The City Commission meeting lasted until 11:00pm and although there were many repeat comments about the various issues, the meeting wasn't without its moments.
Highlights of the evening:
Ed McKnight putting Commissioner Beecher in his place:
Commissioner Beecher cannot handle confrontation or anybody disagreeing with or questioning something he approves of.
During the budget public hearing, Ed was just getting started when Beecher tried to shut him up. Ed quoted from Montana Code Annotated the rules of budget hearings and that was the end of that. Beecher turned bright red and had nothing more to say.
Ed McKnight putting the Mayor in her place:
For a couple of months now, Ed has been told by the Mayor he would receive a written reply to a question he posed in May. He's still waiting. He asked her when he would receive his response. He also indicated he has a bet going that she would not remember the question. Well, guess what? He won the bet. Mayor Stebbins said he would have to repeat the question, because since he "blathers on" so much, she couldn't remember it. Ed didn't bother to repeat it, but did say, "point made".
Ed has been to the podium enough times that you would think the commissioners would know by now that he comes prepared. Their getting caught with their pants down is uncomfortable to witness, but they asked for it, they got it.
Mr. Doyon telling his bosses to do their jobs:
During Mr. Doyon's portion of the meeting, he told the Commissioners to give him what amendments they wanted to see to the Disorderly Premise Ordinance (it was tabled) or if they want him to dispatch it. There was silence and then Mayor Stebbins said he would have her comments this morning. Nobody else said anything.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again; it's a breath of fresh air to finally see a city manager doing his job by telling the Commissioners to do theirs.
Highlights of the evening:
Ed McKnight putting Commissioner Beecher in his place:
Commissioner Beecher cannot handle confrontation or anybody disagreeing with or questioning something he approves of.
During the budget public hearing, Ed was just getting started when Beecher tried to shut him up. Ed quoted from Montana Code Annotated the rules of budget hearings and that was the end of that. Beecher turned bright red and had nothing more to say.
Ed McKnight putting the Mayor in her place:
For a couple of months now, Ed has been told by the Mayor he would receive a written reply to a question he posed in May. He's still waiting. He asked her when he would receive his response. He also indicated he has a bet going that she would not remember the question. Well, guess what? He won the bet. Mayor Stebbins said he would have to repeat the question, because since he "blathers on" so much, she couldn't remember it. Ed didn't bother to repeat it, but did say, "point made".
Ed has been to the podium enough times that you would think the commissioners would know by now that he comes prepared. Their getting caught with their pants down is uncomfortable to witness, but they asked for it, they got it.
Mr. Doyon telling his bosses to do their jobs:
During Mr. Doyon's portion of the meeting, he told the Commissioners to give him what amendments they wanted to see to the Disorderly Premise Ordinance (it was tabled) or if they want him to dispatch it. There was silence and then Mayor Stebbins said he would have her comments this morning. Nobody else said anything.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again; it's a breath of fresh air to finally see a city manager doing his job by telling the Commissioners to do theirs.
33 comments:
Its a good thing we have laws and a constitution to help protect the public from the likes of commissioner Beecher. Last night points out that this commission will attempt to stifle public input and questioning at every opportunity. Ed was prepared and caught em, pants down. with a Montana law they should have been familiar with.........Good job Ed!
Can hardly wait until fall of 2009 to rid us of those commissioners with little vision for our community!
It's all in your point of view, I guess. Last night, I saw a different story. Stuart Lewin should be ashamed of himself. He stands up there and sets himself up as a water rights expert (which he is NOT.) He tells blatant untruths.
Ed McKnight is another fool - he may arm himself, but his persona is so off-putting he destroys his ow credibility (if he ever had any.)
The usual group of losers and clowns, and I don't mean the commission.
I appreciate criticism bikerdaddy, if it is constructive I'll be better for it.
Could you please explain what you mean by credibility?
Credibility? Where is it in city hall?
Ed, you really come off like some kind of raving nut. If that doesn't damage your creds, what would? If you asked sensible, reasonable questions in a moderate tone of voice, without the bullying overtones, that would help. As it is, you and Lewin seem cut from the same cloth, and even in the legal community, he has no credibility. I wouldn't aligh myself with him, if I were you.
I too agree with bikerlady on this one.
Ed, after seeing you last night, make a complete fool of yourself, I too can now understand why you'll never be Mayor of this town.
There's more to dealing with folks than just waving around dated charts and graphs all the while using a threatening tone.
