Fake News – Great Falls Tribune

Gregg Smith on May 24, 2017

From a front-page, AP story in the Tribune this morning on Trump’s budget: “The Trump administration’s budget plan for 2018 assumes that a mix of sharp spending and tax cuts can both shrink the deficit and fuel economic growth of 3 percent a year — a level it hasn’t achieved in more than a dozen years.” [Emphasis added]

“First, the budget isn’t being cut. Indeed, Trump is proposing that federal spending increase from $4.06 trillion this year to $5.71 trillion in 2027. Second, government spending will grow by an average of almost 3.5 percent per year over the next 10 years.” Dan Mitchell

Hmmm. Someone isn’t telling the truth.

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).

Comment Of The Day

Gregg Smith on May 22, 2017

The Tribune finally caught up to the Tracy Houck, CDBG funding story, but the reporter didn’t have nuthin’ on this commenter:

Robert Tyler

Great Falls, Montana

How can Houck claim to be personally handling this issue because of concern about the privacy protections of a male employee while in tandem exposing the sexual harassment complaint and negative performance evaluations of her former employee Wolfe?

This action by Houck has a retaliatory smell to it, I would guess whoever handles PGS or GFPS legal defenses wishes Houck would have delegated and the delegate brought it to light with a little less public vetting of the details.

How does Sexe saying that the re-evaluation by the CDC was required until the PGS allocation was not zero make the process fair? Correcting an alleged anti-PGS bias by removing Wolfe yet leaving in place other CDC board members who were contacted on the behalf of a sitting commissioner to complain about the results does nothing but create a pro-PGS bias. The whole process stinks of suspicion due to Houck’s mishandling of all of her positions and the city attorney’s pro-PGS allocation statement. I see no reason why Sexe thinks the city would be at risk of PGS litigation due to the improper behavior of the PGS director. It seems the best result would be for the CDC results to be tossed as spoiled and either a new board established or the remaining commissioners come to their own conclusions.

Burrow’s sentiment of not wanting anything to do with the “backroom deals” is the proper and adult way out. Eliminating the PGS allocation for this year because of the improper actions of their director revolving around an ex-PGS employee is proper. Houck should have vetted Wolfe during the Jan 17, 2017 commission meeting when Houck voted on new appointments, had opportunity to see Wolfe’s name and was given the public opportunity to comment. Instead Houck remained quiet and voted to confirm committee members who would later vote to allocate her employer money.

Former Mayor Michael Winters Goes On The Record

Philip M. Faccenda on May 21, 2017

On Tuesday, May 16, Gregg Smith wrote a post about the City’s CDBG allocation process, our fifth and most recent article on the topic. Since the publication of our first CDBG content on April 27, this blog has received nearly 8,000 page views. Suffice it to say, then, that this has swelled into an issue of significant community interest.

Things picked up over the past week. The blog (and I, personally) received a number of emails and calls from members of the public.

I can report with confidence two things: 1) people are starting to pay attention to local government, and 2) most of these folks are really, really unhappy with the CDBG shenanigans. One of the dozen or so folks who wrote to us recently was our former Mayor, Michael Winters. He said he wanted to chat, and graciously agreed to be interviewed about CDBG, the City Commission, and the state of Great Falls.

Below is the transcript of my interview with Mayor Winters…

Enjoy!

You reached out to us, and said you wanted to chat. What’s been on your mind these days, Mayor Mike?

I think what’s been on my mind as we go into the summer months (and I don’t pay much attention to the City Commission meetings for the most part), but I’ve seen some different things that I’d question. The business with the one commissioner.

I just have to say, is it youthful ignorance? Is that commissioner not aware of what appears to be a conflict, or does this commission just not give a rat’s tail about conflicts or not? A good example of that is all the political activity going on Paris Gibson Square. I remember they had Governor Bullock there and the whole lineup of Democrats for some rally before the election, but only on the one side. Then they use it to get people to the women’s march. I don’t believe an organization that is sponsored by the people’s funds should be doing such. I don’t think our tax dollars should be supporting a place that encourages political activism, no matter who it would be. In this case, it’s totally for the one party. It’s a museum, and I don’t believe that’s the workings of what a museum ought to be. They should be neutral. People have their own feelings and agendas and should be able to express them, but not through the properties that are commonly held.

