Great Falls

Critical Race Theory Coming To Great Falls Public Schools?

ECB Staff on July 8, 2021

Editor’s note: E-City Beat respects this writer’s request for anonymity, for obvious reasons. We would like to also mention the upcoming appointment of a GFPS School Board member. The GFPS Selection Committee will conduct an interview for the two applicants from 2-4 PM on July 16 at the district office. The interview session is open to the public.

I’m a long-time Great Falls citizen and a fan of your blog. Since Critical Race Theory has been in the news a lot lately, I thought it might be worth checking out how CRT has made its way into the Great Falls Public School district.

I am a retired teacher, and am friends with many teachers in Great Falls. Several members of my family even work for the school district. In many ways, our district is (thankfully) a lot more conservative than other AA Class districts throughout Montana.

I never saw a lot of overt teaching of how white students are inherently racist (beyond the normal social studies curriculum, which tends to put a lot of blame on western civilization for all of the world’s problems).

But there is one way that CRT has infiltrated even out here, and that is through the practices of so-called “restorative justice” and “standards-based grading.”

I don’t know how well-publicized restorative justice is in our school district, but there have already been several faculty meetings about it in the various secondary schools. Many teachers were told that they would all start implementing it soon. However, the way it gets implemented is vague. Right now, it appears mostly in the way administration handles disciplinary issues.

Traditionally, there were consequences for breaking rules. A student attacking a classmate, for example, would result in automatic suspension or expulsion. Under the tenets of restorative justice, however, things like suspension or expulsion are frowned upon and even avoided if at all possible.

This is because restorative justice is the belief that “punishment” for breaking a rule should be avoided, in favor of other practices like having “one-on-one conferences” with a student.

Restorative justice goes beyond just consequences, though. It seeks to actually redefine what constitutes a “problem behavior.”

Under restorative justice, things that our own childhood teachers would have considered “insubordination” may now just be shrugged off as no big deal.

There’s a lot out there about restorative justice, but you can read more about it from this informative article written by proponents of the practice: https://www.wested.org/rd_alert_online/restorative-justice-an-alternative-to-traditional-punishment/

Restorative justice has its roots in Critical Race Theory. Just Google “restorative justice” + “critical race theory” for endless sources to back this up.

Restorative justice made the news when critics pointed out how it actually enabled the Parkland school shooting: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/02/how-obama-school-discipline-guidelines-allowed-school-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Our district has many examples of severely troubled students, with well-documented histories of violence and insubordination, who have received little to no consequences for their ongoing behavior. Ask any teacher you know about this, and I’m sure they can give you many examples.

Whether this is restorative justice, or just admins not wanting to rock the boat, I do not know. And I’m not saying students never get expelled, but I do believe teachers today are putting up with far, far worse behavior than they used to. And oftentimes, with little to no consequences for the students in question.

I assume the restorative justice part of Critical Race Theory made its way into our district because of threats from the ACLU, which you can read about here:

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/education/2020/01/20/education-leaders-respond-aclu-montana-report-discipline-public-schools/4493391002/

The ACLU believed that because non-white students had a higher incidence of being written up in Great Falls, this was evidence of widespread “racism.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it was shortly after this report was published that teachers started getting lectures from administration about how restorative justice and standards-based grading was the future.

Here are some examples of restorative justice being mentioned openly in school documents and articles about the district:

GFPS launching alternative to expulsion with grants

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/education/2020/01/20/education-leaders-respond-aclu-montana-report-discipline-public-schools/4493391002/

I’ve also attached an image I’ve obtained from the official school software used for behavioral reports (write-ups) for students. Note the “restorative practice option” as one of the available consequences.

Standards-based grading is also linked with Critical Race Theory. Faculty members were told (again, by admin with zero input from any parents or teachers) that this is the direction our schools and district would be moving in.

In a nutshell, standards-based grading is the philosophy that grades should only be assigned based on whether the student in question knows the information listed.

Under standards-based grading, things like following deadlines, following rules, neatness, attention to detail, creativity, honesty, attitude, etc. are not allowed to be factors in a grade.

For example, a teacher could not give a student a bad grade in math if the student never turned in his multiplication assignments, as long as the kid could demonstrate that he already knew his times tables.

