Electric City Weblog

We've Moved.

2007-10-26T05:59:00.000-07:00

Due to lack of interest either way, I am moving Electric City Weblog to this new location:

www.electriccityweblog.com

Please update your records.

(Contributers, please email me with a new username and password, and I'll get you set up on the new site.)

Last Chance

2007-10-25T08:29:00.001-07:00

Last chance to hear the candidates tonight:

Civic Center
5:30, p.m.
Missouri Room

I'm So Proud

2007-10-25T08:27:00.000-07:00

My alma mater made the national news:

If the Supreme Court takes Flint's appeal, it will see that the University of Montana is indeed teaching students a lesson about politics -- the pernicious lesson that politics should be conducted under tight restrictions on advocacy. The university is preventing students from learning such essential civic skills as how to raise and allocate political money for advertising and organizing. Thus do the grossly anti-constitutional premises of McCain-Feingold seep through society, poisoning the practice of democracy at all levels

Housekeeping Issues

2007-10-24T19:37:00.000-07:00

I have a couple housekeeping things that have come up.

First, it has been suggested to me that I should try to get an Offline Version out before the election. I would try to include excerpts from the Bloggers' Debate, as well as information about the Pilot Program (since the Tribune is obviously going to studiously ignore the story).

I have some problems, though. If I get the thing done this weekend, I can probably email it up to the publisher over the weekend. If so, I might be able to get it printed, leaving 6 days to distribute it before the election. The short timing leaves two issues. First, how do I distribute it in 6 days? If anyone wants to volunteer to help, please email me at fallsblog@yahoo.com.

Second, I need to sell a few ads to cover the cost. I'm going $150.00 for a full page, $100.00 for a half page, and $80.00 for a quarter page. Any takers? I'm already out of pocket a few hundred dollars on this election and, considering that I can't even vote in it, I would like to at least break even on the print version.

The next housekeeping matter is the move. I am going to move this blog, I think, to Wordpress at www.electriccityweblog.com. Please go over, check out the template, and let me know what you think. Do you like it? No? Leave me a comment somewhere or an email, if you wouldn't mind.

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming. LK? Wolfpack? Anonymous?

GF Debate-Conclusion

2007-10-24T06:11:00.001-07:00

GF Debate-Candidates Question Each Other

2007-10-24T05:27:00.001-07:00

GF Debate-Ambulance Service

2007-10-24T05:22:00.000-07:00

Only Susan Kahn believes that the ambulance charges should be established by the City of Great Falls. The rest are undecided, oppose it, or didn't answer the question.

GF Debate-Police Issues

2007-10-24T05:07:00.000-07:00

Ms. Hensley and her job at the City-Update

2007-10-24T04:45:00.000-07:00

A poster below left a comment: "No one on the city staff urged Hensley to run for the commission seat. Has anyone asked her why she resigned her position at the city? She was a witness to the day to day happenings in the fiscal department. Could it be that she was unsatisfied with the way things were being managed so she quit because she was fed-up? (Remember: City Employees are hard workers, homeowners, and tax paying citizens too!) Is it possible to think that she is really trying to make things better for Great Falls by using her 'inside information' to improve city government? It is possible that management doesn't want her on the city commission because she knows the truth."

If this is true, and it may be, then I guess I am a little disappointed in her stealth dissatisfaction. She has as much of a stage right now as she will probably ever have on this issue, and she is silent?

If she quit the City because she was "fed-up" with "the way things were being managed," yet chooses to remain silent on that point in a City election, I guess that causes me concern. What, we only get to learn her "inside information" if she's elected? If she loses, she'll keep it to herself and the City will go on being managed in a way that is unsatisfactory?

Hmmm.

At 21:33 of the Coal Plant Video

2007-10-23T20:25:00.000-07:00

At 21:33:

Ed McKnight: I would like to ask Commissioner Kuntz, you talked about stepping up and taking leadership in this power process. And yet all the information I have, either the coal plant or Electric City Power, you have done nothing but lose money.

Channing Hartelius: So is that your question?

McKnight: If losing money is an indication of leadership, is that the kind of leadership that we need?

Hartelius: Did you under...did you get the question?

Diane Jovick-Kuntz: I did. And again your figures and my figures are different on the losing money. You've gone to the budget and picked one particular line item out of our budget and said we're losing, we're losing, we're losing. You have not gone and visited with Coleen Balzarini on a regular basis regarding this issue so you view us as losing, losing, losing. I don't view it that way, and I think with Electric City Power, because of the obligations that we have, for the contracts, for the next 20 years, there will be enough revenue to carry us through. And we will not continue to lose money.

Hartelius: Thank you Diane.

[Emphasis Added]

See, p. 28, p. 7 in Adobe Acrobat: Operating Loss, Electric Fund:
-404,973.

Actually, I think we have the same figures, don't we? And yes, I am picking out one line from the AUDITED financial statements. It's the line called "Operating Income (Loss)."

The obvious: If we're not losing, losing, losing right now, how can we "continue" to lose money? Good question, eh, Dr. Freud?

GF Debate-How often do you attend Commission Meetings?

2007-10-23T20:23:00.000-07:00

Candidate Debate-Candidate Introductions

2007-10-23T20:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry for not putting these in order!

Rascals

2007-10-23T10:41:00.000-07:00

From 1973...

Thanks, Alan!

Candidate Debate-What New Ideas or Changes Do You Have?

2007-10-23T08:31:00.001-07:00

Candidate Debate-Thoughts on City Manager

2007-10-23T08:17:00.000-07:00

Power Deposits

2007-10-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

Some may recall that, back in July, I argued that the City of Great Falls was giving SME a gift when it agreed to provide a 1.4 million dollar security deposit that was not otherwise required by contract. I stand by the questions I raised at the time.

In any event, though, the security deposit was justified by City Staff: "A standard industry practice requires security deposits equal to two months of energy supply costs."

It occurred to me, then, to see what our City Manager's power contract has to say about deposits. It's a little bit better deal than the city got. The contract provides that a deposit can be required only if service has been terminated for non-payment within the last year, if the customer has received 2 or more termination notices (for non-payment) within the last year, if the customer has a current delinquent account with ECP, for tampering with the utility services, or an unsatisfactory credit history.

None of those would apply in the case of the City's gift to SME (which was not provided for by contract prior to July 17). Further, the deposit in the City Manager's contract will be refunded with 5% interest if he were to make his payments on time for 12 months.

$1,400,000.00 x .05 = $70,000.00.

