The City of Great Falls delivered a hat trick of ordinances last night, with the passage of Ordinances 3148, 3149, and 3153 — all of which were opposed by Commission-goers but adopted unanimously by the Commissioners. This before Assistant City Attorney Joe Cik at one point amusingly referred to himself as “some sort of medieval person on an epic quest” to clean up “[City] code.”
Ordinance 3153 clarified existing language pertaining to the election of officers for Neighborhood Councils, while Ordinance 3148 “[amended] OCCGF §1.4.070 to allow for violators to be banned from entering or remaining upon City property for a period not to exceed one year.” It added an additional provision to municipal code granting the City Manager authority to ban citizens from City property for up to a year:
C. Any person convicted of a violation of this Code, the Montana Code Annotated, or is determined by the City Manager, or his designee, to be behaving in a disorderly or abusive manner, on the property of the City of Great Falls may be banned from entering, or remaining upon, said property for a period not to exceed one year.
While City staff and Commissioners made mostly sensible arguments in favor of these two ordinances, we were troubled by the passage of Ordinance 3149, as presented, which granted the Commission broad powers to remove members of City advisory boards and Neighborhood Councils. It reads:
A member of any board, commission, or council, including Neighborhood Council, may be removed from office, by majority vote of the City Commission, if:
1. The member misses more than one-third (1/3) of the regular meetings in a calendar year without a health or medical excuse;
2. The member is unable to fulfill the duties of the office as a result of physical illness or mental disorder. A determination of whether the incumbent has a mental disorder shall be made pursuant to MCA Title 53, Chapter 21;
3. The member neglects or refuses to discharge the member’s duties;
4. The member ceases to be a resident of the City, or in the case of a neighborhood council member, the member ceases to be a resident of the council member’s district;
5. The member is convicted of a felony, or of any offense involving moral turpitude, or a violation of official duties or the City Code of Ethics, Title 2, Chapter 52, while serving on a board, council, or commission; or
6. Any other reason which City Commission deems to be in the best interests of the City, and in such case, only by a four-fifths vote. [emphasis added]
First, really? Who, and what, defines “the best interests of the City”? Second, the City Attorney’s office clearly spent a significant amount of time researching and drafting this ordinance. (Time well spent?) Now, it makes sense that if a Neighborhood Council member moves outside of the City limits, then he or she should no longer be able to serve on one of the City’s Neighborhood Councils. Still, Section #6 seems just a little heavy-handed. What, really, is the point of this ordinance? And why is the City spending time and resources imposing this kind of authoritarian control over its unpaid volunteers?
A philosopher once said that we are really three quite different people; the one we see as our self, the one others see, and the one we really are. All very different and the first two are merely reflections.
The recent discourse concerning the Q & A session between representatives of the Great Falls Public Schools and the newly elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen, was not congratulatory, or welcoming. The event seems to be a spot-on reflection of the discourse surrounding President Trump’s Secretary of Education nominee, Betsy DeVos, who has been ripped nationally as Arntzen has in Montana.
Do you think the shoot-from-the-hip comments and condescending narrative directed at both women just might have some to do with their similar pro-voucher, pro-charter schools, and most importantly, pro-choice education positions? Do you think just maybe the NEA and the MEA have leveled their sights on Elsie and Betsy? One important feature is the emphasis and the substance of the word public when referring to education in our state as well as nationally. There is a not so new paradigm that suggests that the government’s program of public education for our children may not be the only, or the most successful methodology. When a country spends the most money per student on public education, yet ranks 29thin the civilized world in educational achievement, its structure probably ought to be up for review.
If pro-choice, charter schools, and vouchers have shown positive results, why not let this shift universally seek its level? The answer seems obvious; public education is a big business. Any move to divert taxpayer funds from the public education business is viewed as a threat to those running the business.
The truth is that parochial schools have been around since the beginning of our country’s history and the best colleges and universities are private institutions, many of which were founded based on religious principles. Why, then, should parents and students be financially penalized for exercising pro-choice educational freedoms when it concerns their children?