I don’t believe most parents in our community would approve of this grading philosophy, or the philosophy of restorative justice, but these changes were never made widely known to the public. Teachers were just told about them with no discussion, and expected to follow along.

The following link is from the GFPS web site, with the title: “What’s Coming – Standards-Based Report Cards.” https://www.gfps.k12.mt.us/Page/363

Some articles effectively criticizing standards-based grading and linking it to CRT can be found here:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/25/in-the-name-of-anti-racism-san-diego-schools-will-teach-black-and-hispanic-kids-less/

https://thepostmillennial.com/public-schools-are-doing-away-with-grading-to-combat-racism/

And here is one of many articles arguing how standards-based grading is a remedy to the “racist” practice of traditional grading:

Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform

So I apologize for such a long email, but I thought I should really get this info out there since Critical Race Theory is such a hot topic.

I don’t know whether our administrators are pushing this stuff because they don’t know any better, or sincerely think it’s going to help, or what. I get the impression that it’s being forced on them from people even higher up.

I suspect former superintendent Tammy Lacey had a lot to do with getting this stuff introduced, but I have no evidence of this beyond my hunch.

Thank you.

A concerned parent and former teacher,

But It’s Part Of The Growth Policy—Not!

Jeni Dodd on July 6, 2021

Last summer I submitted an ethics complaints to Cascade County Attorney Josh Racki regarding the use of government resources and facilities by both the City of Great Falls and Cascade County to benefit the private nonprofit Big Sky Country National Heritage Area Inc. I alleged there were violations under the Montana Code Annotated and the Official Code of the City of Great Falls.

The county attorney forwarded the city complaint to City Attorney Sara Sexe. The county attorney forwarded the county complaint to the Montana Attorney General, citing conflicts of interest in that the county attorney’s office would be tasked to defend any county official named in the complaint and therefore, can’t consider it (see attached—Racki response).

My complaint about the city, city officials’ responses, background information, etc can be found in the meeting agenda packet here.

The city attorney’s response to me and her attached memorandum, can be found at that link, starting on page 92. It indicated the city was acting to assist the National Heritage Area mainly because of a mention of an NHA in the 2013 Growth Plan and that the violations Sexe found would be dealt with internally. But I wanted a hearing before the Ethics Committee so I pushed for one, until finally, one was granted on February 3, 2021.

I also just noticed that the video of the ethics hearing regarding my complaint is online. Some of you may want to watch it, or at least skim through it. It starts at 10:45 on the video found at: https://greatfallsmt.viebit.com/player.php?hash=6k9j6BW2lj3w

So here’s a short breakdown of a few of the key points in the video along with my commentary after the fact.

@15:20: City Attorney Sexe begins her rationale for city support of the NHA as a city supported project.

When you watch this, keep in mind the main rationale for the city staff assisting assist the National Heritage Area corporation is the 2013 Growth Policy.

In the past though, a deputy city manager offered a reason to dispute use of the 2013 Growth Policy as rationale that the NHA is city-sanctioned or city-sponsored. At the City Commission/Staff Agenda Meeting on July 10, 2013, “Deputy City Manager Jennifer Reichelt reported that Ida Meehan will present a general Growth Policy update at this work session. The public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed update to the Growth Policy is scheduled for August 6, 2013. It was explained that the Growth Policy is a guiding policy and NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT” (emphasis added, see attached—Not a regulatory document).

Yes, there we have it—not a regulatory document.

City officials have also used the passage of a resolution in December 2019, in which the city agrees to apply for a grant for the Great Falls Development Authority to pass along to BSCNHA Inc, as proof that the city commission voted for the NHA.

That is false—the commission didn’t vote to approve the NHA and that is backed up by City Commissioner Houck statement at that same meeting. “We’re not saying that we’re endorsing the National Heritage Area, we’re endorsing a grant that increases our economic impact and those are aligned with our city priorities” (City Commission meeting video, December 17, 2019, @ 1:33:40)

So what gives city staff the right to assist a private nonprofit using city resources? Why of course, they give it to themselves.

@18:24: Sexe’s primary opinion is no violation of Montana statutes and she uses the Montana Attorney General office’s response as rationale. She states the county attorney advised that my ethics complaint was provided to the Montana Attorney General who declined to address alleged Montana statutory provisions.