The prior commission showed integrity, and they showed the wherewithal to do the right thing, all the time. I don’t see that we have a great deal of leadership right now. We need accountability. This issue with the conflict is, this is the right opportunity for the mayor to offer a public statement about this, yet the mayor has said nothing. Is that leadership?

It appears to the people who have talked to me (and people will stop me in the stores), and they question the integrity of what’s happening in the city. What is integrity? It’s doing the right thing while nobody’s watching. Some can’t do the right thing when the people are watching! And if you can’t do that, then you can’t possibly represent all the people.

The idea of conflicts of interest, there should never be a conflict of interest. You’re not there to serve your own interests or ideas, you’re there to represent the people in the people’s house, and that’s the Civic Center. You have to put your own ideas in your back pocket and listen to what the people have to say.

I wasn’t what you would call the typical mayor. What we had was a huge influx of money from upper-echelon people to replace me. The election was financed on different skillsets, however, the community knew my skillsets. But who is being represented now? Are we representing the elites in town, or are we representing the average, hard-working community supporters?

I think the important part of being a commissioner or mayor is knowing how to get along with people. It doesn’t mean you always capitulate, but you must be able to read people, understand people, and you’ve got to listen to people. When my phone rings, it didn’t matter what time it was, I would always answer it. When they would call, they weren’t practicing dialing the telephone, they wanted to talk to the mayor. Our commission addressed everyone’s concerns equally. The prior commission also worked to the point where the department heads addressed people’s concerns and people over time were able to put trust back in city government, and that is just a fact.

If you were still mayor, and these conflicts presented themselves on your commission, how would you handle the situation?

The mayor is only one representative, but you really are the number one citizen in a lot of ways, and I think within the parameters of what he can do, I would have put a stop to all conflicts of interest, and I would have no problem whatsoever letting all the commissioners know that I would do that. I would say so publicly, and I would put a stop to it on the spot. Now unfortunately, that hasn’t happened here.

The last commission brought back a higher level of understanding, of integrity, of trust, that the working class person could call a commissioner and get a straight answer. We did the same working with the city manager and the departments, that the people are the ruling clan, and that we need to represent them correctly, and strongly.

Employees of the city government are employees of the general public, and the general public are the customers – you have to listen to them, respect where they are coming from, and if they have problems that can be negotiated or comprised, that’s what you have to be doing. You have to be representing the entire community, not just certain special interest groups – and that’s what seems to be happening currently.

What do you attribute to the relative lack of growth in Great Falls, and what would you like to see happen?

It’s our attitude. Community attitude. “Not in my backyard.” It’s OK to have the small community atmosphere and attitudes, but that impedes growth. And rather than accepting what’s given to us, let’s reach out to other potential businesses. When I was mayor, I reached out to a number of businesses and asked them to come here, businesses that would have added to our potential growth. One had considered us seriously, one major company in particular was interested in coming here. They sent their real estate person here to look us over. But we had a snowstorm in December when he came, and the attraction unfortunately wore off in a hurry.

I also don’t view Great Falls as just Great Falls. It stretches out to Simms, Augusta, and beyond the physical borders of Great Falls. At the Veteran’s memorial, and I did this for the memorial and our community, now we have 250 Blackfeet warriors’ names on our memorial. We did that by reaching out. You have to reach out.

We have the potential of serving and being an example of all the communities within our reach, we could absolutely be the shining star on the prairie. It’s what we the people want and if we the people want our community to grow, then it’s about reaching out to the people we want and who need us. That’s growth.

One of the largest and major concerns I have is the “not in my backyard” philosophy. We want growth and we want to stimulate the economy, we want jobs and industries, as long as it doesn’t impede the flow of traffic, or their views, and I don’t mean their political views. For the most part, the community wants to come to the commission meetings and air their views when there is a conflict, when they feel like they’re being stepped on, and when they feel like their personal standard of level is being compromised, and a good example of that was the conflict in the Fox Farm interchange.