You are quite obviously not a "people person" are you Ed?
If you knew anything at all about business, you would know that new corporations "always" lose money in the first years.
Montana Power, started out in Great Falls all of those years ago, and it didn't turn a profit for it's first 10 years.
Give the ECP a break then, and if they aren't showing a profit in, oh, about 4 more years, then get up there with your little charts and graphs and make your point ...
I'm starting to think Bikerdaddy might be former city manager, John Lawton. I understand he likes Harleys.
Dave, you make a valid point...maybe.
I agree that it is reasonable to expect that a startup enterprise might lose money for a while. I disagree, though, that it is a legitimate course of action to just leap in based on the feeling that "it's a good idea," or we need to "control our own energy destiny."
I have asked and asked for the break-even analysis (there isn't one), the business plan (there isn't one), or the strategic forecasts anticipating future revenue streams against real costs(there aren't any). All I know is "there's no risk."
Let's come at it another way. If the City, deciding it was going to get into the electrical utility business, had decided to hire an experienced pro from the industry, do you think we could have expected that kind of analysis from such a pro? Do you think we should have insisted on that kind of analysis?
Instead, we have two individuals with zero (ZERO) experience running a utility (and who, by the way, also had other full-time jobs) decide that it can't be that hard, we'll just muddle through. And we have the losses to show for it.
Please provide me one iota of evidence suggesting that Electric City Power is ever going to break even, beyond the unsworn reassuring testimony of its advocates.
I agree with Geeguy. The troubling thing about ECP/HGS is the money they haven't spent not the money they have. There should have been a big line item for qualified talent to manage the city's interests in this project. When it comes time to transition out of the start-up phase and break ground will Balzarini be handed a hard hat and a shovel?
Credibility flew out the window with with this statement.
"If you knew anything at all about business, you would know that new corporations "always" lose money in the first years."
Dave,
Whether I'm ever mayor or not is hardly relevant. There has got to be hundreds of people in this town more qualified than I am, but the question is who is willing to make the sacrifice. I didn't see your hat in the ring.
Perhaps you never picked up on the fact that besides my main career I've been a successful property manager in this town for 23 years now, does that take people person qualities? One of Bill Bronson's friends on the planning board was a tenant of mine. He seemed to think I was a great landlord.
My gripe is not just that ECP is losing money, although if you remember it was the claim that "we have saved a million dollars" that caused me to look at the books in the first place.
I met with Colleen as the commission suggested and I was lied to. When I first appeared at the commission meetings they answered my questions until they realized I was zeroing in on something. Then the problems started.
My " little charts and graphs" show that Colleen is dishonest and the losses are larger than reported, and you want to give ECP, oh about 4 more years? I'm not against ECP, I'm against dishonesty. I'm talking about millions of dollars and your greatest concern is that you think I look like a fool? Far worse has happened over less money.
I'm sure you can give better reasoning.
Bikerdaddy,
"If you asked sensible, reasonable questions in a moderate tone of voice"
Perhaps you remember my early questions that were answered at the commission meetings. If not there is video. I can send you a copy of how it all went downhill if you like.
I accept your criticism and will tone it down. My question to you now though is what about the substance. You have obviously been watching, what about the substance of what I have been saying?
It's not too uncommon for new corporations to write down millions in their first years ... As a matter of fact, under most business plans, loss is a precalculated figure.
Being a landlord doesn't necessarily require "people skills" at all. You can be quite good at the books and still be a jerk ... it doesn't make a difference.
As far as ECP? If you've got a problem with being lied to by Colleen, then I suggest you take your complaint up with her.
If she doesn't want to talk to you Ed, then that's a problem that you may feel free to leave the rest of us out of.
The City also has loaned money to other agencies, like the GFDA for instance. Funny, I don't see you mulling over the GFDA's bookwork.
There isn't any room for personal likes or dislikes I'm afraid, when it comes to City business. Either you are going to be part of the solution, or a part of the problem.
I might not speak favorably on some of the issues at hand, but at the same time, I've got the nads to offer up suggestions ... I'm not interested in long drawn out accusatory diction from those who would appear to have a personal vendetta ... I'm interested in possible solutions being brought to the table ... leave your personal feelings at home, where they belong ...
And for those who might be wondering about any proposed business plan with regard to ECP, just consider Montana Power in the beginning ... They too, in their very early years, flew by the seat of their pants, and ...surprise, surprise ... knew nothing of running a utility.