That is only partially true. Yes, the Montana Attorney General declined to address it, but only because that office claimed the jurisdiction for considering the complaint rested locally, with the county attorney (See attached—Attorney General response).

@18:49: City Attorney Sexe admits that with regards to the Official Code of the City of Great Falls, there were issues where technical violations occurred…

In addition, on pages 10 and 11 of the Ethics Committee Agenda packet, Sexe expresses her determination that violations of Official Code of the City of Great

Falls § 2.21.050 (B), (F) and (L) did occur. However, she determined these were addressed internally by the city manager and recommended the Ethics Committee not forward the complaint to the county attorney.

@31:58: City Planning Director Craig Raymond begins response to the allegations.

@32:45: Raymond claims a coordinated attack on the concept of NHAs.

No, I coordinated with no one in bringing this ethics complaint. I discovered what appeared to me to be violations regarding ethics and conflicts of interest snd took action.

@33:08: Raymond accuses NHA opponents of false statements and taking issues and situations out of context.

I’ve made no false statements regarding NHAs, nor have I taken issues and situations out of context. I can only vouch for my own opinions and statements, which I developed and made only after careful research of NHAs. I do not vouch for the statements of others in opposition.

@33:20: Raymond continues accusing NHA opponents, “….and now harass, bully and impugn the character and professional reputation of those who would dare support this worthwhile effort to benefit the community.”

Guess what, City Planning Director Raymond—you’re a city official and are paid by the taxpayers. The citizens of Great Falls have every right to question city officials’ actions on city time, if the citizen perceives a problem. You are accountable to the public. It’s criticism, and nothing more.

I’d like to remind Raymond that I have reached out a number of times to BSCNHA Inc board members, some of whom were also public officials, and my questions and concerns have either gone unanswered or have been met with hostility, every time.

@35:15: Raymond expresses that he’s in the “uncomfortable position of defending and protecting the question of my ethics.”

As a city employee, running a city department, you are a public figure. You are paid with and use our tax dollars. Do you really believe taxpayers have no right to question or criticize your actions?

@41:42: Raymond says, “In my opinion, what was in the Growth Policy and the resolution specifically, this is very direct support and license to join and partner with groups in order to support the NHA in the fashion that we did.”

The 2013 Growth Policy mentions an NHA, but not as a project. I explained this earlier and also talk about this in the video. The resolution, as I mentioned earlier, was only the city commission’s vote to assist Great Falls Development Authority with a grant, the ultimate recipient being BSCNHA Inc. The city commission did not vote to approve the NHA.

@42:08: Raymond begins his assertion that the Civic Center meeting space provided free to BSCNHA Inc is justified, in direct conflict of City Attorney Sexe’s opinion.

He further states, “I find each of the criteria (regarding free meeting room use) have been met during these meetings at the Civic Center.”

That he“ finds,” is attorney talk, yet he is not an attorney. The city attorney did find providing the free meeting room was a violation.

@46:08: In my opinion, this is perhaps the most disturbing statement of all by Raymond and in my opinion, really shows the nature of the beast—that is, the true nature of our city and attitude of some city officials.

Raymond states, “I’ll be honest though, even if the city commission had not adopted the Growth Policy as is written, as they did, I still would have offered the same level of support and encouragement for this project. It was simply the right thing for our office to do, in the fashion that we did. I mean, after all, we helped inspire it, we helped to start it. And actually, my question is, why on earth would we not have done it under the circumstances?” He goes on to say, “I have no regrets on any of our actions regarding the NHA.”

The first shock is that a city official would admit he would offer the same support even if he knew it wasn’t a city-sanctioned or sponsored project. To me, that speaks volumes.

It also appears to me the NHA idea originated not with the city planning department per se, but with the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (HPAC). Although HPAC is under the city planning umbrella, it is supposed to be an ADVISORY entity for the CITY COMMISSION, not an entity which makes decisions for the city. At least that’s my understanding of a city advisory commissions/boards. But HPAC seemed to overstep its bounds.