There are other things we can do, though.

What has the community done to reach out to the universities? We have a private university that graduates people, but what have we done as a City to encourage them? What kind of programs have we offered as a community to help those folks out? Have the city offices made it easier for people who want to come here? Have we made it more appealing for people who want to come here? Have we as a community said, “Hey, this is an enticing place”? Yeah, we have a river, 50-some miles of a trail, but most of it is never touched. There could be a rowing club, there could be more festivities and events on the river. The community needs to pick up and work in unison with city government. City government cannot and should not do it alone. You need the cooperation of everyone in the community.

People say, we need this industry to come here or that industry to come here, but wouldn’t it be nice of some of those folks actually invested their money to bring those industries there themselves? That’s the only way it’s gonna get done.

If you don’t like something, how can you help correct it? How can you make our community more pleasantly appealing to other folks? We’re a very friendly, accepting community, we’re a generous community. At the same time, if you want to attract other people, there must be something more fundamental and on the ground to make people come here.

You served three terms as mayor. Of all the commissioners, who did you most enjoy serving with and why?

I enjoyed all five of us working together, and we relied on each other for different guidance. The one commissioner that I felt the most in tune with was Bob Jones. He and I both have the sound basic structure that we both understand the public. And I like Fred Burow because of his common sense approach to things. I like Bronson because he has a legal background, though he sometimes over pushed that. We came together and worked together as a team. I liked Mary Jolley a great deal. She was a very good commissioner, and I’m sure she’s an excellent judge. She spoke her mind, and she understood exactly where she was in life as it pertains to being a commissioner, and she was a very, very good representative.

Rick Tryon and Gregg Smith wrote about this before. How do you assess the state of Great Falls as it stands today?

I think we are poised for continual slow and gradual growth, a potential that we can realize if we work together. We have the potential of working more with Malmstrom, having Malmstrom more involved with our community and the City, the potential of having both the universities working with us more and us with them more. I think we’re poised for a great potential jumpoff point. We have to want to reach out and understand that while some things are a given, we have to reach sometimes a little harder and a little further. We don’t have to accept the minimum.

I was very critical of the City Commission for denying Calumet a tax abatement after Calumet invested an additional $450 million into our community. What did you think of the City’s decision?

I’m not sure that it was the right decision. I think the total number [of the requested abatement] was maybe too high. But I thought the City and Calumet could have negotiated that down to a smaller number and over a longer period of time so it didn’t hit taxpayers as hard. All it did was put up a red flag to other businesses that said, “Yeah, they want us to come there, but they don’t want to help us out.” It was too high, but I thought it was a mistake to let it go entirely.

What are your thoughts on the City’s proposed parks maintenance district?

When you look at that perspective, we just had water and sewer rate increases, each time the increases happen, the people paying for them by and large don’t have the extra spendable income to kick into our local businesses, and I think that’s something that isn’t being considered. I don’t want to see the parks district. It’s too large and too much. Park and rec is my favorite department, but what we have to do is put in place some analysis into the process, to see that each arm of government is operating more efficiently. So let’s start with efficiency of departments. Then let’s adjust how efficiently they’re functioning.

I think we should consider selling some park land that isn’t being utilized. The land up by Gore Hill, the City should consider selling it. The people who have the adjoining property, they’re parking there anyway, so sell it to them. There’s a park with an active railroad on the West side, where no mother would let her child play, the City should consider selling that also.

I think we should make our parks more gorgeous, and the community can help do that too. Community interaction is just so important.

For a community that’s been losing people for the past few years, and with all the fixed incomes we have, we keep raising taxes and fees. At some point we have to hold the line.

A lot was made about the City’s cell phone ordinance down in Helena, specifically with Rep. Jeremy Trebas’ bill. Your commission instituted the ban. What say you?