No matter the venue, existing and new educational methodology must be positively responsive to the new world we live in. It is well established that education on all levels must advance two basic important tasks, creativity and innovation. Without a strong emphasis on these, our children will not successfully meet the demands of the 21st century marketplace and our country will be at a significant disadvantage in the new world economy.
Yes, and how we design our schools can affect the education outcome we must achieve. Gone is the cellular and static concept we have duplicated in the past — encouraging movement, sensory stimulation and interdisciplinary study is the future. To do this, working together with open minds is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the left’s assaults on DeVos and Arntzen are instructive of knee-jerk partisanship, and ultimately, a willingness to place agendas above policy while shamelessly using our children as political pawns.
Sarah Dettmer, the Great Falls Tribune’s education reporter, seems to have it out for Elsie Arntzen.
Yesterday, Dettmer published a heavily self-referential, self-congratulatory article to explain away some of the blowback from her hit job on the freshly-elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican Elsie Arntzen.
Dettmer writes:
Then, Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey stood up to ask her question about federally funded preschools. It was a tense moment. The biggest player in education in Great Falls was politely, but pointedly challenging the biggest player in education in Montana.
As further research on Dettmer’s part would indicate, there is virtually nothing that Arntzen — a state official — can do to change federal funding of preschools. And there was nothing “polite” about Lacey cheaply invoking Arntzen’s granddaughter to frame what should have been a substantive question. Evidently more concerned with gamesmanship than with policy, the GFPS Superintendent seemed to relish poking at the OPI chief.
Nevertheless, Dettmer established her moral authority as a journalist to intervene — against Arntzen:
The fact is the story changed. As a journalist, I cannot sit in the back of the room and listen to a publicly elected official avoid her constituents’ questions and then go back to the office and not address it. It is my job to hold officials accountable for their words and actions.
Dettmer conceded that the crowd reaction affected her reporting.
I focused more on the audience reaction than I typically would in an article, but in this case I thought it was important to bring the reader into the room and to capture the palpable emotions. This was not a typical introductory meeting.
What exactly did Dettmer expect? One of the worst-kept secrets in Helena is that Democrats, Eric Feaver and the MEA-MFT, can’t stand Arntzen (a Republican), and that — in this venue — Arntzen was speaking to a room full of hostile administrators and union members who detest her. Yet, Dettmer deliberately chose to omit this necessary context.
She concluded in a similar vein:
Despite Arntzen’s claims in other publications that I misinterpreted her words through my transcripts, I look forward to working with the superintendent over the coming years and hope we can move forward with a professional relationship.
But, I will continue to hold her and her administration accountable for their words and actions just as I hope she does for me.
On this, Dettmer isn’t wrong. Arntzen, a government official, should be held accountable — and so, too, should Tammy Lacey, the School Board, and Great Falls Public Schools.
But by singling out Arntzen’s administration — and no one else’s — what does that tell you about which way the Tribune leans?
After our reporting (and thanks to our tipsters!), KRTV ran a story about Brett Doney’s gloomy review of the Great Falls job market. Apparently, the state of Montana disagrees with Doney:
But the Montana Department of Labor says the GFDA report is inconsistent with state numbers.
Chief Economist Barbara Wagner says there were roughly 300 jobs lost in Great Falls between July 2015 and July 2016 which could be attributed to the closure of the Asurion call center in downtown Great Falls.
Wagner says job growth through the rest of 2016 cancelled out the loss, showing virtually no change in the number of jobs in Great Falls.
The GFDA and the Montana DoL clearly rely on different metrics. It’s unsurprising, then, to see conflicting data on Great Falls jobs. What is surprising, though, are the conflicting reports from within the GFDA. We were intrigued by a Facebook comment by Sandra Guynn, who opined:
So who at the GFDA knows what they are talking about? According to an article in the Jan 28 print edition of the Great Falls Tribune, the chairman of the GFDA board, Ted Lewis, was quoted as saying, ‘the year 2016 was one of the best years for the Great Falls economy in many years. We’re very excited about our prospects for 2017, including several that haven’t been announced yet.’
So, which is it? Are we doing well, or aren’t we? And if the GFDA wants to push a mill levy, shouldn’t they develop some sort of coherent narrative explaining to the public why it’s a good idea? Should we vote to raise our taxes because we’re struggling and need the extra resources, or because we want to keep up the positive momentum?
