7th And Last Question: Commission Raises

This is the last question the Tribune asked of the candidates:

Should part-time city commissioners give themselves a raise? Commissioners receive $487 per month, and the mayor receives $643 per month, in pay and expenses, and both positions qualify for health insurance.

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Sandra Guynn: Given the economic conditions and that the city's 2009-2010 budget was not at all flush with excessive cash, the commissioners should not give themselves a raise.

John Hubbard: No, it should be based on what they have done for the community. Citizens don't have the ability to give themselves raises, so why should the city commissioners?

Michael Winters: No. No sitting elective board should raise its own pay. They should not be considered part-time. Pay raises when needed should only apply to the new incoming board, or at least apply to future boards.

Mike Witsoe: No, I should not give myself a raise. City commissioners choose to serve the public and take an oath to serve the people. Commissioners who work for the public and the public good should be paid a fair wage for the time they serve the people. Raise their salaries? I don't know.

Bill Bronson: No. Commissioners should not raise their compensation during their term in office. I would not support any increase at this time, and if an increase were approved, I would refuse to accept it during the balance of my term.

COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Donna Zook: No, I think it is absurd for the commission to ask for a raise during difficult economic times.

Fred Burow: No, especially in this recession. Most people are just getting by. If our elected (officials) vote themselves raises, the feeling is that they are not in touch with the people that elected them. Everyone has heard the comment, "I wish I could vote myself a raise."

Kathleen Z. Gessaman: When the city has a budget that is not balanced by using money that depletes reserves and if cost of living increases justify a pay increase, the commission can consider granting a raise to new and/or re-elected members of the next City Commission. Sitting commissioner members should not benefit from any granted raise — any raise a commission approves should only apply to the newly elected and/or re-elected members of the next commission.

Robert G. Jones: No.

Rolland Leitheiser: I do not think that anyone runs for City Commission, or mayor for that matter, because of the pay. The commissioners should not give themselves a raise with the economy as it is. When the economy picks up, raises should only be given with a lot of public input, and then the raises should only take effect after the next election.

Ed McKnight: No. City commissioners should make their case with the public if they want a raise.

John Rosenbaum: No.

6th Question: Levies

Here are the answers to this question: Why did the city police and fire special levies fail, and what should be done, if anything, to improve staffing in those departments?


COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
John Rosenbaum:I believe they failed because of the timing in the current economic climate. We could look for ways to be more efficient in other areas supported by the general fund. Those savings could then be used to fund public safety, one position at a time.

Donna Zook:The police and fire special levies failed because the residents could not afford or would not pay an increase in property taxes. Many citizens whom I have talked with believe that they are held responsible through taxation because funds are being shuttled from one program to another, and there is a drain on reserve money in order to compensate for budget problems. These citizens feel they should not be taxed to compensate for a financial loss due to the ECP (Electric City Power), animal shelter, City Planning and possible other ventures.

Fred Burow:One big reason the levies failed is the current economic condition. Second, people are tired of being asked to vote for more taxes. Fire and police are very important. I think everyone has great respect for both. Let's look at the whole city budget. We may have to slim down or, in some cases, cut nonessential programs and services in order to fund the most vital (ones).

Kathleen Z. Gessaman:Difficult economic conditions locally and nationwide helped to defeat the special levies. Most people I spoke with strongly support our local police and fire personnel, but were unable to afford the requested mill levy tax increase. The city manager, while maintaining a balanced budget, could use some of the additional money generated by the increase in property taxes (associated with new property appraisals) to fund critical staffing needs in these departments. Neighborhood councils could help the police by coordinating and promoting Neighborhood Watch. Reducing police involvement at the animal shelter could also help lighten the workload.

Robert G. Jones:I believe the special levies for city police and fire departments failed due to existing economic conditions. The additional hiring of 33 personnel and their placement also surprised many citizens because they were not informed of the personnel numbers needed prior to being asked to support the levies. A continued effort of informing the public of staffing needs is very important. We may want to consider smaller increments of personnel to improve staffing in the police and fire departments. To do so would require us to resolve the continued subsidies being taken from the general fund.

Rolland Leitheiser:The economy is the largest reason that the police and fire special levies failed. I am not convinced that a large staffing increase is needed at this time.

Ed McKnight:The proposed levies failed because the majority of voters said no to raising their taxes. According to the Tribune, City Manager Greg Doyon called this year's budget "relatively static," so as commissioners work with the public to check and balance how taxpayer dollars are being spent, then restore priority services with ample funding, that will bring peace of mind to citizens and increase confidence in our bravest and finest.

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Bill Bronson:The levies likely failed because the majority of voters were concerned about the financial cost to them personally over the next few years. As a property taxpayer myself, I understand and appreciate that view, although I still supported the levies as necessary for improving public safety. The needs of both departments remain the same, regardless of the outcome of the levies. I will work to find other sources of funding for these needs over the next few years, including grants and the Montana Legislature, so that we can provide effective public services at levels that neither compromise public safety nor the safety of the police and firefighters.

Sandra Guynn:I believe the levies failed due to the tough economic times, although I do think citizens are also getting sick and tired of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the city. Funds continue to lose money and, with the support from the incumbents, the city's reserves continue to be spent to cover these shortfalls. I am not at all confident in the numbers presented by the city, and I am not positive that we needed a public safety levy in the first place.

John Hubbard:We are in a recession and the people are over-taxed as it is. Considering the economic condition, nothing (should be done) at this point.

Michael Winters:I believe it was too much, too fast, too soon. While both levies were and are necessary and important for our community, the public felt put upon considering the increased tax burden imposed over the next several years. Most folks feel more effective management may very well be the right answer — more effective use of personnel and better time management.

Mike Witsoe:I believe the fire and police levies failed because of the misappropriation of reserve funds and general city funds by the present and past administrations. Funneling those monies in to ECP, SME (Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative) and other various harebrained programs has caused the people to not have trust in their city government. Fire and police are sworn to protect and serve the people. City government has stolen from them and us. Vote for change; it's the only answer.

5th Question: Speaking Limit

Here is the fifth question and responses:

Do you favor continuing to limit speakers to 5 minutes each during the commission's public comment period?

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Mike Witsoe:Yes, I do, if they ramble on like I sometimes do. However, when professional, educated individuals have made a presentation to explain/question/qualify or to present a particular subject/point of view that is of public interest and detail, the time should be extended. The public comment period is for people to express their concerns, interests, fears and their passion. The public comment period should be earlier in the meeting so as to not force older concerned citizens to wait through the b.s. Public comment is the only true voice of the city's citizens.

Bill Bronson:Yes. It is a reasonable limit on comments made at the end of our commission meetings. I have yet to hear anyone that has come before the commission at the end of the meeting to offer a comment that cannot make their point in 5 minutes or less. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable time limits are perfectly acceptable, and we should continue this rule for the public comment section of the agenda. It is important to note that the commission does not limit the time on statements made during public hearings or inquiries about proposed resolutions and the consent agenda.