I cant imagine for a moment that a legislator representing the people of Great Falls would go to the Legislature and try to enact limits on how we govern ourselves. I would have gone to the Legislature like Kelly and Bronson did. Legislators should focus on state business, and we as city commissioners should focus on city and local business.

What are you most proud of accomplishing in your tenure as mayor?

I think I’m more proud of working with the city commissioners, together as a team, working toward a common goal, and that was always to help out the community. We ended the fiasco with the ECP business, we were on the hook for $60 million flat out cash. We got out for 3.5 [million], and then were some blunders that the city already owned in debts, water credit debts, and that was included. We negotiated that $60 million down to $3.5 million.

One might argue you saved the city.

We did save the city! There’s no doubt about it. We were sitting head long into bankruptcy. We were on the course of disaster, but we got out, and it was our commission that did it – collectively. We had James Santoro, who was the City Attorney at the time and excellent counsel, and they gave us choices, but our commission made the right choices and we did it.

If you were given the opportunity to do it all over, would you do anything differently? and/or would you run again for any office?

Yes, I would have. I would have acted more professionally. I have maintained my principles and I never compromised my integrity, but I could have acted more professionally in conducting our meetings. I wouldn’t have changed a vote, and I feel like I did the job right. I could have used 50 cent words instead of 5 cent words, but I’m a straight talker and I talked how I talked.

Would I run again? I have been considering running for a spot on the city commission. I’d like to stay involved. The strongest thing any elected person should be able to say without tongue in cheek is, “I don’t know what kind of mayor or commissioner I was.” That’s up the for the public to decide and to tell me. People will ask me, “Mike, were you a good mayor?” and I’d have to say, “Well, I don’t know, you tell me, and you’d have to ask the people. That’s for everyone else to decide.”

Challenger Emerges For City Commission Seat

ECB Staff on May 17, 2017

On April 20, the filing period opened for Great Falls Mayoral and City Commission candidates. Despite an otherwise quiet municipal electoral landscape, we were recently alerted to the online presence of one Commission candidate, Tyson Habein. You can follow his campaign on Facebook here.

While he doesn’t seem to possess particularly high name ID, Habein’s could make for an interesting candidacy. He’s young, and has worked as Regional Field Organizer for the Montana Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. If Habein proves himself to be a savvy campaigner who is willing to work hard — by utilizing Democratic lists and data to send up a friendly flag to voting liberals — he could be competitive.

Though City elections are officially non-partisan, the left-leaning triumvirate of Bob Kelly, Bill Bronson, and Tracy Houck swept the 2015 contests.

Mayor Kelly, Commissioner Bob Jones, and Commissioner Fred Burow are all up for re-election this year.

The last day to file for office is June 19. For the requirements to seek and hold public office, read the City’s election brochure.

Of Smoke…And Fire

Gregg Smith on May 16, 2017

On May 15, 2017, I had the opportunity to sit down with City Manager, Greg Doyon, City Attorney, Sara Sexe, and City Planning Director, Craig Raymond, to discuss City Commissioner Tracy Houck’s involvement in the allocation of CDBG funds to the Paris Gibson Square where she serves as the Executive Director. Some takeaways:

The March 20, 2017, letter from the City Attorney to Commissioner Houck warning her away from conflicts of interest was hand delivered to Houck after the March 20, 2017, Work Session where Houck was clearly involved in the CDBG funding discussion, but before that day’s City Commission meeting.

There was a meeting between Mayor Kelly, Houck, and others to discuss the conflicts, and she has deferred from involvement since then.

The information that was provided to Houck regarding the Community Development Council’s deliberations and scoring of competing applications is public record and was requested by at least one other agency representative besides Houck. I have requested this information from the City, and will post it when received.

The City Attorney is working on a disclosure form and process for outside interests.

First, there should have been a tight, well-designed process in place already given the number of potential conflicts of interest in a small town. However, if closing the barn door after the cows leave was an uncommon phenomenon, there wouldn’t be a handy phrase to describe it.

Second, while Houck has apparently stopped participation after her conflict was noted by staff, this is not an exoneration. She has an independent responsibility to understand the rules that govern her service, and to follow them. I would be very surprised to learn that she was not given some sort of orientation about City rules and requirements; I remember a detailed orientation and I was only a Neighborhood Council member.