We’re open to supporting this levy. But first, we’d like to know exactly why our community needs it.
After waging the only unsuccessful state-wide campaign among Montana Republicans, former gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte seems to have the inside track on his party’s nomination for the upcoming special election for the U.S. House. After weeks of contrived “Will he or won’t be?” speculation (was there ever any doubt?), Gianforte is now officially in the mix. With all due respect to Mr. Gianforte, Republicans should say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Considered alone, the arguments for Gianforte make sense. He possesses high name ID, a strong fundraising apparatus, and a willingness to campaign hard. But his strengths are belied by considerable negatives, all of which the Republican Central Committee ignores at its peril.
Voting electors within the GOP should carefully consider all of the following before tapping Gianforte:
In a year when every other Republican won state elections, Gianforte lost. Right now, his name ID, while prominent, is a bug, not a feature. Democrats successfully (albeit unfairly) painted him as a “billionaire from New Jersey.” This strategy decimated his run against Bullock, and Democrats will use it again just as opportunely. The millions of dollars spent on negative ads by Democrats still have purchase today, and they will for some time.
Public lands. In similarly dubious fashion, Democrats pilloried Gianforte as a restrictive plutocrat who would block access to Montana’s public lands. While untrue, the narrative stuck, and certainly will endure through this election, as well.
Dinosaurs. TV ads featuring paleontologist Jack Horner labeled Gianforte as an anti-science creationist who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old. According to a Fox News report, Gianforte’s (excellent) communications director, Aaron Flint, “forwarded a comment made last year by Gianforte in which he said, ‘I believe young people should be taught how to think, not what to think, and a diversity of views are what should be presented.'” In spite of this sensible rebuttal, too many Montanans found Gianforte’s creationist ties disqualifying.
As The Western Word’s Mike Brown points out, “[Gianforte] is too far to the right for many people.” Brown, who was Sen. Conrad Burns’ former deputy state director, knows a thing or two about Republican politics in Montana. Gianforte’s struggles with independents and his inability to expand his core constituency in the face of an upstart opponent (more on this later) could cost Republicans a special election they have every reason to win.
Montanans validated their approval of Ryan Zinke, who won re-election in a landslide. Since Zinke has occasionally carved out moderate stances on issues, wouldn’t it make sense — if the goal is to win — to appoint someone who is closer on the political spectrum to a winner like Zinke, than to prop up a losing and far-right candidate like Gianforte, who is more ideologically aligned to the flailing Tea Party?
Republicans should not underestimate Democrats in this election.
Imagine the following scenario: a “straight-talking” political outsider, born and raised in Montana, one with the endorsement of a popular former governor in Brian Schweitzer, barnstorming the state — with Schweitzer on the stump — on a populist platform of “Montana values” who will “keep public lands public” in opposition to the wealthy, “out of state” Gianforte. The candidate performs short musical riffs on social media, which quickly go viral. Aided by a friendly press, this upstart has no political record to speak of, and thus is largely exempt from Republican attack and media audit. In a truncated election cycle, where anything can happen, Gianforte struggles to win over the same centrists who rejected him in November. His opponent, a Democrat from Cut Bank, successfully turns the conventional political narrative on its head and captures just enough outsider-leaning, rural voters who embraced Donald Trump to eek out an upset. Can you say, Congressman Rob Quist?
Meanwhile, Zeno Baucus, U.S. attorney and son of Max, is reportedly mulling a run for the Democratic nomination. Decades of electoral evidence have affirmed the Baucus name in Montana. If left to face a candidate like Gianforte, who couldn’t get it done in an enormously favorable year for Republicans, even after injecting $6 million of his ownwealth into his campaign, Democrats could, in this scenario, too, steal the election.
So who should Republicans pick? Other far-right choices like Scott Sales and Ken Miller are Gianforte Lite. If the goal is to “out conservative” the field, they might as well settle on Gianforte. (They also might as well spot Democrats 7-10 points off the top and prepare for a fight they may lose.)