Here’s the details regarding HPAC and the NHA:

“TOURISM ASSESSMENT GRANT – HPAC received a $5000 grant from the SHPO for Heritage Planning. The grant will be matched by funding from the TBID ($2600) and in-kind from the City of Great Falls ($2846) The TBID is additionally providing funding to conduct a 3rd party assessment for Great Falls Tourism ($7000) Ellen and Lee working on Tourism Heritage oriented area to promote area visitors” (Great Falls/Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Minutes from the August 13, 2014). Note—SHPO is State Historic Preservation Office and TBID is Tourism Business Improvement District

“Mr. Nellis said the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission has had a goal for many years of creating a National Heritage Area (NHA) along the Missouri River that would stretch from Fort Benton to Tower Rock. Staff received $5,000 in grant funds from the State to study this project, and the Tourism Business Improvement District is providing a match of about $9,000. Staff is providing work hours.” (Great Falls Planning Advisory Board/Zoning Commission Minutes, December 9, 2014)

“In 2014, the Great Falls-Cascade County Certified Local Government (CLG), began to discuss the concept of an NHA in Montana as such entities gained more popularity in the western United States. The City of Great Falls and the Great Falls – Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission asked the community to join them for the “Grand Tour” event in January 2015 that encompassed the whole region.” (BSCNHA Draft Feasibility Study, p 11)

“Brief Update: There was a follow-up meeting February 26th on the Tourism Assessment & Heritage Area. After a lengthy discussion, Ellen reiterated that the HPAC will be organizing for the National Heritage Area and will form an ad-hoc committee to proceed onward.” (Great Falls/Cascade County Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Minutes from the March 11, 2015 Meeting)

“The Upper Missouri River Heritage Area Planning Corporation (UMRHAPC) was legally established in May 2015. The first meeting, held at the Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center in Great Falls, included the organization of a board of directors.” (BSCNHA Draft Feasibility Study, p 11)

All of the above show me that a National Heritage Area was not part of the 2013 City Growth Policy voted on by the city commission. It seems apparent the NHA is not an official city-sanctioned or city-sponsored project

@50:04-58:17: My comments begin. It’s a little over eight minutes but I think it’s worth a listen.

One of the main takeaways for me is that the extensive use of city and county resources to benefit BSCNHA Inc should require that corporation be accountable to the public. Use of public resources should mandate transparency. However BSCNHA Inc has shown that as a private nonprofit it will not be transparent or accountable to the public.

No, BSCNHA Inc has shown little interest in connecting with the public at large. If they had, they would have notified all private landowners within the proposed boundaries of the National Heritage Area (all of Cascade and part of Chouteau counties) of their properties’ inclusion within the proposed NHA. They did not

Should Great Falls’ Fireworks Ordinance Be Revisited?

Rick Tryon on July 5, 2021

Are all those booms, pops and ka-bams we heard over the weekend as Great Falls celebrated Independence Day 2021 the sound of freedom – or the sound of irresponsibility?

Here’s something I posted on my personal Facebook page last Wednesday:

“Let’s be careful and kind out there, Great Falls.

Hot and dry conditions here means we have to be extra vigilant with fireworks this year.

I’ve been consulting with our City Manager and he has assured me that our Fire Marshall and Fire Chief are prepared. Even so, City safety personnel and LE just don’t have the resources to enforce all citywide fireworks violations.

That means personal responsibility.

Have a thought for your neighbors, their pets, the elderly, military vets with PTSD and the community as a whole. Have fun, but don’t be a jackass with fireworks. That’s not who we are here in GF.”

“That’s not who we are in Great Falls.” Or is it?

Great Falls is one of the very few larger towns in Montana that still allows the public to shoot off fireworks within the city limits, even in residential neighborhoods.

I enjoy some sparklers and fountains and even a couple of the noisier variety of fireworks for the kids and grandkids myself, but I certainly understand how a lot of local folks don’t find the non-stop noise, and smoke and fire danger to be enjoyable at all.

One citizen commented to me that, “If I want to live in a war zone for three days every year I’d move to Fallujah, Iraq!”

In-town fireworks has been a perennial debate here in the Electric City, and for as long as I’ve been following it I’ve considered it about a 50-50 split: half say, “Keep your hands off of my 4th of July celebration!”, while the other half say, “Why should I have to put up with all the smoke and noise at all hours of the night. I’m a taxpaying citizen too!”