This is the second time, then, that Commissioner Houck finds herself in a position where the best thing that can be said about her conduct is that she was very careless. I have a hard time believing that there is someone who would not understand that it is inappropriate and unethical to communicate with the administrator of CDBG funds on behalf of an applicant agency while wearing her City Commission hat. In addition, I found her gossiping on Facebook about a local business person in a matter involving the City Commission. Commissioner Houck should recognize that she needs to dial it back, know the rules, follow the rules and, as one of my friends always said, just stick to the knittin’.

Even More CDBG Mania

Rick Tryon on May 15, 2017

Have you noticed that when it comes to Community Block Grant funding and voting, the Great Falls City Commission abounds with apparent conflicts of interest, or with situations with the appearance of conflicts?

We’ve already seen an article in E-City Beat about Commissioner Houck and the appearance of a huge conflict of interest involving Paris Gibson Square, the entity from which Houck draws a paycheck. There are other disturbing real or apparent conflicts involving other City Commissioners.

Let’s start with Commissioner Bill Bronson.

Last year at the January 19, 2016 City Commission meeting, Bronson affirmatively voted to hand NeighborWorks Great Falls (NWGF) management of the city’s CDBG rehab revolving loan program (worth over $2 million in funds already loaned) under a contract which was to pay NWGF $50,000 a year. Commissioner Bronson has an immediate family member who works in a significant position at NWGF. Perhaps sensing that this would become an issue, Bronson pre-empted his critics and declared at the meeting that he would not recuse himself:

Commissioner Bronson noted that his wife is an employee at NeighborWorks. He explained that his wife is not involved with this particular program. She operates a totally separate and independently financed program. After consulting with City Attorney Sara Sexe and concluding that there is not a conflict of interest he will be participating in this matter.

Then-Deputy City Manager Jennifer Reichelt led the staff presentation explaining that, as reported in the minutes, “NeighborWorks was identified as an ideal partner, and staff began discussions regarding the future of the program.” (Reichelt also sat on the NWGF Board at the time.)

A number of citizens objected to NWGF taking over the fund, including Terry Thompson, CEO of the Great Falls Association of Realtors:

Ms. Thompson urged the Commission to table this matter until such time as sufficient research has been completed by City staff to identify other non-profits, such as a local credit union, if interested and/or capable of being certified by HUD, to administer this program.

The Commission, including Bronson, did not want to consider other organizations, and voted to hand over the keys to NWGF.

Bronson’s participation on the matter does not seem to jive with HUD rules (Conflicts of Interest CDBG and HOME Programs):

  • Generally, the regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 84 and 85 prohibit an employee, officer or agent of the grantee/subgrantee or recipient/subrecipient from participating in the selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by Federal  funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
  • Such a conflict would arise when:
  • (i) The employee, officer or agent,
  • (ii) Any member of his immediate family,
  • (iii) His or her partner, or
  • (iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award….

And I note:

  • There are no exceptions for real or apparent procurement conflicts of interest.

So, a few questions here…

Does Commissioner Bronson have a member of his immediate family employed by NeighborWorks? Yes! Does that mean that Bronson’s family member, by receiving a paycheck, has both a financial and other interest in the firm selected for an award? Moreover, even if Bronson can legally justify his participation, does that make it right for him to do so? Or, put another way, does Bronson’s “just trust me” attitude strengthen or weaken the public’s trust in him, and in the City Commission?

Bronson pontificated that his involvement did not constitute a conflict of interest because the member of his family employed at NWGF worked in a different department than the one actually receiving the funds. While HUD rules do not seem to define separate departments of a firm as reasons to exempt one from a conflict of interest, again, is Bronson’s entrenched defiance the kind of conduct we want in our elected officials? At a minimum, this looks bad. Why not step aside?