Candidate Debate-The Coal Plant

2007-10-23T06:09:00.001-07:00

Ms. Hensley and her job at the City

2007-10-22T20:03:00.001-07:00

Below I posted a City Directory showing that City Commission candidate, Elna Hensley, worked for the City of Great Falls and shared a telephone number with Coleen Balzarini, the Executive Director of Electric City Power.

Several people I respect pointed out in comments and through the back channel that I was somewhat unfair in my questioning of Ms. Hensley's motives. I have to agree; the fact that I distrust some of the people she worked with should not serve to imply that her motives are anything less than honorable.

Thus, I have stricken what I believe to be the unfair portion. I didn't remove it all the way, because that looks too much like I am covering my tracks. Let the strikeout be a reminder of the error of my ways in making unfounded suggestions about Ms. Hensley.

I do not agree, though, that the fact that she worked with Ms. Balzarini as late as this year is wholly irrelevant. Come on, people. We do not have to be ignorant to be fair.

The coal plant/city utility is the most significant issue in this election. It is simply not reasonable to suggest that we must ignore the fact that one of the candidates worked closely with a key player in this debate. The relationship is fair game; the baseless implication that she is a shill or a plant is not. I apologize for the latter.

City Directory

2007-10-22T11:50:00.000-07:00

City Commission Candidate, Elna Hensley, shared a telephone number with Coleen Balzarini.

~~I wonder if anyone in the City Staff urged her to run in order to get a friendly ear on the Commission? Does anyone know?~~

What does this even mean?

2007-10-22T06:38:00.000-07:00

In the comments, LK takes Elna Hensley to task for her remarks in the paper about the 5 minute rule. Wolfpack thinks she did a good job. For the record, Ms. Hensley said:

Montana's public meeting laws are very clear — the business of the public must be conducted in public. However, a distinction needs to be made between a public meeting and a meeting held in public. Unlike a public meeting, the meetings of the City Commission are for the purpose of conducting the business of the city and are held in public. The commission members must consider comments on matters they will be making decisions about, but at some point they need to be able to move on and make the decisions that the voters have entrusted them to make. Setting reasonable limits on the time for public comments is not inappropriate. I do think that commissioners need to make themselves very available to the public in other settings, such as neighborhood council meetings or other public meetings convened to discuss specific issues, to hear the comments of members of the community.

Excuse me?

While she may have "made her point very well," what she said is gobbledeegook. There is no distinction between a "public meeting" and a "meeting held in public."

A meeting is "the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public agency or association described in 2-3-203, whether corporal or by means of electronic equipment, to hear, discuss, or act upon a matter over which the agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. " Unless dictated by the needs of individual privacy or private litigation, meetings need to be opened.

According to Ms. Hensley's statement, City Commission meetings, "unlike a public meeting, are for the purpose of conducting the business of the city and are held in public." In other words, City Commission meetings are meetings for the Commission to "hear, discuss, or act upon" matters "over which the [Commission] has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power." Sounds like a public meeting to me.

Ms. Hensley can be excused, maybe, for ignorance of the finer points of the open meeting law. But I cannot excuse a mindset that would suggest that when the City Commission conducts the business of the City, it merely happens to hold those meetings in public, apparently at the leisure of the Commission, and there is really no requirement for public input.

While Ms. Hensley seems like a very affable and reasonable person, her comments bespeak a real misconception about the fundamental nature of the democratic process. This almost sounds like something a staff member might try to make up to justify exclusion of the public.

Unless she retracts her statement, I don't know how anyone could vote for someone who does not recognize the public's role in its own government.

Vote for Private Property Rights

2007-10-22T06:28:00.000-07:00

I attended the Town Hall Meeting on Saturday night. After hearing the candidates (that were present) unanimously oppose the coal plant on the grounds that it would, at a minimum, visually impact the Lewis and Clark Trail Landmark. Wait, I guess I shouldn't say unanimous. Larry Steele does not oppose the plant on those grounds, although Mr. Steele failed to offer an articulate reason why he did not believe the plant would harm Trial visuals.

As I listened to the others, though, it occurred to me that the coal plant is planned for private property. And, while it might be easier to argue that we should be able to prevent a coal fired generating station on someone else's land, our City Commission potentially makes many decisions impacting one's private property rights. What about the Design Review Board telling a businessman, who is about to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a new building, that he needs more shrubs? What about making a personal decision about how tall someone else's signs should be?

Notions of private property are very important to me. In this modern era, where people think they should have some say in what you do on your own land because they drive by it every day, we need to be very vigilant to ensure that we do not elect those who would presume to dictate our conduct due to their preferences. This is an extremely serious and important principle in our society. (For more on the history of this issue, see this post.)

Therefore, I asked the candidates about it.

Mary Jolley and Ed McKnight both stood strongly in favor of private property rights.

I'm not sure what Larry Steele really thinks. He discussed the "American History of signs" and "intimate domain."

Stuart Lewin is not a property rights advocate. He correctly noted that we "granted these rights to ourselves in the Constitution," raising the implication that what we have granted we can take away. According to Mr. Lewin, "we have to be willing to adjust how we manage ourselves if we wish to survive...Private property rights are being used and abused to harm the planet."

I am not going to argue Mr. Lewin's point about property rights vis-a-vis environmental issues, although I disagree with him. I am going to argue a more fundamental point. Acknowledging the Constitutional importance of private property, he discussed the need to, perhaps, move past a strict understanding of private property for the greater good. What he did not mention, though, is amending the Constitution. This signals, to me, a predisposition to ignoring...wait, let's be more tactful...interpreting the Constitution in accordance with his own beliefs. Once we presume to do that, though, all bets are off. Is this a sign of how he might govern?

Susan Kahn discussed the more practical side of private property issues in Great Falls, arguing that 10th Avenue South needs more unity among the various players, something akin, maybe, to the Downtown Business Association.

She used a couple terms, though, that lead me to question her commitment to private property rights and property owners' freedom. She talked about planning and directing property uses to the "universal good." In my experience, this is a buzzword used to support the agendas of those who would tell others what to do. Didn't we hear a similar term wielded in favor of the sign code?

She also discussed the need to regulate property owners to "attract the right kind of businesses to Great Falls." I disagree. We need to attract legal businesses to Great Falls. It is not our leaders' decision what is a "good" business and what is a "bad" business.

Ms. Kahn and Mr. Lewin's positions remind me of people who are smarter than you.

As far as the remaining candidates, well, we don't know where they stand on this, do we?