I expect the debate to continue, and I will continue to listen to both sides. Let me know what you think by emailing me at rtryon@greatfallsmt.net.

[poll id=”32″]

Far Left Great Falls Dem Takes Down Ignorant Tweet

ECB Staff on June 2, 2021

In our continuing series exposing local politicians who talk and behave one way during campaign season and a different way when they think the spotlight isn’t on them, we once again return to Democrat Barabara Bessette, a former Great Falls state Representative.

Bessette was an incumbent who lost to GOP newcomer Steven Galloway in Cascade County’s HD 24 in 2020, although she has indicated her intention to run again in 2022.

An alert reader sent us this screenshot of one her recent Tweets.

In what world is it appropriate to re-Tweet a sickening attack calling our Montana Superintendent of Public Schools a “racist piece of shit” for commemorating Memorial Day at a veterans cemetery?

And what kind of ignorance does it take for Bessette to actually accuse Superintendent Arntzen of wanting to change the name of the Battle of the Little Bighorn to Custer’s Last Stand when Arntzen very clearly refers to it as the “Little Bighorn Battlefield…” in her post?

We checked and Bessette has removed this tweet from her Twitter page. We can certainly understand why given the irresponsible, inaccurate and inappropriate content of Bessette’s kooky, far left screed and personal assault against Arntzen.

How does a phony like Bessette ever get elected to a legislative post from Great Falls? She apparently fooled a few voters back in 2018 when she was elected but we aren’t going to allow that to happen again.

We will continue to remind voters about the actual character and political kookery of the charlatans who think no one is paying attention.

City “Aims High” But Does It Miss The Mark?

Jeni Dodd on May 25, 2021

The Great Falls City Commission approved the Aim High Aquatics and Recreation Center Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at its meeting on May 18. Although cooperation between the Malmstrom Air Force Base and the city is promising and a replacement aquatics facility for the defunct Natatorium is long-awaited, I have a lot of concerns and questions about this project that are yet unanswered.

I expressed some of those concerns and questions during the Aim High CUP public comment at the commission meeting. Mayor Kelly, to his credit, asked both City Planning Officer Craig Raymond and L’Heureux Page Werner Architecture president Tim Peterson whether they cared to respond.

Both refused to address any of my questions or concerns. So much for transparency in city government projects.

Prior to the city commission meeting, I had posed the following questions to City Manager Greg Doyon by email. The answers I received about the Aim High facility, in my opinion, didn’t alleviate my concerns. Here’s the content of that email:

City Manager Doyon,

I have some questions about the proposed water recreation facility slated to be built in Lions Park and am hoping you can give me some answers.

1. As you know, soils in the Great Falls area can be an issue for building and even more troublesome for a building the size and weight of a water recreation facility. Have the soils been tested and approved on the new proposed site for this facility?

City Response: Yes. TD&H conducted a geotechnical inspection of the site. This location had much better soils than the previous three locations considered.

2. Has the city taken into account and budgeted for increases in building materials for this project? In March 2020, a 4×8 foot sheet of 15/32” OSB cost me $12.50; current price the same sheet of OSB is $48/sheet. That’s nearly four times the cost from just over a year ago! I am concerned that the city is relying on construction costs from 2020 or earlier and will incur additional expenses not anticipated.

City Response: We are concerned too. We will only know when the bids are let in the fall. There is a contingency available, but that is usually not intended to be used to offset increased material costs.

3. Will more city employees will be hired to run this facility or is the city planning to allow a private contractor to run the facility? I am concerned about the cost of additional city employees versus having a private contractor.

City Response: Yes. There will be additional employees needed to operate the facility. Keep in mind that the facility is combined Recreation and indoor pool facility and the revenue model will be different to better support additional staff.

4. I doubt the new water recreation facility will be self-sustaining and therefore, it seems it will require additional money from the city to operate. Which means more tax dollars and therefore more families negatively impacted by these seemingly never-ending property tax increases. Is the city considering or planning to implement another tax levy in order to run this facility?

City Response: No. Any additional cost will need to come from the General Fund. The City is using a consultant to program the facility in a manner to maximze cost recovery to support operations and avoid exceeding current pool subsidies.

Those answer are what led me to attend the commission meeting where I was ignored.