Would I ever run for commission or Mayor? I won't say.
What I can say is that if I ever did decide to subject myself to public office, you probably wouldn't like me much.
I'd be the type of guy that would give you what you needed to hear, and not what you thought you wanted to hear.
I don't have a whole lot of patience for *non-business related banter ... especially at City Commission meetings.
As far as any kind of substance? Well, to tell you the truth ... substance flees after presenting the very same argument time and time again, at every City Commission meeting. Some of us might be to the point of just turning you off Ed, not too unlike a bad commercial when we hear one ... I'll cite the Pierce Superstores commercials in this instance.
I appreciate the relatively civil tone of the discussion and disagreements in this thread, such as the exchanges between Dave and Ed.
Bravo Ed and shame on Commissioner Beecher!
Bikerdaddy,
please articulate the 'untruths' you indicated please.....dissent vital to Democracy no matter how 'raw' sometimes....
Good lord, Dave.
The Fiscal Services Director of the City of Great Falls refuses to answer a citizens legitimate questions, and you are OK with it?
If you wish to be left out, feel free to ignore the whole deal, but there are certainly others that would actually like to hear her answer Ed.
And when he asks her bosses, the elected City Commission, and they also refuse to answer him, that too is just fine with you? That is the kind of government you want?
It is a bit difficult for some of the more informed people in town to offer up suggestions when they do not have all the information needed to analyze the situation.
And I don't believe taxpayer money was used to start and fund Montana Power, and that right there is what makes City business personal to a lot of people. The least the City could do is tell citizens what is going on when they ask. It shouldn't be that hard.
Just curious, are there two different Daves commenting?
"Being a landlord doesn't necessarily require "people skills" at all"
No, but being a good one with a long track record, long term tenants, excellent references that include a planing board member does. Have you ever tried it?
"If you've got a problem with being lied to by Colleen, then I suggest you take your complaint up with her."
It seems to me you know of a cities fiscal services officers dishonesty and somehow that is less repugnant than your perception of what a jerk is, and yes I agree, I can be a jerk, but I'm not always.
"I don't see you mulling over the GFDA's bookwork."
I'm not aware that there is any accusation against GFDA, I know Brett, we talk.
"There isn't any room for personal likes or dislikes I'm afraid, when it comes to City business. Either you are going to be part of the solution, or a part of the problem."
What I am suggesting is that just being honest is the first step. There are two possibilities, ECP can renegotiate the contracts or they can not. If they can have at it, If they can't then they have no business being in business. Doing nothing but preserving the status quo is possibly the very worst option but how can anyone know if the truth is absent?
"I've got the nads to offer up suggestions"
I believe your suggestion is maintain the status quo. I have submitted that there are options including the status quo, but without knowing the truth how can one make a valid suggestion?
"I'd be the type of guy that would give you what you needed to hear"
You mean respond with educated facts and the truth, I'll vote for you. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, It's happened before. I've been handing out numbers for a year now and people have attacked my style or made potshots, but no one has ever proven me wrong. why don't you do it?
"non-business related banter"
You mean ECP business? City fiscal business?
"the very same argument time and time again"
Exactly my point, thank you. Why do I have evidence of ECP's dishonesty for so long and made the point "time and time again". One commissioner has responded in favor of an honest accounting and acknowledged what I am talking about. The other commissioners are in possession of some kind of "unqualified audited accounts" that prove I'm wrong and Colleens word is pure as the driven snow but after all these months they just can't forward that information to me.
"Some of us might be to the point of just turning you off Ed"
Others are congratulating me, and others just don't care. Isn't that how this public stuff goes? Some people want me to turn it up. Others want to use me to fulfill their personal agenda.
I wanted ECP to be successful because I would have been better off. Remind us of what your solution is and what it is based on. What I remember of Montana Power is their hugely disastrous bankruptcy.
Hmmm Dave,
I do not remember being given the opportunity to voice my opinion on wether or not I wanted my tax dollars to go into a startup business. Do you?
Oh for heaven's sake, just review a short list of facts as pertains to elected officials.