Sandra Guynn:No, I do not favor limiting speakers to a 5-minute time limit. The mayor controls the meeting and, from the outset, can remind folks that in the interest of others, comments should be limited. If a speaker ignores that request, the mayor, as the chair of the meeting, can graciously tell them to conclude their remarks.

John Hubbard:The limit should be raised to 10 minutes. It should only be broken if the speaker is commenting on something of significance and their contribution is beneficial to the matter at hand.

Michael Winters:Anyone speaking before the commission should be able to say all he or she needs or wants to say in 5 minutes or less. The mayor or mayor pro tem should control the commission public comment period with professionalism and stay with the speaker's First Amendment rights. That does not allow the speaker to abuse those rights.

COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Ed McKnight:I do not agree with the 5-minute rule and I do not agree with the tightening of the muzzle on the public by the new decision that citizens are no longer allowed to ask questions during the public comment period.

John Rosenbaum:Yes.

Donna Zook:I do not believe in a strict 5-minute rule during the public comment period. However, I also believe that there is a respectful and dignified way of informing the individual speaker of the amount of time he or she is taking in order to accommodate all individuals who wish to speak. This is an issue of the parliamentary ability of the mayor.

Fred Burow:Yes. If 5 minutes are not enough, it can always be changed later. Unless you have some kind of a limit, some people get off track and ramble on and on.

Kathleen Z. Gessaman:I don't think a 5-minute limit is necessary if the commission's presiding officer follows Robert's Rules of Order, which provide the flexibility to limit the length of discussion when circumstances warrant such a limitation. However, this flexibility should not be abused just so the commission can wrap up their meetings quickly. If a popular topic encourages many citizens to participate in government, then the mayor or mayor pro tem could announce a 5-minute time limit per speaker so everyone has a chance to speak. The issue really is more one of appropriate leadership than arbitrary time limits.

Robert G. Jones:I do favor a time limit on speaking during the commission's comment period. I remain very open to what that time limit would be.

Rolland Leitheiser: I do not favor continuing the 5-minute limit. There has to be a reasonable amount of time for the public to comment.

4th Question: City Workers Pay Raise

Here are the answers to the fourth question asked by the Tribune:

Considering economic conditions, should the city continue to give pay increases of more than 3 percent annually to city employees?

Rolland Leitheiser:Pay increases to the city employee are important to retain quality workers. The poor economy does not reduce the cost of living. It is the city's responsibility to support their employees, so the city should continue giving pay raises to the city employees.

Ed McKnight:The city should live within its means. Therefore, city employee pay should be in line with local economic standards and conditions regarding the cost of living.

John Rosenbaum:No, not necessarily 3 percent or any other amount. We need to understand the market so that we don't train and then lose valuable employees to the private sector or to other cities when our pay scales are not competitive.

Donna Zook:In order to answer the question of a more than 3 percent raise to city employees, I have to know if there is a contractual issue between the employees, the city and labor unions. If there is a contract involved, it has to be studied before a pay increase greater than 3 percent can be given.

Fred Burow:Most of the city employees are covered by a bargaining contract. That contract should be honored. City employees not covered by a contract should (receive) the same percent raise.

Kathleen Z. Gessaman:The city should not pay more for personnel costs than it can afford while maintaining a balanced budget and adequate reserves. Any pay raises for city employees should be closely tied to the cost of living — especially in difficult economic times like the nation is currently experiencing. To cut costs, many employers have reduced staff or pay levels; other employers have limited the hours their employees work. The city of Great Falls depends on the economic well-being of its citizens to continue to function and needs to always be aware of the hardships taxpayers are experiencing.

Robert G. Jones:The city needs to responsibly pay its employees. They are the most important assets the city directs to deliver services to the public. Many employee contracts are negotiated for periods of one to three years, taking into consideration what's best for the public, community and employees. If economic conditions change during the terms of the contract, it's unfortunate, but the contract has to be honored. I believe the pay increases given to city employees are the responsibility of city management. When management enters into the collective bargaining process, it should be based on the interests of both parties.

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Michael Winters:If there is a contractual agreement with city employees agreeing to certain pay raises, and the city has signed off on the contract, then the city must live up to the agreement.

Mike Witsoe:I'm sorry, but I must say no. The cost of living and present economy dictate that the worst is not over. The taxpayers/property owners/senior citizens and the children aren't getting raises. We/they/I cannot give more than 3 percent annually. The people working in the public sector, business, state government and the general public are between a rock and a hard spot. No more raises.

Bill Bronson:Contracts approved for the two-year period July 2009-July 2011 provide for a 3.25 increase the first year, but the second-year increase is limited to 1.5 percent. The first year increase may seem high in relation to some wage increases in other sectors, but city employees did not have major increases in pay over the past few years, and the first-year increase was an appropriate way to play catch-up. These wage packages were negotiated in good faith with our various unions and should be honored. The amount of future increases will depend on several factors, including maintaining salaries competitive with the private sector.

Sandra Guynn:I would not have voted for this increase. In these tough economic times and the less than rosy financial picture of the city, an increase of 3 percent should not have been authorized. If elected your mayor, I will vote against any raises for the 2010-2011 budget year.

John Hubbard:No, until the economy has become more stable and we are out of the recession, we should avoid giving pay increases. We should put a freeze on raises and new taxes.

3rd Question: Golf And Swim Funds

Here are the candidates responses to this question:

What should the city do to improve the bottom line for its golf courses, which are to receive $245,000 in subsidies this year, and swimming pools, which are scheduled to receive a subsidy of more than $580,000 from the general fund?

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
John Hubbard:I think if the golf courses and swimming pools were to lower their prices, they would have more business. After all, less is more.

Michael Winters: Lower entrance fees to allow everyone the opportunity to enjoy our pools and golf courses. At neighborhood pools, all children under age 12 should be admitted free. Adults and those over 12 would pay a reasonable fee. Lower fees will encourage greater usage. Rather than considering selling one of the golf courses, why not consider leasing one to a local company to run as a for-profit business that would appeal to tourists, out-of-town visitors and local golf enthusiasts? Treat customers like they are important. Consider leasing a good restaurant at Eagle Falls course. Currently, we are pricing ourselves out of business.

Mike Witsoe:Whoa! The biggest bleeder of all! Park and Rec. (Recreation) has been completely unorganized, overpaid, understaffed, lacking a qualified director, since 1994. Two thousand season pass holders in the 1990s, 700 in 2009 — where did all the golfers go? They raise fees, raise fees, raise fees! They forgot about seniors, students and family oriented golf. The foundation of all successful golf, skiing and swimming programs is the number of participants and a strong season pass foundation. Swimming is for kids. Missoula's water park costs $5 or less. Missoula has season passes, family oriented swimming. New blood in Parks and Rec. is the only answer.