But if the goal is to pick the strongest general election candidate, and to keep the seat in Republican hands for at least a decade, this one isn’t close: it’s Ed Buttrey.
Sen. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls
Sen. Buttrey was the first to declare for the vacancy, and brings with him more advantages than does Gianforte.
Buttrey is a Montana native and also a successful entrepreneur. His business background is diverse — he founded Cable Technology, a manufacturing company with significant military and aerospace contracts, and he owns real estate and tavern holdings. Unlike Gianforte, he has actual legislative experience.
Buttrey said his work as a senator isn’t about following the party line wherever it leads, but about finding solutions. His work on Medicaid shows that.
On his campaign website for the 2014 election, he said he would support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but also makes the concession that it is law and pledges to work within the law to find a solution.
“It’s the easiest thing in the world for a legislator to do to spout rhetoric and vote no on everything,” Buttrey said. “You’re popular, you can defend your positions, but do you get anything done?”
Buttrey is one of very few legislators — from either party — to actually get things done in Helena. No other candidate is better equipped for the frenzied culture of Washington wheeling-and-dealing.
It’s this commitment to solutions, not ideology, that make Buttrey the stronger, more representative pick for all Montanans. If House Republicans drift to the unhinged right (as they are sometimes wont to do), Gianforte will almost certainly follow the establishment herd, whereas Buttrey, in Ryan Zinke and Donald Trump fashion, will break from party ranks, if necessary, and side with the people.
Moreover, successful Congressional representation is to a large degree a seniority game. Tenure matters. Why gamble on a wishy-washy Gianforte over a stable Buttrey? Would Gianforte treat the House like his former colleague Steve Daines did, as a jumping-off point to challenge Tester in 2018? Or to run again for Governor in 2020? With only one vote out of 435, we would like to see Montana’s next Congressional member commit to sticking around for awhile. Buttrey has promised that he would.
Finally, we couldn’t help but smile at the opening line in Gianforte’s announcement email to his supporters:
I wanted you to be among the first to hear that when my good friend Congressman Ryan Zinke is confirmed as our Secretary of Interior and a Special Election is called, I will seek the nomination to fill our open House seat at the MTGOP Delegate Convention.
Cozying up to Zinke is clever, but anyone who follows Montana politics knows that Buttrey is much closer to Zinke than Gianforte is — personally, politically, etc. Republican Central Committee members know this, too.
Greg Gianforte had his turn, and he lost. It’s time for the GOP to look in a new direction, and go “all in” with a personable and proven legislator who won’t leverage this House seat as a stepping stone for higher office.
It is time, finally, for insider Republicans to put Montana voters ahead of party ideology, and the surest, most decisive way to do that is to nominate Ed Buttrey.
Here’s something from the first iteration of Electric City Weblog after the Tribune outed me after a piece I wrote gained some public traction:
Anonymity gives one the freedom to vent and when I started a couple years ago, blowing off steam over news events was a primary reason to write here. I can appreciate those who suggest anonymous commenting is not useful in our political process, but I disagree. Believe it or not, there are those in the public and private sector who are petty enough to hold a person’s opinions against him or her. Further, anonymous political chatter has a long history in our culture. In fact, the famous “Common Sense” was originally anonymous.
Ask yourself why a government official would be so concerned about who wrote some ideas, rather than about the ideas themselves? Why does it matter who wrote them? Could it be that government power might be used against the author (or at least the long remembered will to use it against the author)?
Whenever I have had this discussion with people in power, guess what they say?
Some people prefer to write anonymously. It’s perfectly legal. It’s not chicken-sh*t, it’s not a cheap shot, it’s not bad form. It’s legitimate, and there are people who prefer to write that way.
My advice to public officials now that there’s a ‘new blog in town,’ just get over it and either contend with the ideas or ignore them. (Of course, if we have our way, we can eliminate the latter as a viable choice!)
And remember, too, you get to come at us anonymously. All we require is an email address and, in this day of gmail, those aren’t too hard to come by.