In particular, my concerns are as follows, in no order of importance:

1. It seems to me the “better soils” statement isn’t equivalent to saying, yes the site is adequate and will work for the building. Can Great Falls citizens get a yes or no answer—will the soils at Lions Park support this facility? Why is no one giving us s definitive answer to that question?

The firm hired for the initial consultation work on the Aim High facility, L’Heureux Page Werner Architecture, was the same firm that designed the previous Natatorium, built in the 1960’s on a previously failed water facility site. I’ve asked this a number of times and no one has answered—why was the Natatorium rebuilt on that site in the 1960’s after the previous failure due to geotechnical issues? Did LPW advise the city to rebuild on that site?

2. Increased facility construction cost with no plan on how to deal with it. Have you priced construction materials lately? It appears the city has no contingency plan for increased cost of construction material.

3. City employees will be added. What does that mean for taxpayers? Take a look at the building site plan.

There are separate offices for aquatics, recreation supervisor, facility manager and sports supervisor. Does that tell you something about potential new city hires to run this facility? Looks to me like four new supervisory positions with associated employees also hired to work under those supervisors. Sounds like a lot of new city employees.

This while we as a city struggle to pay for more law enforcement, which on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (or nearly anyone’s hierarchy of needs) is much more important. Providing for citizen security is a fundamental government function, recreation is not.

4. I have great concerns about the cost of running the facility and whether it can be self-sustaining or whether the city will impose yet another tax levy to support it. Doyon’s answer that potential additional costs to run facility could come from general fund doesn’t alleviate my concerns. Doesn’t general fund money still come from the taxpayers? The money pit city golf courses ran up a cost to the general fund of well over a million dollars until their management was privatized. But I didn’t get an answer on whether the city would consider privatizing management of the Aim High facility.

5. My understanding is that Aim High’s primary purposes were to replace the Natatorium, which provided aquatic recreation and as an aquatics training facility for Malmstrom personnel. Why then, did the designer add basketball courts, an indoor running track, multipurpose/exercise rooms and child care facilities?

Don’t we already have plenty of basketball courts, indoor running tracks, exercise facilities and child care facilities throughout Great Falls for the public to use? Doesn’t the base also already have some of those facilities? Why the duplicative efforts?

Wouldn’t money be better spent on energy savings measures for a basic Natatorium facility rather than an expanded recreation center with duplicative facilities? Doesn’t the increased purpose of this city facility mean it also competes with private businesses such as the Peak and other for-profit multipurpose exercise facilities? Why is the city positioning itself to compete with those private businesses?

6. Why is the city allocating the area in Lions Park adjacent to 10 Ave S for future commercial development under the Aim High CUP? How can the Aim High CUP be used to set aside land for commercial development for a business or businesses not yet identified in the CUP?

Is this commercial development area meant to provide the Great Falls good old boy/girl network with prime commercial development space along 10th Ave S?

7. This project is partially federally funded therefore subject to the Code of Federal Regulations for contracting using federal funds. I hoped the city would have learned its lesson about following regulations regarding federal funds after HUD reprimanded the city for conflicts of interest in allocation of CDBG funds. But I’ve been alerted that the city’s handling of the Aim High project warrants further investigation related to federal regulations.

Despite hearing from many folks in Great Falls with concerns about this project, I was the only person to express any concerns at the meeting. When no one else shows up, it’s easy for the city and its associated cronies to dismiss me as a “Karen” even though I know I’m actually speaking for a lot of people.

I’m urging Great Falls citizens to please get more involved with your local government. Go to meetings, call in by phone or send emails to make your voices heard

Cascade County GOP Elects Executive Board

ECB Staff on May 19, 2021

PRESS RELEASE FROM

CASCADE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE (CCRCC)

CYNDI BAKER, CHAIR

ELECTION OF EXECUTIVE BOARD

The Cascade County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC) recently met in Convention to elect the 2021-2022 Executive Board. Reelected to their prior positions were:

Cyndi Baker, Chair
Kerry Yates, 1^st Vice-Chair
Roger Hagan, 2^nd Vice-Chair
Wendy McKamey, Secretary
Fred Fairhurst, Treasurer
Ed Buttrey, Finance Chair
Eric Tilleman, Congressional Committeeman
Brian Hoven, State Committeeman

Newly elected members of the Executive Board are: Fabiola Hanser, Congressional Committeewoman and Lori Cox, State Committeewoman.