Bill Bronson:I support continued operation of our swimming pools; our young people use the pools heavily, and they are a good use of taxpayer dollars. The community's 2006 vote in favor of capital improvements to our pools demonstrates the public supports this approach. As for golf, the commission has been working with staff and an advisory board to improve management and marketing at both courses, with the goal of making them more profitable. Within two years, should it appear current operation levels are not sustainable and we are still not able to cover all expenses, we will have to look at other options.

Sandra Guynn:I think both of these funds need to be examined very closely as to why they continue to lose money. It concerns me greatly when the director of the Fiscal Service Department reported that the golf fund would receive a $240,000 "gift" from the general fund. This was done in order to reduce the red ink this fund has been wallowing in for the past several years. Shifting monies around to make certain funds look better does not solve the problem. it adds to it.

CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATES
Robert G. Jones:(Golfing friends) say golfing in Great Falls is the best deal around the state, with two courses. To improve the bottom line, we need to consider increasing the cost of season passes or eliminating them and implementing a pay-as-you-play system. We need to decide if the city can operate two golf courses profitably. Swimming pools nationally receive subsidies. However, $580,000 from the general fund seems extremely high, even considering carrying the debt of the Flow Rider. We need to consider our operating season, including days lost to inclement weather. A restructuring of our operation may be needed.

Ed McKnight:Seriously investigate privatization.

Rolland Leitheiser:Both the golf courses and the swimming pools are valuable amenities. If the city of Great Falls is to attract new businesses, amenities are very important parts of that process. Raising the rate will not improve the bottom line. I do not believe that funding these amenities from the general fund is wrong. I do not think that either of them needs to be self-sufficient — the parks, the tennis courts, the ball parks all need funding. We just need to run them as efficiently as possible, and fund the rest of it.

John Rosenbaum:The city's golf courses are long-term recreational facilities that enhance our city. However, we need to take a serious look at the practicalities of continuing with the number of courses we currently have. The swimming pools are an investment in our community, and especially young people's recreational opportunities. I believe they are extremely important, but we do need to examine if we are funding the pools adequately. Maybe we won't call it a subsidy — we will call it funding.

Donna Zook:Before I can make a decision on subsidies to the golf course and swimming pool, I need to review the whole financial picture in order to reconcile the financial situation. The city already has obligations to ECP (Electric City Power), the Animal Shelter and city development, and there are too many factors with regard to these obligations that are unknown to the public. The commission has not given the public straight answers with regard to various obligations and citizens are dismissed when the issues are raised at public meetings.

Fred Burow:How are the subsidies being spent? Is it a one-time cost for repairs and equipment? If not, then find ways to cut costs or look to user fee increases.

Kathleen Z. Gessaman:The public golf courses and swimming pools are wonderful resources for Great Falls residents and visitors. With the implementation of point-of-sale money collection systems, the city should soon have a better idea of when, what for and how much money is collected from these operations. Hopefully, this will allow identification of nonvalue-added activities and lead to productivity improvements. The city could pursue sponsorships to help reduce the golf debt and Flow Rider operating costs. Finding grant money to install a solar water heating system at the Flow Rider should be a city priority.

2nd Question: Recycling Fee

(Don't forget to check out Sandra Guynn For Mayor for additional comments on these issues).

In today's paper, the candidates responses to this question were published:

City government may soon consider a $1.50 monthly charge on city households to support recycling, which has been a money-losing venture for the city. Would you favor such a fee, and why or why not?

COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Kathleen Z. Gessaman: What will citizens get for this monthly charge? Nothing different than now! Montana Waste Systems (MWS), a Montana, private, tax-paying company, provides a bin and curbside pickup twice a month for $2 per month. I support recycling but don't believe the city has adequately established its costs. Reported recycling costs may be inflated by other activities occurring at the Citizens Convenience Center. I don't think we should charge any fees until we can better identify the true costs of recycling to the city.

Robert G. Jones: If the city government is considering a $1.50 monthly charge to city households to help support recycling, I would want considerable discussion. I believe recycling is very important and a noble undertaking for the city, but we have other ventures that are losing money that need our attention. The golf courses and swimming pools have had considerable difficulty meeting operational needs and carry outstanding debt. The utility arm, Electric City Power, is also losing money and borrows from the city General Fund. I believe we need to set priorities and resolve present issues before asking the citizens for more money.

Rolland Leitheiser: A charge of $1.50 per month sounds very reasonable; I am not sure that this would be the end of the problems of recycling. As the economy worsens the cost of recycling will continue to increase. How many times do we go to the citizens and increase this fee to pay for recycling? I believe that the city should find a way to continue recycling without adding a monthly fee.

Ed McKnight: Recycling is an example of a community-oriented project and decision. A private recycling business operates in town at a profit. Before burdening the public with increases there should be a realistic assessment of why the city is unable to operate at a profit and alternatives should be examined.

John Rosenbaum: This is a two-part question to me. The first part of the question is if $1.50 is the amount needed to run the program and what is the program? Second, are we going to include the private sector in the program, so that we do not duplicate their program, and can we be more efficient and cost effective? We have yet to see a business plan or a complete proposal yet.

Donna Zook: Yes. I believe in recycling.

Fred Burow: Looks like we have another feel-good program that's losing money. There are several recycling businesses in the area. Scrap iron, aluminum cans, cardboard, hides, autos; all can be recycled. Presently, the cost of collecting bottles, plastic, newspapers, etc. is too much. Let the professional businesses handle recycling. If and when the price of recycling these items becomes profitable, the pros will collect them. It's time to think outside of the box. When you have people that are part of the current system or think that way, change is impossible. Someone outside the system can have different ideas.

MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Sandra Guynn: At this time, I do not favor the city continuing its involvement in recycling. First and foremost, cities have a responsibility to provide core services in a fiscally prudent manner. Providing recycling services is not a core service of the city. It has been reported from the Public Works Department that even by adding this proposed fee, recycling will continue to lose money. It is not fiscally responsible to continue to provide a secondary service that doesn't break even.

John Hubbard: Personally, I don't believe another charge would benefit our city. However, I do believe we need to support recycling and we should create an alternative method to do so.

Michael Winters: I believe recycling is an important and priority program. Before charging $1.50 per household the City Commission should first explore how communities of similar size in Montana are handling recycling, then devise a management program to educate and encourage participation. Let's put in place a program interesting enough that makes us want to be part of. Generally, it isn't the program that is failing and losing money, it is more often lack of interest. Let Great Falls become a leader in community action affairs.

Mike Witsoe: Yes, I would! Private enterprise or environmentally organized individuals who care about real recycling, yes. The present division of city government running garbage and recycling has no conception of recycling! New blood from the top down is the only way for the city of Great Falls to join the 21st century ideals on the environmental impact of our waste. Give the young, educated people who care a chance to show us how it works in Missoula, Bozeman, Helena and the rest of the West!

