Tribune, Bronson To Legislature: Just Trust Us

ECB Staff on January 22, 2017

The Great Falls Tribune got its smarm on today in dissing Rep. Jeremy Trebas:

Somebody might want to pick up the phone and remind Jeremy Trebas that as a Republican, he’s supposed to be for small government and local control.

This type of rhetoric is always rich. The Trib’s editors are not Republicans. They’re just happy to give advice to elected Republicans on what Republicans believe.

The Trib is referring to Trebas’ idea, which he’s written about here, to pass a state law that would forbid local governments from playing nanny to Montanans who use cell phones while driving.  

“Just as Montana lawmakers would cry foul if a ban on cellphone bans came from the feds, so, too, should city officials decry attempts by the state to overstep its bounds on this issue.”

So under this logic, what is the Trib’s limiting principle? What shouldn’t cities and counties be able to regulate?

Teacher accreditation? (That’s currently a matter of state policy, not local school boards.)

How about hunting tags? (That’s a state FWP thing, not local conservation districts or county commissions.)

How about whether a city gets to set up an electric utility? Well, that used to be a city power, admittedly. Maybe City Commissioner Bill Bronson would offer the same defense about the City of Great Falls’ history in that business as he offered in the Trib today about the cell phone ordinance:

“We spent a great deal of time studying this.”

The state took away the keys from city governments on that issue, because they simply could not be trusted to make that decision.

Cities don’t get to make their own special laws with respect to DUIs. They don’t get to make their own special laws regarding reckless driving. The state has decided that a uniform code that is generally applicable to drivers throughout the state is the better way to go. Why? Presumably because drivers — like teachers, like wildlife — are mobile.

They are less a part of a given city or a school district or a county, than they are part of a state. It makes sense to have a standard, to promote the concept that, unless there is a very good reason to the contrary, Montanans who drive from one city to another can live under the same set of rules everywhere in our state and not risk getting home-town’ed.

Zoning of property might be one thing. But is there really any argument that the streets of the City of Great Falls, and the people driving on them, are so different from the City of Kalispell that it should have a different set of driving laws?

We don’t think so.

Do Democrats Care About State Employees?

ECB Staff on January 22, 2017

whistleblower

Montana House Rep. Kirk Wagoner, R-Montana City, wants to protect public employees who blow the whistle on government misconduct. He has introduced two bills, HB 202 and HB 208, “that would criminalize attempts by supervisors to retaliate against state employees who report corruption,” attorney and former Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman writes.

While Wagoner’s proposals — in lockstep with the First Amendment — should not be about partisan politics, Monforton doubts that House Democrats and the Governor’s office will act accordingly:

Democrats (another group that supposedly looks out for state employees) weren’t impressed. Governor Steve Bullock will never sign a bill that immunizes employees who open closets holding his skeletons.

For his part, and to his credit, Rep. Wagoner has pledged to work with Democrats. From the Helena IR:

Wagoner said he would work with opponents to tweak his bill. For instance, he said he would reduce the penalty so it was not a felony, specify the case would be a private action that could go straight to a judge without investigation, and clarify the law does not cover local governments.

But will Democrats work with him? Monforton offers some excellent suggestions for Republicans in the face of Democrat obstructionism.

Read his entire post here.

Great Falls Landlords Oppose NeighborWorks Project

ECB Staff on January 20, 2017

This week, the Great Falls Landlords Association unanimously opposed a measure that would grant NeighborWorks Great Falls assistance from the Montana Board of Housing for its proposed Rockcress Commons development, a 124-unit apartment complex to be built south of Great Falls College-MSU. Local and state chapter President Ricky Linafelter submitted a letter to the Board, urging its members to deny funding for the project.

Linafelter argued that Great Falls no longer faces a housing shortage, and that the current rental market is tough on landlords:

There was a survey done approximately two years ago concerning the shortage of housing in the Great Falls area. When this survey was done, the shortage of housing was due, in part, to the extra short-term workers in town revamping the refinery.  This project has since been completed.  We now feel that there is an ample amount of housing available.  I, myself, have 6 units of my 24 units vacant at this time.  I surveyed the members at the meeting last night, and the majority of them have vacancies.  The estate of my previous vice-president, who passed away last month, has 5 units of the 20 units vacant.  I had one other landlord tell me he has 16 vacancies at this time.