These Executive Board members will serve our CCRCC for the next two years. We wish to congratulate the newly elected Executive Board members.

We also thank the outgoing Board members; Stacie Landon, Congressional Committeewoman and Barbara Hoven, State Committeewoman, their service is appreciated and respected.

Following the Convention, the CCRCC convened for a meeting to approve proposed rule changes for the operation of the Central Committee.

The goal of the CCRCC is to support and elect Republicans at all levels of government and to include all Republicans in our big tent party.

The CCRCC looks forward to another great year for our Republican contingent in Cascade County.

#######

Contact Info:
Wendy McKamey, CCRCC Secretary
wsgmckamey@gmail.com
(406) 868-5006

Does Jasmine Taylor Get To Decide Whether Or Not You’re A Racist?

ECB Staff on April 14, 2021

Continuing our series on the revealing social media posts of local and state candidates/politicians, today we feature Democrat Jasmine Taylor.

Taylor lost to GOP incumbent Lola Galloway in Cascade County’s HD 22 in 2020. She also came in dead last out of a field of 6 candidates, losing in the 2019 Great Falls City Commission race.

Apparently, she is still running for the seat she failed to win last year because her Facebook profile is Jasmine Taylor for HD22.

Here are a couple of screenshots from that Facebook page which were sent to E-City Beat this week.

So, if you ‘argue’ with Jasmine Taylor about whether or not ALL lives matter, you’re a racist.

All law enforcement, which includes Great Falls law enforcement, is ‘entombed in racism and white supremacy’?

If you call for calm and peaceful protests rather than violence, arson and looting, well then you’re a racist. Jasmine Taylor says so.

And if you complain about property damage, like your life dreams as represented in the business or home you built, being burnt to the ground by ‘protesters’ then of course Jasmine Taylor declares you a racist.

No wonder Ms. Taylor lost so badly both times she ran for public office. No doubt she will lose again if this is how she rolls.

Did The City Drop A Doodie In The Pool?

Philip M. Faccenda on April 13, 2021

Oh my gosh!

Private procurement for architectural and engineering services are one thing, but Federal procurement rules for procurement of such services are quite another.

The question is: Did the City of Great Falls violate Federal Procurement Laws relative to Conflicts of Interest – Unfair Competitive Advantage?

Federal law places a standard of conflicts of interest largely on what a “reasonable Person” could assume to be problematic.

Significant events concerning the Indoor Recreation Center/Aquatics Facility are listed chronologically below.

In 2016, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan lists a new recreation center and indoor pool as a listed priority for Great Falls.

In January of 2020, the City learns of a possible Department of Defense grant for the benefit of military families at Malmstrom AFB.

In early June of 2020, the City concludes that in order to complete a grant pre-application it needed the assistance of an architectural consultant.

In mid-June 2020, the City hires a consultant, without notifying all local architectural firms, to interpret a loosely evolved program for a facility and complete a “preliminary design”.

On June 26, 2020, the pre-application is due.

In July of 2020, the City’s pre-application receives a favorable response from the DoD’s Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation that the City’s application would be placed on a list for consideration for the grant.

In late August 2020, feeling hopeful that there was a good chance of final grant approval, the City publishes a Request for Proposals (RFP) for all interested architectural and engineering firms. Respondent’s submissions were due on September 21, 2020. It is important to note that the issued RFP contained design work from the City’s grant pre-application.

On September 12, 2020, the City learns of a $10M grant award from the DoD.

On October 13, 2020 the City Commission awards the architectural/engineering contract to the local A&E team that aided the City in completion of the grant pre-application and “preliminary Design”. The City then negotiates a reported fee of $1.8M to the A&E firm, firms.

After rejecting first one site located near the main gate to MAFB, and another next to the soccer fields on 57th Street due to poor soils conditions, which reportedly would have added $2.6M to the foundation construction costs, a third site at North Kiwanis Park was rejected by MAFB because of access concerns.

A site taking approximately one third of developed Lions Park has been selected.