Bill Bronson: Yes, I support imposition of a nominal monthly fee to cover recycling costs. Based on information currently available from the Public Works Department, we can probably limit the costs to about $1 per month. This is a small price to pay for encouraging a responsible activity like recycling.

Landowners Continue Their Fight

Just because the coal plant is off the front burner, doesn't mean the landowners are giving up on their lawsuit against the county for what they say is spot zoning. According to this article, they have appealed the judge's decision last year to keep the zoning as is and have taken their case to the Montana Supreme Court.

See here for more links to all of the details.

What The Commission Candidates Think Of ECP

The Tribune has started to print answers to various questions they submitted a short time ago to the City Commission candidates. You can find today's article pertaining to ECP here. Unfortunately, I could not find the candidates answers online so scanned the print version of them.

The first question:

Do you think the city should shut down its utility arm, Electric City Power, or should the city try to make its venture more profitable? The city stood to lose an estimated $4.75 million if it suddenly liquidated its electrical energy business earlier this year.

My responses and additional comments to all of the questions will also be posted at my Sandra Guynn For Mayor blog as well.

Judge Grants Partial Extension

On August 7, SME wanted until October 14 to view 10,000 documents in the "secret box". On Wednesday, August 19, Judge Phillips granted them until September 4.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of August 24, 2009

Only Council Four is meeting this week:

When: Thursday, August 27 at 6:30pm

Where: Heritage Baptist Church - 900 52nd Street North

Agenda:

Committee reports

Problem properties

Neighborhood concerns

Emergency preparedness workshop

Positions Available On City Boards

A total of three positions are open on the following city advisory boards:

City Planning Board

One opening; term through December 2011. Must be a Great Falls resident.

Advises the City Commission on area growth and development.

Meeting schedule:

Second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 3:00pm, usually in Commission chambers

For more info. contact Bill Walters at 455-8432 or bwalters@greatfallsmt.net

Parking Advisory Commission:
Two openings; one term through April 2010 and another through April 2012. Must be a Great Falls resident.

Advises the City Commission and city staff on matters pertaining to parking issues within the parking district.

Meeting schedule:

Third Monday of each month at 3:00pm in the Ryan Room.

For more info. contact Kim McCleary at 455-8405.

Who Is Running The Show?

Why does city staff do this and more importantly, why does the City Commission allow it?

At Tuesday night's work session, they scheduled four agenda items; one being the social host ordinance.

You're not going to tell me that they didn't know at the time of the agenda setting meeting (8/12) that this ordinance was not a hot topic. Did they honestly not think this item was not going to take some time? Well, it did. About 45 minutes. (This meeting started at 5:30pm. The City Commission meeting started at 7:00pm).

That left not much more than 35-40 minutes to hear about these issues:
Downtown Tax Increment Fund (TIF) Projects – Patton/Basta/Doney
House Bill 645 Project Substitutions – Cheryl Patton and Mike Rattray
COPS Grant Update – Chief Grove

I don't recall hearing much about HB645 and the COPS grant update had to be postponed to the next work session. The Downtown Tax Increment Fund discussion could have used more time as well.

I can't help but think that whenever this happens, and it has, more than once, that city staff, for whatever reason, doesn't want certain items to be delved into with much detail. Otherwise, why do it?

An Election Must Be In The Air

At Tuesday night's City Commission meeting, three items were tabled. In the three years I have been attending meetings, I don't think we've had a total of three items tabled.

For the first time that I can remember, a real discussion was held. For nearly an hour, the commission heard from both parties involved in this issue. After each party presented their side of the situation, Commissioner Bronson then asked them to step forward to answer questions he had. After that, he walked over to the interim planning director where a very short conversation ensued. It was after that conversation that Bronson made a motion to table the item in order to give both parties time to work out their differences.

The second item to be tabled was the Social Host Ordinance. The majority of the commissioners made it clear they will vote for this ordinance once certain language is clarified.

The third item to be tabled was item #6 on the agenda: Central Place Revitalization Urban Renewal Tax Increment District. Authorizes use of remaining tax increment cash from the Central Place Urban Renewal Revitalization Program. There was some discussion about this at the work session held just before the commission meeting, but questions/concerns remained.

Why does staff do this? This third item was on the city commission agenda for action. As far as I know, the only time any discussion ensued about it was at the work session meeting held just before the commission meeting. Doesn't it make more sense to hold a work session; get any kinks ironed out, then move forward with a vote during a future commission meeting?

New Material

Visit Sandra Guynn For Mayor for updates!

City Work Session

What: City Work session

When: Tuesday, August 18 at 5:30pm in the Gibson Room

Agenda:

Social Host Ordinance – Chad Parker
Downtown Tax Increment Fund (TIF) Projects – Patton/Basta/Doney
House Bill 645 Project Substitutions – Cheryl Patton and Mike Rattray
COPS Grant Update – Chief Grove

There is also a public hearing scheduled for the Social Host Ordinance at the City Commission meeting later in the evening.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of August 17, 2009

No meetings are scheduled this week, but as I mentioned here, several candidates are still needed to file.

Neighborhood Councils Need Filers

Not looking good.

As of just a couple of days ago, only 14 citizens had filed for their respective councils. 45 are needed.

Deadline to file is August 20. There is no filing fee.

SME At It Again

Here, the judge ruled that SME and the City should give the public access to documents in the "secret box".

It doesn't come as a surprise that SME doesn't want to do this. They now claim they need two months to review 10,000 documents, which were supposed to have been first reviewed last year when they filed this law suit.

They also claim that some of the documents pertain to the coal plant, which since it is not on the front burner anymore, really aren't relevant and therefore, the "timeliness" of their release is diminished.

This is ridiculous.

ECP Listening Session

I attended last night's ECP listening session and came away cautiously optimistic about the consultants hired to examine the city's involvement in the power business.

Both TV stations were present as well as the Tribune.

Not surprisingly, some citizens who commented were concerned that the study would not be unbiased. This concern is not hard to understand given the less than openness our city has demonstrated in this endeavor.

When a comment was raised about access to the "secret box", they indicated they have gotten everything they have currently asked for. They did not say that they had asked for access to these off limits documents. Mr. Abromaitis said they were more concerned about the future rather than the past.

Many thanks to Mr. Greg Jergeson, chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission, who indicated that "sometimes the past does inform the future". He also mentioned that the PSC has been involved with four contested cases involving ECP and went into some detail about those. He gave the name of the attorneys involved with those cases and indicated that the PSC is interested in helping to facilitate their study and gave them contact info. (As of last night, Mr. Jergeson said the PSC had not yet been contacted by the consultants). As a side note, see here for Mr. Jergeson's opinion regarding HGS and ECP.