The landlords also took issue with the prospect of NeighborWorks’ partner in the project, GMD Development, a for-profit company from Seattle, drawing income in Montana and receiving Montana grant money, while not contributing sufficiently to our state’s economy:

We do not feel that Montana grant money should be given to an out-of-state for-profit company. Furthermore, we do not feel that on out-of-state company should be able to acquire income generating property in Montana and not be required to pay property taxes as required by Montana residential property owners.  In addition, we do not feel that an out-of-state company should benefit from money collected as Montana rental income and spend that money outside of Montana.  This project will result in an out-of-state company benefitting from rental income generated in Montana without requiring that company to contribute to sustain Montana’s economy.

Read the letter in its entirety here.

Great Falls Police Chief Weighs In On Trebas Cell Phone Bill

ECB Staff on January 17, 2017

Today, the Montana House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 194, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, that would prohibit local governments from imposing “restrictions on [the] use of mobile communications devices while operating a motor vehicle.” We published Trebas’ prepared remarks two days ago.

In testimony opposing Trebas’ bill, City Commissioner Bill Bronson included a letter from our very good police chief (and arguably the City’s finest department head), David Bowen. It reads:

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

In order to take a proactive step in reducing distracted driving crashes that result in property loss, personal injury and even death, cities like Great Falls have passed local ordinances to prohibit the use of electronic hand-held devices in order to equip law enforcement with the tools necessary to address this rising problem.

By prohibiting the ability of the local communities to help curb this problem, you are endangering the welfare of our citizens that we have taken an oath to safeguard. I am opposed to HB 194 and would strongly encourage our lawmakers to consider the consequences of how this bill affects the motoring public.

David Bowen

Great Falls police chief

Trebas thinks his bill will make it out of committee, but is unsure of its chances on the House floor.

Even if it does, we can’t imagine Governor Bullock would sign it into law.

Lock Her Up?

Gregg Smith on January 17, 2017

President Trump should direct the FBI to immediately refer all of its currently held evidence to the Department of Justice for consideration of the prosecution of criminal charges related to her private email server and any, related obstruction of justice allegations. Further, he should direct his law enforcement agencies to renew their investigation of this entire situation, including Madam Secretary and any of her associates who may have been involved.

I fully admit that I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I am not a huge (“Yuuuuuge?”) fan of President Trump, either. But this is not about some sort of weird revenge against Hillary Clinton; this is an important necessity to demonstrate to all US citizens that justice is applied fairly in this country to all citizens.

My personal belief is that there is a very, very small group of people who would have been able to do what Secretary Clinton did without facing federal charges, or at least the serious possibility of them. If you listen to Director Comey’s list of ‘sins’ from his July 5, 2016, press conference where he indicated he would not be pressing charges, it is clear that there was at least a reasonable possibility of federal, criminal culpability. I have read a great deal about Director Comey’s suggestion that she could be exonerated (or not prosecuted) due to a lack of “intent” that the statute does not require, but I am not in a position today to state whether he was right or not. What I will say, though, is that difficult legal decisions in a high profile, federal case should be made by the lawyers at the Department of Justice, not by law enforcement officers at the FBI.  The FBI investigates potential crimes; the DOJ decides whether to prosecute them.

Donald Trump proclaimed often and loudly that he would “lock her up.” He made this promise because he either believed she was guilty of a federal crime, or it was a shameless pander to the rest of us to try to win the election. Only one choice leaves our President with any honor: he believed it to be true, and he will investigate and prosecute because he sincerely is on the side of the ‘little guy.’

He would demonstrate that he recognizes that if one of us did what Secretary Clinton did with classified information on her private email server (which we now know was apparently “hacked” by the Russians in their alleged attempts to “hack the election”), we would not walk free without so much as a charge. I can think of a high school kid who received more punishment for posting allegedly inappropriate thoughts about girls on the internet. Could any of us get away with this, all while publicly lying and denying? I do not believe so. A failure to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute, would demonstrate that there is a very, very small group of people in this country who are, essentially, above the law. This includes high level, politically influential people on both sides of the aisle and, probably the very wealthy.

But it sure doesn’t include us.

And that’s not right.