At this point keep in mind that $10M of the proposed $20M construction cost will be paid by the Federal grant, and it is my opinion that Federal Procurement laws are applicable to the selection of the A&E firm, or team.

Again, Federal procurement law treats the subject of “Unfair Competitive Advantage” seriously and considers “appearance” of the process important.

Government, and non-federal entities, Local government entities as grantees, cities, and tribal governments must follow the Code of Federal Regulations, in particular 2 CFR 200.319, which is cited below.

§ 200.319 Competition.

(a) All procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and § 200.320.

(b) In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, or invitations for bids or requests for proposals must be excluded from competing for such procurements.

In a response by a Federal agency to the question: “Does the guidance impact vendor’s ability to play a role in helping in helping to draft specifications for Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The answer: “A vendor that is a contractor involved in the development, or drafting of specifications, or,requirements for an RFP has an organizational conflict of interest that would exclude the vendor from competing for the resulting procurements under the procurement requirements at 2 CFR 200.”

The City’s Indoor Recreation Center & Aquatics Facility lists the work done by the initial A&E contractor “is a preliminary design and renderings that were submitted with the proposal (grant pre-application). The concept is offered to provide proposed respondents an idea of what the Department of Defense approved and anticipates.”

In my opinion, the production of a preliminary design constituted a contribution to the RFP, and should therefore exclude the initial contractor from the follow-on work.

During the October 13, 2020 City Commission meeting, only one commissioner, Commissioner Tryon, voiced concerns that the process of selecting the A&E consultant didn’t appear to be fair and asked that the hiring decision be postponed so that the process could be examined more closely. His dissenting vote was the only no vote.

[poll id=”30″]

Tryon Addresses GF Crime Task Force Questions

Rick Tryon on April 9, 2021

At our Tuesday April 6 regular meeting the Great Falls City Commission unanimously passed Resolution 10395 establishing the Great Falls Crime Task Force.

As I’ve spoken to many groups and individuals in the weeks since the concept was first raised at the commission goal setting session earlier this year I have found that there’s overwhelming public support for the formation of the task force and it’s goals and purpose which are laid out briefly in the first section of the resolution:

WHEREAS, the protection of life and property is amongst the highest priorities of the City of Great Falls; and

WHEREAS, the Great Falls City Commission is aware of mounting community concerns about the City’s increasing crime rates; and

WHEREAS, the City of Great Falls would like to empanel a Task Force to make
recommendations on how to more effectively address crime in Great Falls.

Here I would like to address two of the concerns I’ve heard about the task force.

First is the question of how much extra cost to Great Falls taxpayers will be incurred by putting together and conducting a crime task force. The answer is simple. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

SECTION 2: Members of the Task Force shall be recommended by the City Manager to the City Commission. The City Commission shall confirm the appointments. Task Force members shall receive no compensation. Expectations for attendance and conduct of individual members and the Task Force as a whole shall be the same as those for members of other committees appointed by the City Commission.

“Task Force members shall receive no compensation…” means exactly what it says. So, what about City employees time and City resources being used for conducting meetings?

The use of City resources for the task force is not an extra cost for two reasons.

“…the protection of life and property is amongst the highest priorities of the City of Great Falls“. In other words, the very mission of government at every level is to protect the citizens. Any resources or personnel deployed to help achieve the core purpose of an organization is not an “extra cost”. It is the reason employees are paid and resources are acquired. Claiming that the task force is an unnecessary extra cost for the City is like saying beer is an unnecessary extra cost for an Irish pub, which is absurd.

The City is operating under a budget which was approved last year. There will be no additional taxes of any kind for even one Great Falls resident because of the establishment of the task force. Not one dime. Not one penny.

“Claiming that the task force is an unnecessary extra cost for the City is like saying beer is an unnecessary extra cost for an Irish pub, which is absurd.”

Another concern that has come up is whether the public will have enough opportunity for input and whether ‘regular’ citizens will be adequately represented on the task force.

While I think it’s important that the Great Falls Crime Task Force members have some expertise and experience in our local criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, and corrections, I am also certain that the task force will include citizens from the community at large.

In addition, there will be abundant opportunity for the public to participate fully every step of the way. The task force will be holding public forums and the regular task force meetings will be totally transparent and open to public participation and comment.