I was quoted in the paper as saying "the public never had an opportunity to weigh in on this". This is an accurate quote, but falls short of my other comments. I did not come with prepared remarks, but based upon my recording, here is what I said:

The public never had an opportunity to weigh in on this. So in other words, as a constituent, I and everybody else here in Great Falls never had a chance to say yes, we're in favor of this, no, we're not. So I do understand that you want to move forward and that's what we all want, but I would also like for you to take into consideration, that if we do elect to continue in this endeavor, how can we balance that out with a municipality continuing to do business with a private enterprise, which is SME. Personally, I don't think public entities should be involved with private, just because the rules are different. This is what has contributed to a huge part of our problem and this secret box. It's a big deal, a very big deal. Citizens should never be shut down from access to what their government is doing. And that's what's happened here. In a municipality it should never be the case where citizens just don't know.

And so I ask as you are going through your process, you keep that in mind and how can we reconcile the two, if in fact you do elect to suggest that we continue to go forward with this.

Their report should be completed in about six weeks. It is not their intent that their findings be kept confidential, but did say they can't dictate what their client, the city, will elect to do with their report.

Can't Wait To Hear The Explanation

At last week's City Commission meeting, it was brought to the attention of the Commission that the 2009-2010 budget is not sustainable.

Several funds were mentioned that are projected to lose money.

This came as quite a surprise to Commissioner Beecher. He continues to state that he believes this is a good budget and was upset that numbers were being tossed about in the manner that they were. He said he wants answers by the next meeting.

Commissioner Jolley reminded him that the numbers were being quoted from the city's budget and that the city continues to spend its reserves.

Commissioner Beecher continues to try his damnedest to discredit the public. Fortunately for the public, he hasn't a clue what he is talking about and he proves it every time.

ECP Consultant Meeting

Tomorrow night, citizens will have the opportunity to share their opinions regarding the city's foray into public power. Last week, the Tribune erroneously reported, which they later corrected, that the discussion would include comments about HGS. It does not. This meeting is strictly about ECP.

When: Tuesday, August 11 at 7:00pm

Where: Gibson Room, Civic Center

Neighborhood Councils - Week of August 10, 2009

This week, NC#9 is meeting:

When: Thursday, Aug. 13 at 7:00pm

Where: Camp Fire Office, 1925 2nd Ave. So.

Agenda:

Problems on 4th and 5th Avenues South, near 20th street

Committee reports

Neighborhood concerns

Good News!

The Black Eagle post office WILL remain open.

This decision is a very good example of what can happen when citizens get involved and speak out.

It seemed more than ridiculous that this post office was considered for closure when to do so would have saved about $100,000 toward a $6.5 BILLION deficit. It was also the only post office being considered for closure in Montana.

Coal "Off The Table"

That's part of the headline in today's Tribune.

SME has asked that the DEQ revoke their air quality permit. They have 15 days to appeal their own request. If they do not, then a coal-fired plant cannot be built unless they apply for another new permit from the DEQ.

SME also indicated that they are not going to erect wind turbines at the HGS site, but will continue their efforts toward a natural gas-fired facility.

Levy Poll

As reported last night, the police and fire levies failed by quite a fair margin. Unofficial results:

Fire: For-6,989; Against 10,067

Police: For-6,825; Against 10,227

Why do you think they both failed? Take the poll to the right and let us know your thoughts.

Both Levies Fail

By a wide margin, both the fire and police public safety levies failed.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of August 3, 2009

Only NC#3 is meeting this week:

When: Thursday, August 6 at 7:00pm

Where: Westgate Mall meeting room

Agenda:

Committee reports

Neighborhood concerns

FINALLY!

Judge E. Wayne Phillips has finally ruled in the "secret box/black box" lawsuit.

According to this article, he ruled that "corporations, as non-human entities, do not have individual privacy rights under the state constitution".

The city and SME have until August 14 to provide the court detailed accounting as to why they think certain documents should continue to be kept from public scrutiny. Because the court delayed in releasing the ruling, the judge has given SME the opportunity to request a later deadline.

See the order here (thanks, Gregg) and check out his perspective on the ruling.

ECP Consultants

According to Commissioner Jolley, the consultants hired to review the city's ongoing foray into public power are tentatively scheduled to meet with the public on August 11 at 7:00pm. The location has not yet been decided.

I think it's great news the ECP board may not be around. It's my understanding they've already had their chance to talk with these folks.

It's long overdue for the public to have a chance to voice their concerns on this boondoggle without having to put up with the less than professional behavior from the chair of this board and its director.

I certainly hope that no city commissioner, city staffer or ECP board member is involved with this meeting. If they want to show up, they show up as an audience member only with no preferential treatment given.

GF Police Get Grant

In breaking news today, the Great Falls Police Department will receive a federal grant in the amount of $837,148. They will be able to hire four new officers.

According to the article, during the first three years of the grant, the officers salaries and benefits will be covered 100%. In the fourth year, the city will have to retain the positions.

How do you think this will affect the levy, of which more than a quarter of the ballots have already been returned?

ECP August Meeting

Due to board member vacations and the lack of actionable business, the ECP board meeting, previously scheduled for Monday, August 03, has been canceled.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of July 27,2009

One council is meeting this week; #7:

When: Tonight, 7/27 at 6:00pm

Where: Neighbor Works, 509 1st Avenue South

AGENDA:

CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF June Minutes
NEW BUSINESS
Police Mill Levy & Citizens’ Academy—Officer Jesse Slaughter
Downtown loan fund—Brett Doney
Closure of Black Eagle Post Office -- Erin Tropila
Neighborhood Concerns
OLD BUSINESS
Neighborhood Council Election filing reminder
Lowering Speed Limits on Park Drive near Gibson Park -- Greg Hall
Whittier & Longfellow speed limit petitions
Gibson Park Lighting, CTEP grant update
Weed and Seed radio ad -- update
Problem Properties
Other Old Business
REPORTS
City Commission
Other Reports
Setting the Time and Date of the Next meeting
ADJOURN

A New Low

The highlight of last night's City Commission meeting had nothing to do with the nearly 40 agenda items, but rather what occurred at the end of the meeting, during Petitions and Communications.

Stuart Nicholson, who made it very clear that he is retired from a 30+ year stint as the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) of DA Davidson, presented quite a performance.

He started off by discussing the success of the Lions festivities and the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle and then he "let 'er rip". He proceeded to tell the commissioners that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! He's had it with the way citizens speak at the podium. He even went so far as to say they use inappropriate, blasphemous language, etc. He reminded them that they need to take back control, or words to that effect.

When the buzzer went off, signaling that his five minutes was up, the mayor didn't tell him his time was up until Commissioner Jolley made some hand motions to that effect. Nicholson didn't quit speaking, but rather held up his hand in a dismissive gesture to the mayor and continued his insult toward the citizens. The mayor told him a couple of more times that his time was up, but she was laughing when she said it. When he finally shut up the mayor thanked him very much for his comments. (I wonder if he is this obnoxious and insulting at school board meetings).