Rep. Trebas: Cell Phone Bans Don’t Work

ECB Staff on January 15, 2017

Rep. Jeremy Trebas

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls (HD-25), submitted to us testimony he will add to to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, January 17, at 8:00 a.m. Here is the full text:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

Today I am presenting a unique bill to you, House Bill number 194. It is unique because it goes in the opposite direction of most if not all other governments, State and Local, in the U.S., on the topic of cell phone use while driving. While most are getting harsher in their penalties for driving while using a cell phone, this bill proposes that we stop the enforcement of cell phone bans, at least until they are shown to be effective in protecting public safety.

Why should we put a stay on the bans? The short answer is that they don’t really seem to be working, meanwhile cities are charging citizens large fines and in at least one city in Montana, instituting mandatory community service for 2nd and 3rd offenses, at 20 hours and 40 hours respectively.

I have some statistics from a recurring study to present to you, which serves largely as the basis for my argument to take a wait-and-see approach as far as bans are concerned. The study is conducted by The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They are the organization that you hear quoted in commercials about vehicle crash data. They give out the “Top Safety Pick” awards to vehicle manufacturers. I think you will find them to be an unbiased and reputable source of information. Their studies have indicated no discernible difference in collision rates prior to and post bans in States that have made cell phone use illegal while driving. In fact, one of their studies indicated a slight increase in collision rates post ban. There is speculation as to why that happened, and two main reasons stick out. One reason is that people try to hide the activity by lowering their phone down into their vehicle to avoid detection, causing their eyes to be further from the road than they otherwise would be. The second reason is that while the bans decrease use of cell phones among law abiding citizens, the bad drivers out there are just going to continue being bad drivers. So again, collision rates do not decrease because of these bans. I’ve heard the argument that we just have to give them time to work. I would tell you that the study I referenced was first published in 2009, and then they ran tests again and published another study in 2011, and yet again in 2013, with increased special enforcement in their most recent study. If these bans were working, there should have been an indication by now, proven out by the statistics.

I would also like to say that I know unbanning an activity that is dangerous makes some of you uncomfortable. I get that, and I understand that being distracted while driving is dangerous and there are also studies and statistics that point that out, which I acknowledge. But we are picking one small area of distracted driving and saying that it is the worst form, while numerous other distracted driving activities go unenforced. There is already a law on the books to enforce distracted driving, we don’t need a special category just for cell phones, which as I hope I have made clear, just doesn’t work to increase the safety of the public, however counter-intuitive that may seem.

So, some questions I have received in the 4 years I’ve been making this argument include, things like, “How about just a texting ban?”

The studies from IIHS included the study of texting while driving, and banning it only seemed to cause people to try and hide the activity, by further lowering their phone and their eyes down into the vehicle and away from the road. It didn’t help reduce collision rates.

Or “Why can’t people just use a Bluetooth/Handsfree device?”

It is not the device, necessarily, that distracts a person, it is the conversation. While engaging in conversation, whether it is with a person inside the vehicle or on the phone, the brain switches to a part of the brain called the parietal lobe, which takes away some of the focus necessary for driving. So it is not the device that distracts you but the conversation. It is still legal to have someone sit next to you in the vehicle and distract you by talking. It’s also legal to have kids fighting in the back seat. Sometimes talking on the phone helps mitigate greater distractions while driving.

Some people ask whether I have ever received a ticket for driving on my cell phone?

No. The City of Great Falls instituted their ban in August of 2012 and I have not received a ticket. I’m a fine, upstanding, law abiding citizen, most of the time…

And lastly, “Don’t we have more important things to work on?”

Yes and no. There are more important issues to work on, but this issue is important to those that are receiving fines and community service sentences in the name of public safety, when no increase in public safety has actually occurred.

Thanks for your attention Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’ll field any questions you may have, and I reserve the right to close.

Replacing Mary Moe

ECB Staff on January 14, 2017

With Mary Moe’s resignation from SD-12 imminent, Cascade County Democrats must submit three names to the Cascade County Commission, which will then appoint Moe’s replacement to the Legislature.

From the Central Committee’s website, here is the latest list of interested names:

Mike Henning
Garrett Lankford
Bob Moretti
Carlie Boland
Zach Angstead
Ron Szabo
Don Ryan
Kathleen Galvin Halcro
Albert Ferderer
Angie Rolando
Hannah Pate

The word is, from People Who Know Things, that Boland and Lankford are the clear front runners, at least within the CCDCC.