UPDATE: Ed McKnight clarified my paraphrasing of him as follows: "My brief answer was that I read the 213 report by the park service which said the impact can not be mitigated. I did not say that I opposed the plant for that reason.

I oppose the involvement of the city against the will of the public, If the public had voted for it I would not oppose it. I oppose the city spending so much money on something I think will fail for technical reasons."

UPDATE: Susan Kahn states in a comment that I misquoted her. Maybe I did.

My notes reflect that she stated she would accept regulation of property uses for the "universal good" and to attract the "right kind of business." In response she says that she was referring to the expenditure of public dollars, rather than regulation. If my notes were wrong, Susan, I apologize.

Certainly spending public money for the "universal good" and to attract "the right kind of business" is more palatable than regulation to like ends, provided, however, that we assume the money should be spent.

A legitimate private property argument can be made, though, that the government has no business taking away my property (money) in order to give it to someone else in order to entice that someone else to conduct commercial activity in our town.

Local Subject Alert: Service

2007-10-22T05:47:00.000-07:00

Dave at GreaterFalls has a post up about service in Great Falls. (He actually cites to this post by Hutch)

I have to disagree with Hutch's premise. I find that service is usually pretty good around town.

I should clarify, though, that I draw some distinctions here. When they screw up my order, that may or may not be a service issue. It's a service issue when, to my chagrin, I encounter a waiter or waitress who refuses to write things down (what is up with that, anyway? Are we supposed to be impressed?). If they do write it down, though, I consider that it is a kitchen issue and don't consider it bad service.

Likewise, when the waitstaff is running around, and the place is clearly disorganized, I don't consider that a service issue, I consider that a management issue.

A service issue, to me, is when the waitperson is rude or unhelpful. I rarely encounter that in Great Falls. I find that, when someone walks up to the table and you smile and make conversation, people are almost universally receptive. Thus defined, I receive very good service in this town.

Management issues, though, can be prevalent. For example, has anyone else stood in a long line at the Pita Pit watching while 3 of the five pita makers are constructing sandwiches for delivery orders, those who couldn't be bothered to come to the restaurant? Is that the fault of the server, or the manager?

Thoughts on Prey

2007-10-22T05:41:00.000-07:00

The President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says about global warming:

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.

The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.

He also goes on to disabuse us of the notion that even if the global warming alarmists are wrong, it doesn't hurt us to try.

Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.

(Hat Tip to Steve)

Must have been a stand in...

2007-10-22T04:47:00.000-07:00

Commissioner Diane Jovick-Kuntz was quoted in the Tribune this morning on the 5-minute (formerly, 3-minute) rule for public comment at City Commission meetings:

I was never in favor of time limits. When people take time to voice their opinion or concerns, whether it is for one minute or 20 minutes, it is our obligation to listen to what they have to say.

Amazingly, when one reviews the records of the applicable meetings, here and here, both Resolutions passed with 5-0 votes. So Ms. Jovick-Kuntz voted for things she was "never in favor of."

Conscience or consensus?

Town Hall Meeting-Update

2007-10-20T21:35:00.000-07:00

I was fortunate to be able to attend part of the Town Hall Meeting this evening. I had to leave due to family commitments (Apparently I am not alone in that; two other candidates bowed out for family commitments).

I hope to post more details later, but I was disappointed in this Meeting mostly for who was not there. Neither incumbent attended, Ms. Jovick-Kuntz for family commitments, and the Mayor for reasons unspecified due to her lack of a response to the invitation. Elna Hensley and Bill Bronson were both absent, due to prior commitments, one of them "family commitments" although I don't remember which one was family and which one was just prior.

I didn't see any media there, print, television or radio. Considering the Tribune publicized it, I think it's too bad they didn't attend.

I think it is fair to say that this was the anti-establishment debate. The two incumbents skipped it. Bill Bronson, while a good hand, is on the City's Planning Board. And, it was suggested tonight that Elna Hensley either works, or recently worked, with Coleen Balzarini at the City's Fiscal Services Department.

Nevertheless, it was interesting. I'll post more when I can.

The Global Warming Discussion

2007-10-20T07:46:00.001-07:00

There's a good one worth reading at Scoop Montana.

As you can see, I have plenty going on in my life, so I only popped in for a smartass comment or two.

Scoop cut off comments, so let me post my response to Rebecca's last comment here:

The fact that a scientist takes grant money from industry is not, to me, conclusive. Plenty of global warming alarmists take money from environmental advocacy groups too. Or doesn't that count?

What is hard for me to take is the absolute certainty with which some folks discuss scientific theory and "consensus." I tend to stay out of those fights anymore...

US v. Canada

2007-10-20T07:42:00.000-07:00

Ed Kemmick from down in Billings has a good piece up about the differences between the two healthcare systems.

Debate Results

2007-10-20T07:35:00.000-07:00

I almost forgot to mention that the winner of the audience selected portion of the debate, Mary Jolley, donated her share of the winnings to the Great Falls Rescue Mission.

Town Hall Meeting

2007-10-19T23:11:00.000-07:00

Don't miss the Town Hall Meeting tomorrow night at UGF, 1301 20th St South.

6:00 p.m.

Hopefully, this meeting will demonstrate what an idiot I was for charging admission!

Be there. But you could swing a dead cat and not hit an incumbent. (Ooops. Bad cliche.)

Critical Mass

2007-10-19T22:43:00.000-07:00

Most Montana blogophiles are now aware of the travails of Moorcat down in Dillon.

He has an interesting point up about critical mass. He postulates that events in Dillon are reaching a political crescendo that he believes/hopes will lead to change.

Is it just me, or is Moorcat not alone?

Even before I read of Moorcat's struggles, it seems I had encountered case after case where bureaucrats, politicians, and other small people with power used that power to avoid, ignore, or squash the rights of citizens. Over the last year or so, I recall reading more than several articles from all over the country where tinhorn dictators are choosing to inflict their will on those they should be serving.

You can't smoke outdoors, you can't smoke in apartments. (And I don't smoke) You can't drink bottled water.

But hey, we don't have to go to California to find our petty tyrants. In Missoula, the elected officials crack jokes on email about those who muster up the courage and effort to make their opinions known. In Great Falls, we have a time limit on public comment. Our officials sign contracts to make public records private.

In all these cases, too, those in the spotlight feel they are in "public service." Every one of them would, I suspect, vehemently protest the suggestion that they are subverting the constitutions they are sworn to protect.