Thankfully, his weren't the last words heard on the subject. Lt. Col (ret., USAR) Richard Liebert very promptly went to the podium and informed everybody about their First Amendment right to free speech. He reiterated that he has never used inappropriate language and that citizens have the right to express their views. He also stated that he very much resented the remarks made and that they were also an insult to those who defend our rights to free speech.

In the three years I have attended City Commission meetings, I have never seen Nicholson at any of them.

I just can't help but think his little performance has something to do with an upcoming election.

Economic Diversification Rollout

Everyone is cordially invited to attend the Economic Diversification Rollout presentation tomorrow, July 22 at 3:00pm at MSU-COT Heritage Hall.

See here for more details.

Thanks Gregg

Thanks very much to Gregg for hosting a very enjoyable Blog Meetup on Saturday, July 18.

After discussions pertaining to blogging, we adjourned to his house for leisure conversation, a barbecue and "fun in the sun". He and his wife were very gracious hosts. Gregg's photos are here and here.

Here are a couple my hubby took:

Many thanks to Treasure State Network for picking up the tab on our lunch!

OH, WHAT A DEAL!

If you attended or watched the City Commission proceedings from Tuesday, July 7, you know that Larry Rezentes, CPA was shut down during his presentation pertaining to ECP. Following is his explanation of the goings on pertaining to the financial statements of ECP as presented by Coleen Balzarini:

No, it’s not too late for Electric City Power to go down the tubes, but the taxpayers won’t know about it.

At the Electric City Power Board meeting this past Monday night, City Finance Manager and Electric City Power Executive Director, Colleen Balzarini presented the financial results of operation for Electric City Power.

I spoke at that meeting and pointed out:
· If you reduce April’s supposed “profit” of $39,043 by the amount of the "transitional rate” “savings” for the purchase of power by Electric City Power that are still paid to SME as a “deposit” ($55,409), the profit turns into a loss of $16,366.

· If you increment the reported fiscal year-to-date loss through May of $7,261 by the amount of the “transitional rate” “savings” for the purchase of power by Electric City Power, that fiscal year-to-date have been paid to SME as a deposit ($288,742), the loss increases to a loss of $296,003.

These facts (coming directly from the financial reporting presented at the meeting) went unreported by the media present at the meeting.

The city has negotiated (if that’s the right word) a deal with Southern Montana Electric that results in its payment to SME of the same “pass through rate” for power purchases as before, but with the difference between the amount actually paid at the “pass through rate” and calculated at the “transitional rate”, reflected as a “deposit”. Oh what a deal! The city pays the same as before, but gets to reflect a deposit on its books for the difference; an amount available to it at the earliest at January 1, 2011.

The advantage (if that’s the right word) to Electric City Power, is the ability to mislead the taxpayers as to the financial results being generated by Electric City Power by the fact that it can (using a stretch of accounting principles) reflect a lower cost of power purchases in calculating its monthly “profit” results at the lower cost, even though it pays the same amount as it would have before to Southern Montana Electric. It is also the basis for the supposed profits forecast to be generated by Electric City Power as represented in the proposed Fiscal 2010 Great Falls city budget.

The ultimate receipt of these “savings” and achievement of the supposed resulting “profits” is highly questionable, speculative, and unlikely. The assumed “savings” will sit in the bank account of SME until at least December 31, 2010, and SME, ECP AND THE CITY are subject to litigation from Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative based largely on the provision of this rate to ECP.

Who in good judgment would use this rate as the basis for calculating financial results of operation of any business? A deal where the price of the product you are buying supposedly drops, but where you continue to pay out of pocket the same price for the product, but are to receive in two years the supposed benefit of the “price reduction”, with the availability of that rate the subject of a lawsuit.

Further, the recording of the economic results biased by this decision regarding recognition of the “transitional rate” cost of power purchases, is biased, additionally, by decisions to defer recognition of a number of expenses and costs, as was recently brought to light by Ed McKnight in an e-mail exchange among Mr. McKnight, City Finance Manager Colleen Balzarini and City Manager Greg Doyen.

Expense deferral, together with acceleration of revenue recognition, are the two most common methods of manipulation of enterprise financial results. Such methodologies have been recognized with their own humorous term as the "cookie jar concept" in statements by the Securities and Exchange Commission, among others. The analogy is apt. In the case of accounting for ECP, the approach is one of deferring expenses (meaning reflecting them as an asset on the ECP balance sheet rather than as an expense) until ECP can "afford" them (keeping them in the city’s financial cookie jar until you can “afford” them): that is, as the City Finance Director herself describes it (in the e-mail exchange) "The prepaid deferred energy imbalances occurred as a net result of cash out-flows (energy supply contracts, market sales of surplus energy, general and administrative expenses and transmission expenses) exceeding cash in-flows (customer sales) from FY 2005 through FY 2008. A large portion of the deferred expenses are related to net imbalance transactions, but not all. They will be expensed in future periods when existing customer contract rates increase and existing supply contracts remain relatively the same or decrease." (Emphasis mine).

Non-acceptability of this approach is true whether or not this is acceptable, at the margin, under GAAP. The issue here is one of accurate accounting for the impact of the operation of Electric City Power on city cash flows and impact on the taxpayers, not what is acceptable at the margin to present a biased, best possible representation of results for Electric City Power.

I call upon the city to include in ECP’s monthly accrual-based financial reporting a cash flow statement prepared under (in accounting parlance) the “direct method”. The suggested supplement would show the payments that Electric City Power received from its customers in that month, fiscal-year-to-date, and cumulatively from Electric City Power’s inception, and what Electric City Power paid for power to Southern Montana Electric over this same period and to others for all other expenses of ECP.

I encourage candidates for Great Falls public office, and incumbents, for that matter to consider the above and make their views known on the subject.

Lawrence C. Rezentes, CPA

Neighborhood Councils - Week of July 20, 2009

Only NC (#4) is meeting this week:

When: Thursday, July 23 at 6:30pm

Where: PreRelease Center, Women's Annex at 1019 15th Street North (one time only location change)

Many thanks to Paul Cory, the director of the center, for inviting us. We'll conduct our normal business and then enjoy a tour of the facility.

If you would like to learn more about what the PreRelease Center does, please come.

Are You Tone Deaf?

Here is a fun way to check if you are tone deaf. The test is conducted by the National Institute on Deafness And Other Communication Disorders.

Feel free to share your score with us.

My score: Out of 26 tunes, I correctly identified 25. Fine sense of pitch, according to them!