Citizens right to vote on the coal plant eliminated. (Illegal)
City Commission Agenda items lumped together and voted on in toto. (Illegal)
Failure to open the floor for discussion by public on Agenda Items. (Illegal)
Failure to keep record of minutes of meetings. (Illegal)
Failure to keep individual department budgets sacrosanct and not move money between items (Illegal)
Failure to produce documentation upon request under FOIA. (Illegal)
Failure to remove/recuse from voting on issue when involved in conflict of interest (Illegal)
Personal gain from projects voted upon (Illegal)
Failure to provide open government (Illegal)
Failure to follow mandated procedures on Resolution (Illegal)
Those currently holding office are engaged in illegal activities and should be prosecuted.
If "tone of voice" is a bone of contention, then the focus is all wrong. I am much more concerned with the wrong doings, lack of response, honesty, and illegality of the elected officials than a citizen's "tone of voice".
"It's not too uncommon for new corporations to write down millions in their first years ... As a matter of fact, under most business plans, loss is a precalculated figure."
Dave, I don't know where you came up with this assertion. This might be true, but the vast, vast majority of new corporations (or limited liability corporations) are not Silicon Valley startups capitalized by VC magnates.
Most new corporations are small business people who have decided to incorporate for tax, liability, or other reasons. In fact, I would venture that a sizeable minority, if not a majority, are already profitable by the time they incorporate.
I and my firm have probably assisted in the formation of hundreds of businesses over the years. I disagree that any more than a handful come in with "loss as a precalculated figure." They want to make money.
If they do expect some early losses, you can damn well bet they have a plan to turn it around. This is Montana, for goodness sakes, not the dot-com bubble.
If those early losses are going to be financed with other people's money (i.e. the bank's), you can bet that the other people have seen a plan that shows an adequate revenue stream.
The problem, here, is that the other people's money belongs to the taxpayers, and they haven't had much success in seeing the 'plan' for turning a profit...because it doesn't exist.
Dave, If you were paying attention Ed did offer suggestions,
1. the pilot program is going nowhere and we are selling power to insiders below cost. Terminate the program, recover the $100,000 and buy less power on the imbalance market.
2. At the next commission meeting we will have a power bill around $800,000. Notify Tim Gregori to tap the deposit and invite him here to give an explanation of why his power is so expensive and offer his solution.
Is that so wrong? Ed did not demand it, he just said it could be done.
anon July 17, 2008 7:13 AM,
Please document those facts and file a recall petition.
I'll sign it.
The pilot program was all the state would allow, at this time, for ECP ... If I recall, ECP had asked to serve more than just a select few.
It doesn't take thousands of dollars to create a business entity in this state. In my opinion, ECP would have been better off to remain a "for profit" entity instead of electing to be a nonprofit. As far as I can see, no tax payer dollars were spent creating ECP.
Most of what ECP is doing now, with regard to power supply, is subject to what they can get approved through agency's like the PSC.
I don't see where a company's choice to go broke should matter ... to anyone. And again ... if a company chooses to supply it's product at or below cost ... it still shouldn't matter. Companies across the nation sell below cost every day.
If a company, like ECP for instance, chooses to apply for a loan, then it is their obligation to pay it back. It doesn't make a difference where the money comes from really, so long as the debt is paid.
ECP can go into the hole all it wants as far as I'm concerned. ECP may have been formed via the City of Great Falls, but according to the state, ECP is an entirely separate entity.
ECP may or may not feel obligated to show you their books. If I had a nonprofit electrical utility cooperative (company) in the state and you came banging on my door demanding to see my books, I'd most likely tell you to go away. If you aren't purchasing power from me, then you wouldn't be a member, and I'm under no obligation to show you anything.
ECP, as a nonprofit electrical cooperative, in the state of Montana, is under no obligation to show "non members" anything. So unless you are purchasing power from the cooperative, I would find it highly unlikely that you would be able to gain access to any explainations.
If you have a problem with that, and you went to the Secretary of State, chances are, they would tell you the same thing.
As an electrical utility, ECP would be making whatever arrangements necessary to purchase power, from what ever power generation sources there were available to them. In a certain case, ECP is making or has made arrangements to purchase/garnish, power from the proposed Highwood Generating Station via SME ... still, not a problem. Much the same would occur if ECP elected to purchase power from the BPA ... in that they would want to lock themselves in at the lowest available price for the longest possible period of time. A power generation source that might offer the lower price doesn't have any trouble at all wheeling it's power across the country, in bulk, to anyone that would be willing to purchase it. And if ECP were to be having major problems with SME, then they could certainly purchase lower priced power from Virginia or Kentucky if they had a mind to do so.