More recently, at the March 21, 2017 meeting of the City Commission, commissioners voted to accept CDBG allocations on Timeliness Projects. NWGF and Habitat for Humanity combined on a project and received $116,000 for purchasing lots. Unsurprisingly, Commissioner Bronson participated here, too, and again voted to give money to NeighborWorks Great Falls.

Then, at the April 18, 2017 City Commission meeting, the commission voted to accept the proposed CDBG funding allocations for 2017-18 and to set a public hearing for May 16. Bronson voted affirmatively to authorize $40,000 to the City’s revolving block grand loan fund. In other words, the vote authorizes the City to receive the money, but that money, again, ultimately flows to NWGF, who now administers this fund.

On top of all this, Commissioner Bronson may be poised not only to vote on June 6 on CDBG funds to the City (and by extension, to NWGF), but also to weigh in and vote on CDBG funds to Public Facilities, of which Paris Gibson Square is now a recipient — and an entity which employs another immediate family member of Bronson’s. (The public hearing on this matter is Tuesday, May 16.)

Commissioner Bronson’s family members are good, upstanding, hard working community members.  This is not about them in any way, shape or form. This is about Commissioner Bronson refusing to recuse himself from voting when there appears to be, as HUD states, either real or apparent conflicts of interest. In Bronson’s case, this includes both NWGF and Paris Gibson Square.

Frustratingly, the murkiness on CDBG funding extends beyond both Commissioners Bronson and Houck. At the same March 21, 2017 city commission meeting, both Mayor Bob Kelly and Commissioner Bronson abstained from voting on CDBG Timeliness funds to the Great Falls Development Authority (GFDA), since both were, at the time, members of the GFDA Board.

However, at the April 18 meeting of the commission, we see two members of the City Commission in virtually identical situations doing two very different things: Mayor Kelly voting and Commissioner Bronson abstaining from a vote to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The mayor stated he had resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.  Still a conflict? At one meeting he recuses himself and at the next he votes. Why does Bronson (of all people) feel compelled to sit this one out, yet Kelly doesn’t?

Look at how much has changed since July 21, 2015: recall Kelly’s comment on the controversial Thaniel Addition, where he had just resigned as a member of the board of NWGF and when a potential conflict of interest loomed large in the public eye (and just as he was running for the position of Mayor):

‘I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.’

‘I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.’

As much as I appreciated Kelly’s sentiments at the time — it really seemed like he “got it” — I can’t help but wonder: What was different about this situation? On Thaniel, Kelly didn’t think it was appropriate to resign on the issue so he could come back and vote, but he does here? What’s the difference?

And finally, have you noticed that Mayor Kelly and Commissioner Bronson at times appear to pass the voting baton back and forth? When one abstains or is recused from voting, the other votes, even though the apparent conflict of interest (or lack thereof, to be fair) is exactly the same for both. This happened in 2016 with the NWGF contract for rehab loans, and it happened at the April 18, 2017 commission meeting with GFDA on the docket for CDBG funds.

Such behavior gives the appearance that when votes are needed to pass an item before the commission, commissioners agree ahead of time on who will abstain and who will vote. While this is probably not the case, it’s the appearance of such that incurs public distrust – and that is exactly the reason for HUD rules regarding “a real or apparent” conflict of interest on CDBG funding. Public trust.

There is a relatively simple fix to all of this, however: participating members, both on the Community Development Council (CDC) and the City Commission should be required to submit conflict of interest forms. People who represent organizations applying for CDBG funding should not be permitted to serve on the CDC. And City Commissioners who serve on advisory boards whose organizations do businesses with the city commission should, once they are elected, resign from those boards. Working as a city commissioner is a tough job, and I applaud all those who step up to do it, but once they are elected, it’s time to drop the other stuff and focus on us, we the people.

The citizens of this great city deserve that much.

Rob Quist Signs Popping Up On GFPS Owned Properties

ECB Staff on May 11, 2017

Two weeks from today, Montana voters will choose a new Congressional representative.

From the looks of things here in River City, our local school district — that’s right, Great Falls Public Schools — is putting its fingers on the scale for Democrat Rob Quist.