THE COST OF REVEALING THE TRUTH - IN RESPONSE TO THE ANONYMOUS BLOGGER

The following post is from Mr. Larry Rezentes in response to an attack levied against him by an anonymous commenter on July 10:

In a recent blog to the topic “The Right to Be Heard”, anonymous said, “Mr. Rezentes would like to have you believe he is a local CPA, but he isn't. He is not licensed in the State of Montana to call himself a CPA.” The individual posting the statement has not revealed their identity, and so there is no way for me to confront and challenge the individual personally as to the position he or she has taken.

The facts, however, are these:

· I am a CPA, correctly represent myself as such, and have been a CPA for 34 years, with an active license in Texas, where I first became certified. I joined the U.S. department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee four years ago. To become so-employed, I submitted to an extensive background check of my educational and professional credentials; including my status as a CPA; my educational background with an undergraduate degree in accounting from Fairleigh Dickinson University, and an M.B.A. in finance from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business; a criminal and general character background check; credit check; employment history check, etc.

· As my practice as a CPA is strictly in my employment with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee, I have no need or requirement to be licensed in the State of Montana. Any individual with the knowledge to post such an allegation would know this.

· I am a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and have been a member for over 14 years. To become a member, obviously, one must be a Certified Public Accountant.

· I began my career by working for three years in public accounting with Arthur Andersen and Company.

· I also hold a membership in Financial Executives International; an organization whose membership is limited to those holding senior financial management positions. I qualify because of a 25 year background serving in Chief Financial Officer roles; including 17 years serving in such positions in Public, Venture Capital and Private Equity financed businesses. I also hold memberships in the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors and the Society for Human Resource Management.

· I possess extensive experience in dealing in complex financial and accounting issues, including those in turnaround and bankruptcy settings. I have served as CFO of two businesses in bankruptcy.

· The designation of me as a “local” CPA and “local” accountant has come from others; including the Great Falls Tribune and KFBB.

· In all cases where I provide statements to the media, I ask that the following legend be provided stating my background: “Lawrence Rezentes is a Certified Public Accountant with experience as CFO in public, private, venture-capital and private equity financed companies. He currently works in the public sector for the US Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee. The views expressed herein are his own and are not intended to represent the views of the US Department of Justice, nor those of the Office of the United States Trustee.” As a compromise, I agreed in my interview with KFBB to a designation as CPA; KFBB chose the alternative title as “local CPA”. I have never introduced myself as “Local CPA”, and did not do so at last Tuesday’s meeting. Given my background and experience, why would I “like to have you believe that I am a local CPA”, as indicated by our anonymous blogger.

No, the accusation is a scurrilous and malicious attempt to malign me by those in, or allied with, city government, who object to my having brought to light the misrepresentations by those in city management and elected city officials, of the large losses sustained, and that continue to be sustained, by the city’s operation of Electric City Power; the cause of those losses; the questionable accounting used now to hide them; and of the city’s flagrant violation of Electric City Power’s founding ordinance. It is a retaliatory attack against me by such individuals in or allied with a city government that has abused its power, selectively applied and knowingly violated its own laws and harassed those, such as myself, who oppose its actions and the incompetence, misrepresentation, and illegality of its entry into and continued operation of Electric City Power, and its involvement in the Highwood Generating Station program. It follows other such attacks against me by the city, and those allied with its views.

I have challenged elected officials of the city, the City Manager, the City Attorney, City Finance Manager, any or all, to debate me on the issues surrounding the establishment, financial results, and legality of the operation of Electric City Power and its involvement in Highwood Generating Station. I did this most recently in a letter that I sent to the Great Falls Tribune with copies to the Mayor, City Commissioners, City Manager, City Finance Manager, and City Attorney dated February 17, 2009. The attacks upon me personally are a cowardly substitute by those without the character, courage or integrity to face me to defend what they know is their indefensible use of taxpayer money in support of the ill-conceived, and incompetently managed Electric City Power and associated Highwood Generating Station ventures.

My statements of the facts surrounding Electric City Power at last Tuesday evening’s City Commission meeting, where the Commission approved the hiring of a consulting firm and the wasteful expenditure of $60,000, in knowing violation of Ordinance 2925, in an attempt to acquire a consultant to whitewash their actions, is what led to Mayor Stebben’s interruption of my talk.

Lawrence C. Rezentes,
CPA

ECP July Meeting

The ECP board meeting is tonight at 5:30pm in the Gibson Room at the Civic Center.

Agenda:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Financial Reports
Financials - Year to Date and Projected
Energy Consumption Charts (to be handed out at meeting)
YVEC vs. Southern, et al. (Cause No. DV 08-1797) Defendants’ Motion and Brief for Partial Summary Judgment

Miscellaneous Reports
Presentation by Mr. James E. Morin, Director of Shell Energy North America, regarding the gas industry

NEW BUSINESS
Accept Board Meeting Minutes from June 1, 2009

BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Energy Consultant Proposal Award

COMMUNICATIONS
Public Comment

NEXT ECP BOARD MEETING

August 3, 2009

ADJOURN

Here is the agenda packet for tonight's meeting.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of July 13, 2009

No meetings are scheduled this week.

NC#7, which normally would have met this evening, has postponed their meeting to Monday, July 27. An agenda is forthcoming.

NC#8 is holding an ice cream social on Wednesday, July 15 from 6:30pm-8:00pm at Memorial Park at 19th Street and 2nd Avenue North. Enjoy ice cream cones and root-beer floats. Kids can also enter a sidewalk chalk art contest with prizes for the winners.

The Secret Box

Two very important questions were asked at last night's City Commission meeting:

1. Will the consultant hired to evaluate ECP have access to the secret box?

2. Why haven't the Commissioners (albeit Jolley) looked into the secret box?

Greg Doyon indicated that he would encourage SME to cooperate with the consultant, but he did not think there was anything in the box that would help them in their review. He claims he knows this because of conversations he's had with Commissioner Jolley. He himself has not looked in the box.

Not surprisingly, the second question was not answered. The mayor had her usual smug grin on her face and Bronson sat there with his chin resting in his hands, staring off into space.

At the end of the meeting, Rosenbaum indicated that when the occasion arises that would warrant looking into the box, he would. Now, how exactly does he know what occasion would warrant looking into the box when he doesn't know what's in it?

I bet I know. He calls Gregori.

Coleen Does It Again

Last night was a tough night for the supporters of ECP and its director, Coleen Balzarini.

First, Larry Rezentes took her to task and then Kathy Gessaman inquired why the June power payment of $650,000 was once again not listed on the over $5,000 report. Coleen said it was paid on time, but she forgot to list it.

To recap: At the June 16 City Commission meeting, it was brought to Coleen's attention that no power payment in the amount of $650,000 had been reported as being paid to SME for the month of June. She indicated that the wire transfer was made on time, but missed the report for the 16th so it would be on the next meeting's report, which would have been last night's.

Mr. Gessaman inquired of her later how many other couple hundred thousand dollar expense items have been forgotten.