Not surprising to me because I’ve been watching what I call the ‘Glass Half Empty/Half Full Switcheroo” for a long time in this town. Here’s how it works:
Politicians and the heads of taxpayer funded non-profits and government agencies all understand that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The various organizational and political poobahs have become adept at massaging statistics to meet their situational needs. When it’s election time or time for the public and/or higher-ups to be convinced how great you or your organization are, out come the ‘facts’ and figures showing how rosy and wonderful everything is. But if you’re not an incumbent or your organization needs more funding, you trot out the dim and dire numbers to convince everyone how essential you or your organization is to the survival of common interests.
Doney’s statements are disturbing for obvious reasons. A net loss of 707 jobs in our already stagnant, low-wage economy is potentially devastating. To hear such alarming stats and assessments coming from the leader of our local economic development agency makes me wonder when the usual suspects who comprise the good ol’ boys and girls network here are going to start calling for his head for such negative blasphemy.
“We’ve lost the equivalent in the last couple of years in the City more than the nation lost in the Great Recession.”
“And frankly, these numbers scare the hell out of me.”
Good heavens! If I were to make a public statement coming anywhere even close to these made by Doney, the City Commission and the downtown elite would have my head on a spike in front of the Civic Center with a placard reading, “Such will be the fate of all nay-saying nabobs of negativity who dare to question.”
The fact is that Doney’s pitch for CDBG grant funds here actually contains the brutal and inconvenient truth: things are not all sunny and rosy right here in River City. I’m afraid that because most of the power players with money and influence who are currently calling the shots in Great Falls are doing well, they assume that everybody else must be too.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the little bubble of old Great Falls money, non-profit organizations and government entities is blissfully unaware of the struggle going on here. Doney touched on it by pointing out that there are too many citizens working two or three low wage service sector jobs to make ends meet. And this lack of higher wages combined with a stagnant population “…puts tremendous pressure on the City, on the County, on healthcare, and all of the social agencies in town.”
Great Falls has a thriving poverty industry – non-profits and government agencies that do pretty well for themselves under the mandate to help the less fortunate. It’s a good mission but the goal should be less poverty and dependence and fewer non-profit/government jobs, not more. And certainly not a local economy based on poverty which benefits the few. We are also seeing a growing child abuse, substance abuse, gambling and crime problem here, which are all exacerbated by low wages and a stagnant and limited tax base.
We need a growing population and an expanding economy with more primary, private sector employers paying higher wages. Unfortunately, Doney’s assessment makes it clear that we are moving in the opposite direction.
My personal opinion is that we’ve been doing the same thing and getting the same results for a long, long time in Great Falls. We should try something new, encourage new and different solutions from outside the box. We should invite new and different voices and try some bold action. We have a whole lot of potential in Great Falls but we need more hard and honest evaluation, and most of all we need a common vision and agreed upon goals.
Those are the only words that readily come to mind to describe Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey’s tirade against the recently elected, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen. According to the Tribune, Lacey “asked the superintendent whether she had plans to publicly fund preschool for the less fortunate children in the state, unlike Arntzen’s own granddaughter who is lucky to ‘have a full tummy every day.'” Aside from the gratuitous cheap shot against Arntzen’s family–discussed below–the bigger issue here is whether this is a legitimate complaint. (Wait, what? Did she just use the word “tummy” in a professional meeting? Or, maybe, she was just being condescending…)
Did you know that the Great Falls Public Schools operates a preschool? We do not doubt that somewhere in our State and Local District’s significant budgets there is money for early childhood care, probably from the federal government. But if you review the statutes governing the Office of Public Instruction, you will, we think, agree that the primary duties relate to schools and students. Likewise, the duties granted district superintendents focus on “pupils,” which are defined as “enrolled in school.” Under such circumstances, we should be able to agree first that there might be different priorities, and second that our newly elected State Superintendent is not deserving of a public shaming simply because the focus of her efforts might be, oh, on the students in the schools, rather than students in preschool who, by definition are not in school yet. Perhaps Lacey and her administrators might focus first on scholastic success and, when every student that graduates from GFPS marks a 36 on his or her ACT, then they can save the world with our money. Or, better yet, how about when every student graduates?