Nope, you can't swing a dead cat anymore without hitting some board member, council member, commission member or bureaucrat who is willing to ignore your rights in the interest of their own personal brand of expediency.

Yeah, there's critical mass alright. I just wonder what side of the podium it's on.

The Good News....

2007-10-19T13:31:00.001-07:00

At least we're not alone.

Voting on the Coal Plant

2007-10-19T06:20:00.001-07:00

A commenter takes issue with Mary Jolley's suggestion that we should have been allowed to vote on the coal plant:

"It has been explained to her numerous times that the citizens DO NOT vote on private business - like SME- even if the city is or is not involved. Let's vote on another WalMart, OK?"

What a disingenuous statement that is. Sure, SME is a private company and the citizens do not get to vote on what it does or doesn't do. Just like Walmart, as Einstein puts it.

But let's put on our retrospectoscopes, shall we, and assume that 5 years ago the citizens of this community voted overwhelmingly against the city's involvement in building a coal plant out on the Salem property. What would have happened?

No water contract. Dealbreaker. What would the County have done on zoning in the face of a negative vote? Dealbreaker. No city support on EIS. Dealbreaker? No contributing 25% of SME's development costs for a 15% (or less) ownership interest. Dealbreaker?

Don't come on here and say stupid sh*t, whoever you are. Of course the City residents could have voted on the coal issue and of course it would have mattered.

If we had the vote now, could we extricate ourselves? That is a less clear possibility, although it is still possible.

Debate Critics

2007-10-19T05:55:00.000-07:00

I try not to spend too much time elevating comments to post-level, but I think I need to defend the debate that David and I sponsored, as well as all the candidates who participated. In all honesty, when people come on here and take potshots at me and others, my initial inclination is to just delete them. I don't spend the energy to do this so that people can come and slam me; start your own damn blog or, better yet, go hang out at the Tribune Forums.

I usually resist that urge, though, unless the comments are really unfair or over the top. In this case, we have a few shills who have felt compelled to comment. Let's shine the light.

This person offered a "reality check." First, s/he argued that the debate was "[c]oal plant this, coal plant that, all issues lead to the coal plant." S/he must have been at a different debate than I attended. Sure, there were prominent discussions about the coal plant. There were also discussions about accountability, open government, budgeting, the animal shelter and other things. No, this isn't a 'one issue town,' but it would be silly to suggest that the coal plant is not a huge issue facing us, both in its own right and as a lens to focus attention on other problems with City government.

The same person went on to dismiss the vote of the audience as friends and family of the candidates. Wrong. I know the majority of the people who voted for Mary Jolley. They are neither her friends or her family.

This person finally looks forward to the Tribune's forum. I am not sure why s/he needed to blast on our efforts to endorse the Trib's function. I hope it goes well. I hope they will follow our lead and come up with a way to allow something more than soundbite speeches.

Then someone appeared in a different post to slam the candidates, offering little substance but just telling us that some are bad. This person's comments are, frankly, laughable. I would really like to know who this person is.

Most of the things I write about, I know. I hope I don't sound cocky, but I have have been a practicing attorney in this town for nearly 20 years. When I say that a contract means this, or a law says that, I have a very high level of confidence that I am correct. If some one calls me to task on an issue, and can back it up, I will discuss the issue or retract my statement.

So when someone comes online and makes a silly, blanket statement about someone's "information" or positions, and that statement is false, it says much more about the commenter than the candidate.

I don't know, maybe Ed McKnight does have "bad information," since our potshot commenter did not provide the specifics to support his or her slam. Not all of his information is bad, though, because I have read a lot of it myself.

It has been suggested that this commenter is Holy Hal from the Tribune forums. The drive by attacks lead me to believe that this is not an unreasonable suggestion.

Finally, LK, please limit the personal attacks. Having met you, I think you are often injecting some levity, but it does not always translate into the posts. Use a smiley face or something, wouldja?

:)

Demand For Coal Falls Short

2007-10-18T11:18:00.000-07:00

Four of the candidates made it clear at last night’s debate they are in favor of the Highwood Generating Station - Bill Bronson, Elna Hensley, Diane Jovick-Kuntz and Larry Steele.

There is an article in today’s Billings Gazette by the Associated Press that in recent months at least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals have been scrapped and more than three dozen plants have been delayed due to increasing pressure brought by concerns over global warming and rising construction costs. (This same article was published today in the Tribune’s offline edition, but I could not find the online link).

This is an issue that is brought up time and again at city commission meetings, but continues to fall on deaf ears. Why is our commission and those candidates who support this boondoggle so quick to ignore what is happening in the rest of the nation and assume this plant will be so different as to rise above the rest? Today’s technology is what it is, and SME, no matter what their spin, cannot change that.

It Happened Again

2007-10-18T10:31:00.000-07:00

Mayoral candidate, Ed McKnight, was not chastised for "grilling the staff", but instead, asking a direct question of Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz. At the city commission meeting on Tuesday, October 16, Mr. McKnight asked Jovick-Kuntz the source of a comment she made at a public meeting. Evidently, Jovick-Kuntz said that ECP has saved the city 1 Million Dollars. (Really? I’ve been hearing the entity has done nothing but loose money). Mr. McKnight asked her what the source was for her information. She did not deny making the remark, but as has become the norm, she told him to contact the fiscal director’s office. She would not give a direct answer. To Mr. McKnight’s credit, he did not back down and Mayor Stebbins proceeded to tell him he was being "uncivil". Funny, I was there. His question was asked in a civil manner- it was their behavior that turned uncivil. He asked the question one last time and Jovick-Kuntz responded that the source was Colleen Balzarini.

If public officials are going to make bold proclamations in public, they have no business getting defensive and trying to dodge public questions when they are being asked to prove or provide the source for their statements.

Thanks to Rich Ecke

2007-10-18T06:47:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Rich Ecke for a good piece about our debate. I thought he captured the gist of it pretty well.

Thank you.

The Great Debate

2007-10-17T23:28:00.000-07:00

Whew. It's over.

I thought it was fun, and informative. While I would have enjoyed a larger turnout, the place wasn't empty. Plus, we had great media coverage and we will get the whole thing online before long.

Thank you very much to Channing Hartelius who did an excellent job. Thank you to Steve and Charlotte for Charla and everything else. (Unless I don't get my deposit back.) Hats off to Diane Jovick-Kuntz for coming, even though you had a target on your back. And thank you very much to all of the candidates for running and for coming and laying it out for us to see.