That evidently sent her over the edge, because she left the meeting and never came back. (You may remember that just over a year ago she did the same thing). This time though, her boss didn't go out after her.

For her sake it was probably just as well she left, because Ed McKnight's comments wouldn't have made her feel any better.

She has nobody to blame but herself.

The Right To Be Heard

At last night's City Commission meeting, Larry Rezentes, local CPA, was told to "wrap it up" in the middle of his explanation as to why he doesn't think the city has the authority to hire a consultant to determine the feasibility of ECP.

Evidently the mayor didn't like hearing Mr. Rezentes take the city to task for being in violation of Ordinance 2925 (section 5.20.070) and for a pattern of misrepresenting ECP numbers.

The majority of his explanation was technical, and because he was speaking rapidly, it was not at times easy to follow, but he was speaking during NEW BUSINESS, which does not have a time limit. He was on topic and deserved the right to be heard to the end of his dialogue.

At least his remarks are on the record and the mayor once again proved how much she dislikes OTAG; Open, Transparent, Accountable Government.

ECP Board Meeting - July 2009

Normally, ECP meets the first Monday of each month, but because of the holiday, they rescheduled their meeting to Monday, July 13th.

Guest speaker will be Jim Morin, Director of Shell Energy North America

Bob Pancich, past chair and current board member of ECP, requested that Jim cover the following topics:

* Current infrastructure to deliver gas to HGS

* Is there sufficient capacity to deliver the needed gas for HGS and the City of Great Falls?

* How large are the existing gas supply lines?

* Is there sufficient excess capacity to provide for growth into the next 20 years?

* Do we have to consider building a pipeline to supply the plant? How long would [it] be?

Mr. Pancich also wants him to address the supply of gas now and into the future as well as these other areas of concern:

* What is the source of the gas supply? Canada? or where?

* What about proven reserves? How large are they?

* What about price? Can prices be 'locked in" for 20 years?

I'm acquainted with Mr. Morin and am looking forward to his remarks.

Police Department Open House

When: Wednesday, July 8 from 5:00pm-7:00pm
Where: Police Department

Tours of the building, 911 Center, video firearms simulator, police cars and firing range will be given.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of July 6, 2009

One council is meeting this week:

NC#9
When: Thursday, July 9 at 7:00pm

Where: Camp Fire Office at 1925 2nd Avenue South

Agenda:

Police Levy

Committee reports

Neighborhood concerns

Declaration Of Independence

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

For an interpretation of the Declaration, click here.

Final Slate Of Candidates

Yesterday was the final day to file for the Mayoral seat and two City Commissioner positions on the City Commission. Following are the candidates for each office, listed in alphabetical order:


Mayor:

Bill Bronson (current City Commissioner)

Sandra Guynn

John Hubbard

Michael Winters

Michael Witsoe

City Commissioner:

Fred Burow

Kathleen Gessaman

Robert Jones

Roland Leitheiser

Ed McKnight

John Rosenbaum (incumbent)

Donna Zook

Budget Meeting

What: Budget Work Session

When: Wednesday, July 1 at 1:30pm in the Gibson Room, 2nd Floor, Civic Center

This is a follow-up to the City Manager's budget presentation

My Mayoral Campaign Blog

I've just published my mayoral campaign blog. Material will be added on a regular basis so visit often.

The latest post is about what YOU think are the important issues facing our city. Please take the time to let me know.

Gessaman's Website

Kathy Gessaman, a candidate for City Commission, has her own website. Stop by and pay her a visit!

What's Going On?

Last Wednesday (6/24), the city manager's office e-mailed this memo to the Commissioners and certain city staffers:

We have confirmed the date and time of July 1, at 1:30 p.m. in the Gibson Room for Greg to do the follow up on the Manager’s Budget presentation and allow a question and answer period for the Commission. The agenda meeting will take place in Greg’s office immediately following the budget discussion. We will do a press release announcing this schedule. Joyce

Joyce Thares

Executive Assistant

City Manager's Office

455-8450

jthares@greatfallsmt.net

As of now, this meeting is not listed on the city's website and the Tribune did not publish it in today's paper.

Why the hold-up?

Neighborhood Councils - Week of June 29, 2009

No meetings are scheduled this week.

Neighborhood Councils - Week of June 22, 2009

Only one council is meeting this week, mine, NC#4.

It is my understanding this could be the last time folks can hear about the public safety levy as many of the councils elect not to meet during the summer.

To accommodate those interested in hearing only about the levy, I have placed both presentations at the beginning of the agenda.

When: Thursday, June 25 at 6:30pm

Where: Heritage Baptist Church, 900 52nd Street North

Agenda:

Fire public safety levy

Police public safety levy

Committee reports

Update on area problems

Neighborhood concerns

Transit Board Meeting

When: Wednesday, June 24 at 6:00pm
Where: Transit offices at 3905 North Star Blvd. - North Park

Agenda:

Proposed annual budget

Proposal to restore Saturday service

Happy Father's Day!

For The Record

There was something oddly familiar about one of the suggestions newly filed Mayoral candidate Mike Winters made to the Tribune:

Winters also suggested the City Commission set up an office in the Civic Center for a half day two or three times a week when the public could come in to talk to a commissioner or the mayor.

I first suggested that very idea at the mayoral forum that was held at NC#3 on June 4. KRTV and one other source have my remarks on tape.

Whittier Fundraiser

The Whittier PTA will be holding a BBQ fundraiser on Saturday, 6/20 from 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. to help raise funds for the matting for the new playground!

Please come, and also help to distribute the attached flyer.

Aaron Weissman

City Is Sued

Last Friday in state District Court, Susan Overfield filed a lawsuit against the City pertaining to her expulsion two years ago from a City Commission meeting.

I was at that City Commission meeting.

I can say that prior to being "escorted" out of the chambers, Ms Overfield was not "loud and poorly behaved" as the city prosecutor claimed during her Municipal court trial. She most definitely was intent on finishing what she had come to say, but at no time at the podium did I feel she was "loud and poorly behaved". Yes, she was told her time was up, but please keep in mind that Mayor Stebbins has on more than one occasion allowed certain folks to go over the time limit; but, and this is a big but, it depends on who you are and what you are saying.

Ms. Overfield was found guilty at that trial, but that decision was overturned by District Court Judge Julie Macek in February of this year.

Ms. Overfield is now suing for "general and special damages, loss of past and future earnings, compensation for pain and suffering, and attorneys' fees".

City Attorney Dave Gliko was not aware of the suit, but indicated that the City will submit information to its insurance carrier and they will determine if they will provide coverage and step in to defend the city.

SME Responds

Back on May 20, the DEQ sent a letter of incompleteness to SME pertaining to their permit application to construct and operate a gas combustion turbine facility for electric generation at the Highwood Generating Station. SME had until July 20 to comply with the DEQ's requests.

Here you can find SME's responses.