We might do well to keep in mind that ECP is not the City of Great Falls. ECP is entirely separate. And the fact that ECP has a somewhat vested interest in SME, shouldn't be cause for concern with regard to tax payer dollars. If ECP borrowed money from Great Falls, then still, ECP is obligated to pay it back, just like any other entity is required to do when Great Falls carries the note.
If you feel that there be possible conflicts of interest with regard to City and it's relationship with ECP, then the state has proceedure for dealing with that.
As far as I see it, I'm inclined to view both the City and ECP as two entirely separate entities.
Anon. 8:18 a.m.
OCCCGF Title 1 Chapt. 4
"Must" and "shall" are mandatory.
1.4.070 General penalty
1. Except as otherwise specified, any person convicted of a violation of any section of this code shall be fined a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars or incarcerated for a period not to exceed six months, or both. (Ord. 2642 § (part), 1993; Ord. 1902 §2(part), 1976)
2. Any person convicted of a violation of any section of this code, where any duty is prescribed or obligation imposed, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day such duty or obligation remains unperformed or such act continues, unless otherwise specifically provided in this code. (Ord. 2642 § (part), 1993; Ord. 1902 § (part), 1976).
Personal gain from projects voted upon (Illegal)
2.52.050 Ethical standards
Officers and employees of the City of Great Falls shall comply with the following provisions:
# No officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself, herself or others;
# No officer or employee shall act in his or her official capacity in any matter where he or she, a member of his or her immediate family, or any business organization in which he or she has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his or her objectivity or independence or judgment;
# No officer or employee shall use, or allow to be used, his or her public office or employment or any information, not generally available to the members of the public, which he or she receives or acquires in the course of employment, for the purpose of securing financial gain for himself or herself, any member of his or her immediate family, or any business organization with which he or she is associated;
ECP...the "participants were able to choose a flat rate or an adjusting rate for the term of the program." Ok. And do any of these customers look familiar to you? Balzarini? Lawton? Patton? Gregori? Or how about members of the Electric City Power Board: Gray, Golie, or Ryan?
www.blogger.com/
comment.g?blogID=11068216&postID=
3247478719227058540
Let's begin with this one. Anymore and this response will need its own blog page
Dave, The more you profess the more ridiculous you come across.
A business professor you are not.
Dave, there is no point in argiung with these anonymous boneheads. Your points are very well taken, and I agree with you 100%. You have a grasp of the entire ECP/SME/City of Great Falls scenario that they will never comprehend, although I believe it has been explained to them many times.
You can't change a closed mind.
Bikerdaddy said: "You can't change a closed mind."
I couldn't agree more.
What? bikerdaddy is a name known to the world?
Is this you?
http://dailystrength.org/people/248452
or is this you bikerdaddy?
http://www.bikerornot.com/browse/kentaj
no no, this must be you, right?
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=69619827
Yeah, how about all them dumb anonymous posters. They are not like us.
Dave, ECP is NOT NOT NOT a rural electric co-op, but an entity of the City of GREAT FALLS...get your facts staight please.
Dave: I'd like to discuss your following statement
ECP, as a nonprofit electrical cooperative, in the state of Montana, is under no obligation to show "non members" anything. So unless you are purchasing power from the cooperative, I would find it highly unlikely that you would be able to gain access to any explainations.
Here is my reply:
Montana has adopted the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (1987)
www.muridae.com/nporegulation/documents/model_npo_corp_act.
html#16.20
Section 16.02. Inspection of Records by Members.
I'm a layman, however, since the ECP is a nonprofit entity, and this
([PDF]
CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA AGENDA # 12 ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Montana), and CITY OF GREAT FALLS, dba Electric City Power, an incorporated city with its principal. place of business at City Hall, 2 Park Drive South, ...
www.greatfallsmt.net/records/minutes/yr2006/110806_12.pdf -
shows that the CITY is ECP, then ALL citizens, as represented by the City, are then defacto members and entitled, under the law, to examine the books.
Would make a very interesting case, particularly in light of MEIC's recent win.
Dave;
Woah. Are you trying to argue that ECP is a private corporation, not subject to any open records acts?
ECP is a wholly government owned entity. The only "shareholder" in ECP is the City of Great Falls. Us taxpayers ARE the City of Great Falls.
Are you trying to say that a corporation should not be answerable to its owners?
It was a long meeting and there were 12,000 people there, or close to that.
Post a Comment