We had 'professional' judges from the ranks of both the CMR and GFH Debate Teams. (If any of you guys are reading this, thanks, and I hope all my kids are like you). They picked:

1. Ed McKnight
2. Stuart Lewin
3. Elna Hensley

We also had 'amateur' judges, also known as the audience. They picked:

1. Mary Jolley
2. Ed McKnight
3. Bill Bronson

Thank you to everyone who came, and we will have more in the next several days.

(P.S. Thanks Dave and Witsoe for helping me clean up. Now we know what "grassroots" really means.)

Great News! Diane Jovick-Kuntz will attend the debate tonight.

2007-10-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

Be there.

Candidate Has Withdrawn

2007-10-17T10:52:00.000-07:00

Michael Winters has withdrawn from the race.

Health Care Lotto

2007-10-17T00:02:00.000-07:00

Dentist Shortage Has Some Brits Pulling Their Own Teeth

A shortage of National Health Service dentists in England has led some people to pull out their own teeth - or use super glue to stick crowns back on, a study says. Many dentists abandoned Britain's publicly funded health care system after reforms backfired, leaving a growing number of Britons without access to affordable care.
"I was not surprised to hear those horror stories," said Celestine Bridgeman, 41, of London. "Trying to find good NHS dentists is like trying to hit the lottery because the service is underfunded."
The National Health Service provides care to the vast majority of Britain's people, often for free. Unlike doctors who work for the health service, dentists work on a contract basis and can leave whenever they wish.
Though private treatment by dentists is available, the tradition of publicly funded care means most people rely on it. But now there are fewer dentists to see patients.
In April 2006, the government reformed National Health Service dentistry in an effort to increase patients' access to treatment and to simplify payments. Dentists objected, complaining it reduced income. Some dentists cut the number of health service patients - or stopped taking them altogether.
Forty-five percent of dentists surveyed said they no longer accept National Health Service patients. In the British study, 78 percent of private dental patients left the National Health Service because their dentist stopped treating NHS patients or they could not find an NHS dentist. Only 15 percent claimed they switched to get better treatment.

British dentists left the government plan because.... they can. What will happen in the US if 45% of primary care docs walk, run, or sprint out the door when they see HillaryCare. Or will she require some sort of bondage or indentured servitude to keep physicians in the plan? 'Trying to find a good HillaryCare physician will be like trying to hit the lottery because the service will be underfunded'.

Ok, I'll beg.

2007-10-16T19:47:00.000-07:00

I thought long and hard before writing this post.

Blogging is still a relatively new phenomenon in our society. I do it primarily as a hobby, but also because it gives me an opportunity to express my beliefs. It provides me with an opportunity to use my training in a way that, hopefully, adds to the debate.

As one might expect, writing this blog, or any blog, helps one create the ire of others where it was previously unknown. Of course, there are any number of people in this community who disagree with the things I write, and disagree with me and the people who agree with me.

It has become a common tactic in our community and society to attempt to marginalize one's political opponents. Certainly, the Citizens for Clean Energy understand what I am talking about.

We are fortunate in our community to have at least three events planned where citizens can learn about our local government candidates. I am fortunate to be able to participate in the local bloggers' debate. Additionally, the Tribune will hold a more traditional candidate forum, and another local blogger is sponsoring a town hall meeting.

I didn't want to beg. There are, however, those in our community who would like to see the two, less traditional debates fail. How easy it would be, for example, to marginalize those who write and read the local blogs if, say, seven people show up for our debate tomorrow night.

So, I'm going to perform the figurative equivalent of begging you to attend our debate tomorrow night. Please, if you get the slightest bit of enjoyment or satisfaction from the local blogosphere, help us to make this grass roots event succeed.

No, it isn't the money. While I would certainly like to recoup some of my investment in the venue, I didn't plan this event as a fundraiser. I was sincerely surprised at the level of resistance to what I thought was a reasonable admission charge (I'll be $400.00 out of pocket tomorrow night when we open the doors). I was even more surprised at the resistance to the $10.00 per vote idea, an idea I thought would help make the event more fun and interesting.

It's not the money. I just want you to participate. If you haven't noticed, I am truly infatuated with the idea of citizen interest and participation. If that pisses some people off, so be it.

Participate. Just come.

Wednesday, October 17. 7:00 p.m.

Northwest Center, 2201 Northwest Bypass

A Donation

2007-10-16T13:24:00.000-07:00

An anonymous benefactor has agreed to contribute the cost of hiring a videographer to videotape the debate.

Thank you!

It will be taped, and will be put online just as soon as I can figure out how to do it!

Remember: Wednesday, October 17, 7:00 p.m. Northwest Center, 2201 Northwest Bypass

Format Update

2007-10-15T19:12:00.000-07:00

Due to popular demand (uprising?) we have changed the debate format.

There will still be a $5.00 admission charge to help me cover my out of pocket costs.

The $10.00 vote, though, will be optional. If you want to vote for a winner, it will cost you $10.00. You are, however, free to attend the debate and listen without voting.

Remember: Wednesday, October 17, 7:00 p.m.
Northwest Center, 2201 Northwest Bypass

Mission Possible

2007-10-14T23:40:00.000-07:00

Confidential: Gregori

Good Morning Tim,

Southern Montana Electric requires energy urgently. Problem is, the best coal is in SW Montana but the local residents don’t want the exposure to more toxic waste. Red Lodge is the next Big Sky you know.

Your mission Tim, should you choose to accept it, is to weasel your way into getting Geek Falls elected officials to trust you and convince them to eliminate a public vote on this controversial issue. Then use their pristine water, build a coal plant, leave the pollutants behind, and send the energy back to the Billings area so they can put up another Red Lobster or Olive Garden.

PS. Extra virgins if you piss off General Electric by building a conventional coal plant instead of one using their IGCC technology.

This message will self-destruct in 10 seconds. Good luck Tim.

Mr. Secretary

The "Scoop" on Global Warming

2007-10-14T21:17:00.000-07:00

Our friend Scoop brings the global warming debate home.

Maybe it WAS the money

2007-10-14T20:03:00.000-07:00

From the Great Falls Tribune, Sept 30

"They offered $500,000 in cash and we offered $500,000 in loans," Brett Doney, Great Falls Development Authority President said: "We just don't have the resources for cash incentives." John Oliver, a GE Commercial Finance spokesman, said he was not part of the final negotiations and can't say whether or not the cash incentive was the piece that tipped the scales in Billings' favor.

