Inc.

Simple answer: it doesn’t.

There is absolutely nothing in the 2013 Growth Policy that states support for the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, Inc.

(here is the reference, you can also find more on the issue in a previous ECB article here)

Nor does the document anywhere state that it is the “goal” or policy of the City of Great Falls to advocate for or support the BSCNHA, Inc. 

The Growth Policy very briefly and in very general terms mentions an interest in an NHA, National Heritage Area, designation for the Missouri River corridor.

That is totally different from the BSCNHA, Inc. stated purpose, which is to acquire a federal NHA designation for the ENTIRETY OF CASCADE COUNTY AND PART OF CHOTEAU COUNTY. 

I have two concerns about the public perception that the City of Great Falls in it’s 2013 Growth Policy supports and promotes the efforts of BSCNHA, Inc. when the document clearly does nothing of the kind: 

1. BSCNHA, Inc. has goals that go far beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Great Falls.
2. There are a great many individuals and organizations in Great Falls who strongly oppose the goals of BSCNHA, Inc.

Three of the four City appointees to the City/County Historical Preservation Advisory Commission are also on the board of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area Inc. executive board.

At the June 1, 2021 Great Falls City Commission meeting I did my best to make sure that two of those folks were not reappointed to the HPAC, Rich Ecke and Ellen Sieverts. That effort failed in a 4 to 1 vote in favor of reappointment.

Does that mean I think that the folks reapplying for the HPAC are bad people or that they have bad intentions or that I’m accusing them of misconduct? Not at all. On the contrary, I think Mr. Ecke and Ms. Sieverts are good people with noble intentions.

But it’s not about them. It’s also not about me.

It’s about avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest so that Great Falls citizens can have trust in local government rather than being cynical and apathetic due to the perception of cronyism.

The BSCNHA is a private non-profit group dedicated to turning all of Cascade County and part of Choteau County into a designated national heritage area.

The cross pollination between the City/County appointed board and a private corporation’s board, BSCNHA, Inc., presents the appearance of a conflict of interest in my opinion.

The City of Great Falls and it’s appointed advisory boards should remain neutral in this matter in my opinion.

There are a great many local folks and organizations that oppose the BSCNHA, and our city appointed boards should represent ALL of our citizens rather than the narrow agenda of a private organization like BSCNHA, Inc.

Our public HPAC is not neutral in this matter. In fact it is obvious that the HPAC board is acting as an extension of the advocacy arm of BSCNHA.

This issue deserves a lot more public scrutiny and attention and I intend to continue to help that effort along.

[poll id=”31″]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public access, connectivity and viewing

Recreational values

Urban habitat

Leisure, dining and mixed-use development

Education

Designation as a National Heritage area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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