In clear violations of the law, someone has placed Quist’s campaign signs on properties owned by GFPS. There is a flock of them at Paris Gibson Square, the partially taxpayer-funded non-profit which leases its space from the District. Quist is holding a campaign event there this evening:

There is also Quist paraphernalia on a property GFPS purchased last year to get into the rental business:

On this point, Montana law is unambiguous:

“18.6.246 POLITICAL SIGNS

(1) Signs promoting political candidates or issues shall be placed on private property only [emphasis added] and cannot be placed without the permission of the property owner. Political signs must comply with sign standards found in 75-15-113, MCA, and ARM 18.6.231, unless otherwise specified in this rule.

(2) Political signs must not:

(a) be placed on or allow any portion to intrude in the public right-of-way or on public property [emphasis added]; and…”

Our tax dollars at work!

City Staff Deserves Credit For Sorting Out CDBG Mess

ECB Staff on May 9, 2017

As more details emerge about conflicts of interest surrounding the City and CDBG funds, the more it has become increasingly clear that staff, and City Attorney Sara Sexe in particular, have done an admirable job of sorting out a messy situation. As Gregg Smith noted, Paris Gibson Square, as an organization, has every right to raise questions about an alleged conflict on the CDC in that way that it did (via Executive Director Tracy Houck, and on PGS letterhead). Meanwhile, it is also clear that Houck, both through City emails and at the March 20 work session meeting, and in her capacity as a City Commissioner, participated in discussions concerning CDBG funding.

City Attorney Sexe even-handedly addressed both of these issues when she hand delivered a letter to Houck on March 20.

One commenter on the E-City Beat Facebook page took a personal swipe at Sexe (while also praising City Commissioner Fred Burow). Such attacks are unfair. Sexe acted thoughtfully, fairly, and in the best interests of the City. The efforts of Sexe and Burow were not leveled in opposition to the other. Both Sexe and Burow proactively addressed conflicts of interest; they both deserve praise.

Moreover, the totality of a recent records request (thanks, Ron Gessaman) reveals dozens of emails zipping back and forth between staffers in the Planning and Community Development department — all working considerable hours to meticulously and dispassionately administer CDBG monies. P&CD Director Craig Raymond and the City’s CDBG Coordinator, Maria Porter, are honest, hard-working professionals who are simply trying their best to comply with the substantial CDBG guidelines enumerated by HUD, not pick and choose winners and losers.

It is easy for the public to be frustrated by this process, but no one should find fault with City staff. They’re the ones ensuring that everyone plays by the rules.

Oh the Humanities…

Gregg Smith on May 7, 2017

One of my biggest concerns about the SJW craziness on college campuses is the current trend to conflate speech, even offensive speech, with violence. Mahler Mali does a great job describing this trend and its sources in this piece. He argues that the humanities, and especially the English majors, lack academic rigor and instead spend (waste?) their time inculcating anti-freedom ideals in their students:

Activist professors incapable of surviving in the more arduous disciplines (see: Autoethnography) are the most vociferous in limiting academic freedom of others. Given all of this, it is no surprise that Baer holds the views that he does. Neither is it surprising that we have professors of English publishing op-eds which ask for limiting speech, such as Aaron R. Hanlon a professor of English at Colby College in New Republic or John Patrick Leary a professor of English at Wayne State University in Inside Higher Education. 

Mali points out that one of the great accomplishments of the Enlightenment was the freeing of speech in order to avoid actual violence:

Words are not violence. We brought Western civilization through a crucible of ideological warfare to establish the norms of differentiating speech from physically harmful actions. Now some operators in the humanities want to drag us back there. What the “snowflakes” and Baer get right about free speech is absolutely nothing.

I recommend you read the whole thing.

And, lest someone want to defend limitations on “hate speech,” please be reminded that such a thing does not exist, at least not in constitutional jurisprudence.

We might want to put our heads under the pillows or, better yet, just laugh at these people. But remember that these students who claim “harm” and “violence” from speech, and who claim there is no such thing as objective truth (tell that to an airplane), will soon be lawyers, leaders and, gulp, federal judges.