From the Billings Gazette, Oct 12

On Thursday, the Big Sky Economic Development Authority and a sister organization, the Big Sky Economic Development Corp., each agreed to pay $25,000 per year for 10 years to GE. The $500,000 in financial incentives played a big role in landing the GE operations center in Billings, said Joe McClure, executive director of Big Sky EDA. Big Sky EDA is financed primarily through a county wide tax levy. Big Sky EDC is financed primarily through contributions from private businesses.
"This is one of the items that set us apart when GE was looking at where to locate," McClure said. McClure said there were no strings attached on how GE can spend the money. He said offering financial incentives is part of the cost of job recruitment. McClure had no idea what other Montana communities had offered as incentives, but the Billings package was described as "convincing" by GE officials.

Show me some honesty. The city of Great Falls clearly has the financial resources for this level of cash incentive. The city committed 1.4 million dollars for the coal plant speculative investment. There now appears to be the equivalent of one or two full time employees working on this fiasco. Eliminating these positions would likely save $50,000 yearly.

We have resources, we lack leadership.

Stratego

2007-10-14T14:03:00.000-07:00

Remember the game, Stratego? It was supposed to be a great strategy game, requiring you to think far in advance about your opponent's moves and possible moves. I liked the game, but always thought it was more simplistic and tactical than strategic.

The law business, though, is more strategic. When you do something, you should have a specific reason for doing it, and you had better anticipate just what your adversary might do in response. If you do not anticipate opposing arguments, you can easily find yourself in a difficult position explaining to your client why you opened a particular can of worms to begin with.

Normally, though, when you're litigating, you do not try to 'refute' your adversaries arguments until he or she raises them. You see, there is always a chance that a good counter-argument could be missed, and we are not in the business of educating our opponents.

The same is true here. When I write a piece, I often try to anticipate what I think those with a differing opinion might say in response. Whether or not I include those arguments and try to 'refute' them in posts is primarily dependent on time.

I posted a piece a couple days ago about the City of Great Falls' Pilot Program. In that piece, I pointed out that the available evidence suggests that members of City Staff, Electric City Power's Board of Directors, and others, are receiving electricity from Electric City Power at a price below ECP's cost. In other words, according to what I can find, these people's electric bills are being subsidized by taxpayers. When I wrote the piece, I anticipated a few arguments against it, but time constraints prevented me from considering them at the time. So now I'll lay out what I think they are.

It's De Minimus.

This argument was already raised by our friend Wolfpack, and I think it's a relatively effective argument, at least against suggestions that the Pilot Program demonstrates some sort of inside dealing as opposed to simple ineptitude.

In other words, if one were acting with malfeasance instead of misfeasance, would one really go out on a limb for a few dollars a month? I don't think so.

On the other hand, given the amount of controversy engendered by the entire ECP and coal plant issue, one can easily infer that more adept management would anticipate that a sub-market power deal would simply look bad and given the de minimus nature of it (it is, after all, a few dollars a month either way) would not have bothered to risk the negative publicity in exchange for such relatively small savings.

The assertions about power costs are factually incorrect.

This might well be a legitimate statement. ECP purchases power from SME under various contracts at various prices. I focused on the November 2006 purchase contract because the Small Customer Pilot Program was specifically offered as a justification for purchasing that additional block of power. I fully concede that, by blending the rates from the various blocks of power, the actual cost to ECP of the power resold to Mr. Lawton, et. al., might be lower. There's really no way for us citizens to know.

But I do stand by this: Taxpayers are subsidizing the rates that the Pilot Program customers are paying. ECP has, in fact, lost money according to the audited financial statements (in excess of $400,000.00). Taxpayer dollars are helping to fund the development costs of the Highwood Generating Station and a public asset (water) is being used to subsidize some of the rates offered by ECP. ECP is being operated at a loss by government officials who are compensated by City of Great Falls tax dollars (some of whom are also getting below market power).

Given all of the taxpayer involvement in this particular operation, can one truly justify selling the insiders power for less than Great Falls citizens can buy it?

The below-market power is an incentive for the Pilot Program customers to take the risk of buying their power from ECP.

What risk? Seriously, what risk?

All Electric City Power does is buy power from SME and then re-sell it to ECP's customers. ECP is not out on the open power markets, buying contracts, hedging prices, etc.

SME says it is more than qualified to provide power. The "core staff that launched Southern Montana Electric G&T (Warren Bickford and [Tim Gregori]) has a total of 58 years experience in the electric utility industry. [They] have a combined 32 years experience in wholesale power supply and transmission capacity procurement. From the time the decision was made to form Southern Montana Electric G&T in November 2003, Warren Bickford and [Tim Gregori]have negotiated contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration Power Business Line(BPA PBL), the Western Area Power Administration (Western), PPL Montana LLC, NorthWestern Energy Transmission Services Group, the Bonneville Power Administration Transmission Business Line (BPA TBL) and the Western Area Power Administration – Transmission Services Group."

So, then, what is this great risk that justifies below market power to insiders?

Avoidance of the Issue/Personal Attack:

This has occurred. First, we have some individual named "bramble," who argues that my position on the coal plant is 'revenge' against John Lawton.

"The blog I refer to is run by a local attorney who has ownership interest in local casinos. He believes the city's sign ordinance and other zoning policies hurt casinos, so he is trying to get even with Lawton by distorting the Highwood Power Plant facts."

Do you know what? The City's sign ordinance and other zoning policies do hurt casinos. They hurt lots of businesses. (Newsflash: It wasn't all, or even very many, casino owners who spoke vehemently against the sign code.) Do you know how many businesses I own that have been affected by the sign code or the zoning law? Zero. So, "bramble" wants to allege a conflict of interest on my part, but ignores the fact that power plant advocates get sub-market priced power.

I would like to believe that "bramble" is an insider, someone who works in City Government. Why? Because "bramble's" post confirms two assumptions many people make about City Government.

First, many critics allege that John Lawton, rather than the City Commission, really makes policy. The assumption in "bramble's" post is that John Lawton created the sign code and the zoning law. If not, why would I want revenge against him rather than the Commissioners that adopted these two acts?

Second, why would stopping the coal plant "get even" with John Lawton unless he has some personal stake in the process? He's about to retire; his benefits are not contingent on the coal plant's success. So, "bramble," what difference does it make to Mr. Lawton whether or not it gets built? Do you know something we don't?

There are several other 'critics' over at the Tribune's forums. That's fine. All I ask, though, is that readers note that not one of them directly questions any factual assertions; they just accuse me of being a "hateful zealot" who "distorts" facts. You tell me who is hateful. Have I personally attacked anyone, called them names, because of a political disagreement?