Will Patrella’s Successor Embrace The Park And Rec Master Plan?

ECB Staff on January 12, 2017

In November, 2016, the City Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Park and Rec Master Plan. Less than two months later (and not because of this), Director Joe Patrella resigned his position for a job in Arizona.

With the search to succeed Patrella still ongoing, important questions persist for the City, and for its taxpayers.

The Master Plan, conceived by Indiana-based PROS Consulting, recommends much in its 176 pages. Primarily, it identifies $12,614,160 in “critical” capital improvement programs — “Maintaining What We Have.” Among the expenditures are $102,575 for the Americans Little League Complex, $114,010 for Boston Heights Park, $1,020,000 for “Charles Russel [sic] Park,” and $2,935,000 for Gibson Park, among many others (p. 140).

PROS Consulting also details $1.15 million in “sustainable” capital improvements — “Improving What We Have.” The consultants suggested the City spend $100,000 to convert six tennis courts to pickle ball courts (pickle ball?), $500,000 to add five large picnic shelters at Gibson, Grande Vista, Jaycee, and Meadowlark Parks, $150,000 for two more dog parks, and $400,000 for additional master plans (p. 141).

The plan also solves the long-standing community riddle of the City’s failing indoor aquatics program: build a 50,000 square foot “Multi-Generational Center that replaces the existing Recreation Center and Moronoy [sic] Natatorium” (for over $20 million). As for golf, the second and final line-item under the plan’s “Visionary Recommendations” (p. 142) reads: “Re-Master Plan Anaconda Hill [sic] Golf Course and convert Campground/Adventure Area through private public partnership.” In other words, shut down Anaconda and convert it into a zip-line/ropes course/BMX course/campground. The cost of this “re-mastering?” “Only” a quarter of a million dollars.

And how might the City pay for all of this, you might ask? By implementing a City-wide Parks Maintenance District. In other words, by raising taxes.

Mike Svetz of the aforementioned consulting firm pointed to Billings, which implemented a parks district a few years ago. Under its model, Billings households chip in about $6/month. With Great Falls’ comparatively smaller population but higher expenses, residents could see $15-20/month assessments per household… just for the parks district. In addition to this extra assessment, and to construct a multi-purpose structure to replace the Nat and the Community Rec Center, Svetz & Co. recommended a tax levy bond that could last for up to 15 years. The numbers start to add up quickly.

master plan

Master Plan: $34 Million To Upgrade Great Falls’ Parks

Now, to be fair, the Master Plan is “not a work order,” as the Tribune pointed out. It’s a guide to direct City priorities moving forward. But it does raise some important questions: Will Patrella’s replacement embrace the Master Plan, and will the Commission enact its central recommendations? And if not, then why? The City spent $89,970 on this document.

What do you think? Did the consultants get it right?

(The featured image is attributable to Xnatedawgx under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Image was slightly cropped.)

NYT: “Absence Of Concrete Evidence” Of Russian Meddling In U.S. Election

ECB Staff on January 9, 2017

Andrew Higgins, Moscow bureau chief for the venerable New York Times, the “newspaper of record,” snuck in two glaring admissions about the recently-released intelligence report concerning Russian “hacking”:

But the absence of any concrete evidence in the report of meddling by the Kremlin [emphasis added] was met with a storm of mockery on Saturday by Russian politicians and commentators, who took to social media to ridicule the report as a potpourri of baseless conjecture.

Now, surely Higgins didn’t intentionally (and so casually) cite the report’s lack of evidence as if it were fact. Or did he? He continues:

The report provides no new evidence [emphasis added] to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow’s long record of trying to influence America’s political system.

Amazingly, Higgins doubled down on the lack of evidence in the intelligence findings. (Should he be dusting off his resume?) The National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy further explains the report — one that doesn’t even mention John Podesta’s name.

The three intelligence agencies’ report pointedly declines to tell us what specific information gives them such “high confidence” that they know the operation of Vladimir Putin’s mind. They plead that the nature of their work does not allow for that: To tell us how they know what they purport to know would compromise intelligence methods and sources. Fair enough. The problem, though, is that if you’re essentially going to say, ‘Trust us,’ you have to have proven yourself trustworthy over time.

Doesn’t the left remember WMDs? Maryland website designer