Oh, we know, we know. If students are hungry, they can’t learn. If kids are hungry before they are even school aged, they’ll be set back. OK, that’s Lacey’s priority. But it might not be everyone’s priority. And, by that logic, maybe the GFPS should get a levy for some programs dealing with prenatal care? Because you know, without prenatal care, kids are less likely to be born healthy. If not born healthy, they won’t develop as well, and won’t be ready to learn when they hit kindergarten. You know, maybe there’s an even better idea. Maybe GFPS can fund family planning services so potential moms who are likely to have bad prenatal care won’t get pregnant in the first place?
Or, maybe, like Arntzen suggests, we can make the actual students in the schools a higher priority? Seriously, have these highly-educated educators never studied the concept of scarcity? Because they’re supposed to be teaching our kids about it in high school.
Look, we get it. There are needy families in Great Falls. They need help and there is some help available. We have a whole state department, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, whose job it is to feed the hungry. Why isn’t Lacey drilling the head of that Department about needy families? Frankly, one could make a reasonable argument that all food programs for needy families should be shifted under the umbrella of the Office of Public Instruction. Schools already have contact with the vast majority of these families, and already have a bureaucracy in place. If Lacey was really looking for an outside the box solution, that might be one.
But Lacey’s theatrics weren’t about solutions. This little ‘show’ was all about virtue signaling.
To take a cheap, personal shot in a public forum was simply unprofessional pandering to the audience. (2-1 Lacey runs for OPI superintendent.) Did Arntzen deserve the cheap shot because her family must be able to feed its children? Is Lacey starving? Should the rest of us who pay our taxes and, therefore, Lacey’s salary, be publicly shamed because our families aren’t starving and we disagree with her? Maybe Lacey should remember that these same taxpayers elected Arntzen.
We’ve seen some pretty unprofessional displays in our time–Mayor Stebbins comes to mind–but Lacey’s stunt demonstrates misplaced priorities. Feeding non-student, preschool kids is just one possible goal out of many, many goals for our OPI. Maybe it’s Lacey’s priority, but that does not mean anyone who has different priorities within the universe of choices is evil, or deserves a public flogging. Lacey should be figuring out ways to work with Arntzen to achieve her ends, not trying to undermine her in search of cheap political points with her audience of administrators.
…Cascade County commissioners place a three-mill economic development levy before county voters this spring during a special election to generate $450,000 a year that can be used to create more jobs.
It won’t be a large one:
A three-mill levy would add about $6 to the tax bill of a county resident owning a home valued at $150,000, Cascade County Budget Officer Mary Embleton said.
So, we thought we’d ask, will you support this levy?
Phil Faccenda made reference to it in his very good piece yesterday, and we have received a number of tips about it recently… but we’re still grappling with some of the comments made by Great Falls’ economic development chief, Brett Doney, at the Jan. 3 City Commission meeting. Most glaringly, Doney said that Great Falls lost “707 net jobs” in 2016.
He also said:
And frankly, these numbers scare the hell out of me.
The jobs drain has been comparatively worse in Great Falls than nationally, even in darker times:
We’ve lost the equivalent in the last couple of years in the City more than the nation lost in the Great Recession.
Doney is clearly alarmed:
I don’t have any prescriptions for you, I just want to say that I have never in my 32 years in economic development seen numbers as scary as these, and we need to continue to work together to address them.
To be fair, Doney also cited strong growth in manufacturing (despite the City’s “F you” to Calumet), among other positive happenings. Speaking under the Public Hearing portion of the Commission agenda, a discussion on CDBG funds, he billed himself as otherwise a “cheerleader” for Great Falls, which is true. Doney and the GFDA do excellent work in this regard. (You can read the latest GFDA newsletter and sign up to receive it here.)
Two days before Doney’s appearance before the Commission, on New Year’s Day, the Tribune ran glowing, above-the-fold coverage about a resurgent development sector in Great Falls. The reader is left with the distinct impression of a soaring Great Falls economy.
So, what gives? Construction is one thing, and an area in which Great Falls is strong, but aren’t jobs also an important metric when evaluating the economic health of a community? How well are we really doing, and more importantly, how should our community address this issue?
We appreciate Doney’s candor. After all, the first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is one.