If one of them, just one, would show up and take issue with a fact, we could then have a discussion. When virtually everything I say is linked to a source document, or if my assertion of an unsourced 'fact' is qualified as such, it's hard to dispute, isn't it?

Conclusion

Those are what I believe to be the primary refutations of my position on the Pilot Program. I wish the Tribune would cover this story so we could see which ones the insiders will use.

To be honest, and I mean that, what I am about to say is absolutely true: I hope that our City's representatives can document that they are not receiving power at a sub-market price. If they can, I will apologize and be duly chastened. I don't want to think that people would do this.

I have friends, clients, and family who live on fixed incomes. They pay taxes. Their power bills hurt.

From Mayor Stebbins

2007-10-14T12:21:00.001-07:00

I will be unable to participate since I will be in Billings on a family matter on the 17th and part of the 18th. I wish you well and hope you have a good turnout. As always, people who want to know where I stand on any particular issue are welcome to call me at 761.4108 or email me at donastebbins@bresnan.net

Warm regards,
Dona

Debate Coverage TV

2007-10-14T07:54:00.001-07:00

It is my understanding that KRTV will be covering the Debate this Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. I sent an email to KFBB, but have not received a response.

Debate Coverage Radio

2007-10-13T19:02:00.000-07:00

David from Greaterfalls received a note to the effect that the Debate will be taped by KGPR Public Radio for replay at a later date.

Debate Format

2007-10-13T07:10:00.000-07:00

After meeting with the CMR Debate team a couple times, we have devised a format for the debate.

As you can see, this format will be best suited for an in-depth consideration of a few issues, rather than a cursory study of many. There will be other formats, including the Tribune's, that will offer, perhaps, a broader insight into the candidates' positions.

Introduction-Moderator: Channing Hartelius will explain the format and introduce the candidates. 5 minutes total.

Candidate Introduction: Each candidate will be allowed 2 minutes to introduce themselves, and will be asked to focus on biographical, rather than political, content. In other words, it might be like a resume'. Where are you from, where did you go to school, what have you done. Total time: 14 minutes total.

Question. Each candidate will have 2 minutes to answer each question. 14 minutes total.

After all candidates have answered the question, each candidate will then have 30 seconds to ask ONE other candidate a question or questions. 3.5 minutes total.

The candidate asked will then have up to 1.5 minutes to respond to the question. 10.5 minutes total.

The moderator will have 3 optional minutes for follow-up after each question as he may choose to use it.

Each question will then run approximately 31 minutes total.

Closing Statement: Each candidate will have 1.5 minutes to give a closing statement. 10.5 minutes total.

The audience will select a winner by ballot and $10.00 donation. The CMR Debate Team will also select a winner based on more structured criteria. (Their ballot will be available to the candidates before the debate.)

A member of the Debate Team will time the debate's segments.

SCHIP

2007-10-12T19:45:00.001-07:00

I can't say it any better.

Pilot Program-The Contracts

2007-10-12T19:25:00.001-07:00

I always try to provide the source material for what I write, so, here are the contracts:

I think this "Pilot" should crash.

2007-10-11T20:27:00.000-07:00

Some of you might recall a "Pilot Program" whereby the City of Great Falls, acting through Electric City Power, obtained permission to sell electrical power to a small group of residential customers for a 5 year period. This was an idea floated by City Staff, as the PSC denied the City's application to become a small-customer supplier. In response, the City said, in effect, "Well, let us try it with this group and if we can keep the lights on, maybe the PSC might reconsider down the road." When I inquired about this Pilot Program back in June, I was told that "According to Martha Cappis, ECPI has a license with the PSC to provide a small specific group of customers power. The customers were chosen to include small commercial and residential customers that we could not serve under our existing license due to their average monthly usage being below the PSC set limit. We 'brainstormed' to come up up with a diverse group of knowledgeable participants who we could rely on to give us an unbiased opinion of our service, rates, etc. To date, we have not initiated the program." [Emphasis mine]

Now, one nice thing about being a blogger is that people tell you things. So, after the last Electric City Power Board of Directors meeting, I received an email. The following is a direct quote from the email; I wasn't at the meeting, so I cannot confirm that it is accurate: "John L[awton] made a rambling speech complaining about the Bloggers making much about who was on the ECP residential power pilot program list. Lawton said he doesn't read the blogs, but others tell him about what is posted there and it's wrong. The people on the pilot program list were volunteers who understood the risks involved and agreed to participate so the City could test the mechanics of operating a residential power system. While the program may not be safe enough for 'widows and orphans,' the people involved were selected by the City because they understood the risks."

Recently, I have been seeking information from the City about the latest group of customers signed up by the City. Based in part on Mr. Lawton's purported statements at the ECP Board meeting, I have also been seeking information about the Pilot Program.

Well, today we learned something new. I received the following Memorandum from our very helpful City Clerk, Lisa Kunz, after she received it from Martha Cappis:

What do you know? There is a Pilot Program. And 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?

And there are contracts, too. First there is the "Optional Customer Service Contract." This is the "adjusting rate" that Ms. Cappis spoke of in her recent memo.

Then there is the "Standard Service Offer," or "flat rate" contract:

That's all well and good, of course, completely above board and all that. After all, these are certainly "knowledgeable" and "unbiased" participants. Nope, nothing unusual here, move along please...

Wait a minute, though. Humor me. Take a look at the first page of these two contracts. Take a close look at the rates our intrepid test group is paying for its power. The adjustable rate group is paying, for the next 14 months, until 12/31/08, a rate of $0.0472 and $0.0508 per kilowatt-hour. Adding the "Administrative Fee," they are paying a rate of $0.048616 to $0.052324.

Interestingly, though, if we review the Agenda Report from November 8, 2006, we find that the City purchased from SME "an additional 7 MWh's block of power beginning January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2008..." As background for this purchase of additional power, we learned "The proposed Residential and Small Commercial pilot program was recently approved by the Montana Public Service Commission, and services will begin in the near future." Presumably, then, this additional power was purchased, in part, to service the needs of the Residential program, right?

Well, what is Electric City Power paying for this power, then? This power that it is selling to City Staff and ECP Board members for a rate between $0.048616 to $0.052324? Keep reading the Agenda Report.

That's right. We're paying SME $0.0528 for every kilowatt. Electric City Power is then selling these kilowatts to City Staff and ECP Board members for less than it paid for them. It is selling these people power at a loss.

How bad a deal is that for the rest of us? Well, not only are we taxpayers subsidizing the power costs of these folks, we have to buy our power from Northwestern Energy. We're paying $0.056811 for our power, because we don't have taxpayer subsidies for our power.

Wait, you ask. What do you mean taxpayer subsidies?

Think about it. Every time one of the Pilot Program customers uses a kilowatt hour of electricity, Electric City Power loses a penny or two on that deal. It doesn't sound like much, but it does have to come from somewhere.

The Electricity Fund lost over $400,000.00 in the last fiscal year (2006) for which we have audited financial statements. (See p.28)

Electric City Power lost over $400,000.00 and it is selling power at a loss to its Board Members and City Staff?

Am I out of line, here? This just doesn't seem right to me.

Hat Tip: Thanks to Mayoral Candidate Ed McKnight for providing me with the link to NWE rates.

Power Contracts-Part V

2007-10-11T13:14:00.001-07:00

I received some very interesting information today.

I hope to get it up on the blog tonight.

It looks pretty fishy.

Power Contracts, Part IV

2007-10-10T18:44:00.000-07:00

From the City Clerk, Lisa Kunz:

Hi Greg - pursuant to my requests for the information you requested from me on September 28th, I was delivered a memo yesterday from Martha Cappis, Operations Supervisor, with attachments regarding the long term electric supply contracts and the pilot program contracts. As I understand it, the residential customers are through a pilot program that was approved by the Montana Public Service Commission. If you want to give me a call, I'll go through the memo and attachments with you to determine what you want me to copy for you.

Thanks Greg, I look forward to hearing from you.

I left Lisa a message in response to this email.

I appreciate her efforts, and I am absolutely certain she is attempting to get the documents for me as promptly as she can. She is a straight shooter.

As for the rest of the delay, well...

Debate Update...Uh...Update

2007-10-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

We have another confirmed debater.

City Commission candidate, Michael Winters, has confirmed that he will attend.

That leaves Larry Steele and our two incumbents, Dona Stebbins and Diane Jovick-Kuntz.

Confirmed Debaters

2007-10-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

Below are the Mayoral and City Commission candidates. Those who have accepted our invitation are in bold type. I sent another invitation yesterday to the four who have not contacted us yet. If you know them, please encourage them to attend.

Mayor:

Susan Kahn
Dona Stebbins
Ed McKnight
Larry Steele

City Commission:

Mary Jolley
Stuart Lewin
Diane Jovick-Kuntz
Elna Hensley
Michael Winters
Bill Bronson

Good Thing it's not the Office of Public Finance

2007-10-10T06:02:00.000-07:00

Missoulapolis has a piece about Democrat candidate for the Office of Public Instruction, Holly Raser's, campaign.

It seems that her campaign took two illegal loans, as evidence by her campaign reports.

So what did she do?

She revised the reports!

Health Insurance for All

2007-10-09T20:03:00.000-07:00

This is a story I sort of stumbled on, since I did not hear the President's Weekly Radio Address last Saturday (it is a long story...and a longer drive).

Anyway, Pres. Bush used the address to explain his veto of the SCHIP bill. The Democratic response came from Graeme Frost, a 12-year old boy from Baltimore who explained how much his family needed subsidized medical care.

It turns out that, perhaps, the term 'need' is somewhat subjective. Apparently, this is a family of at least some means, and a reasonable argument can be made that their lack of health insurance results less from poverty than from the decision to spend their money on other things.

I was initially inclined to agree with what I think was the Misanthrope's point, that the whole story says more about Democratic exploitation than the substance of the SCHIP bill, but on further consideration I think there is a substantive angle here too.

The night before the President's address, I was sitting in a pub in Twisp, Washington, having a beer and discussing politics with one of my aunts, one who is, shall we say, slightly to my left. When I asked her why Bush's veto upset her, she said "because we have to find a way to give health insurance to the children."

"Why?" I asked.

"What?," she responded.

"Seriously, why? Why should I be required to care about other people's children? Shouldn't I only have to care about my own?," I countered, tongue only partly in cheek.

She didn't know what to say.

But the whole story about the Frost family illustrates my point. If we are going to raise the level of entitlement beyond those that most would consider poor, we are starting to talk about decisions, about choices. And if the Frost family decides not to spend their money on health insurance in favor of private school or whatever, why should resources be taken away from my kids in order to insulate the Frost family from the consequences of their decision?

"Children in homes like the Frost's don't lack insurance coverage out of a lack of opportunity or resources, but from the choices made by their parents. Freedom entails making choices and living with the consequences." That's true, isn't it?

Power Contracts, Part III

2007-10-09T19:48:00.000-07:00

I received a telephone message from the City Clerk today at a little before 5:00 (I was on the other line).

She has received some of the contracts I have requested.

I'll try to put them up tomorrow.

Now this is just embarassing...

2007-10-09T19:47:00.001-07:00

A list of the top 40 worst lyricists in all of rock and roll?

I won't even say how many of them I thought were good songwriters!

Who's on First-Part II

2007-10-09T06:19:00.001-07:00

I thought this comment was worth a post after SME's lawyer blamed poor legal drafting on lack of internet access:

Funny, I spent one month in the UK, from John o'Groats to Hastings and didn't have ONE PROBLEM GETTING INTERNET ACCESS. It was EVERYWHERE.

I even plugged into the car and the laptop functioned.

What is he talking about? No internet.

No truth.

I laughed.

Sort of.

Stick to the Knittin'

2007-10-09T06:03:00.000-07:00

I said last week that I would throw out some ideas about vision for city government. I had hoped to do a comprehensive piece, but I was out of town over the weekend and now I have this darn cold that keeps me from getting up nice and early to write.

Thus, I might have to hit these piece by piece.

My initial goal for city government is that there should be less of it, and not more. It should assume the basic roles of government and no more. It should then endeavor to fulfill those roles as efficiently as possible.

What are basic roles for city government? Police. Fire. Roads. What else? Hmmm. 911?

Maybe an easier way would be to start by looking at the roles it should not assume, cut those out, and stop cutting when you think you have reached the basics. Should the City of Great Falls be in the water park business? The skatepark business? The power business?

In what can only be considered great timing, Walter Greenspan recently emailed me this piece about a small town in Illinois. This place has been wildly successful, so successful the town pays its citizens' taxes for them, by moving away from government involvement in private enterprise. In other words, the government in Crestwood, Illinois, isn't sticking its fingers into pies, it's pulling its hands out of the pies.

While this town, as a suburb of Chicago, certainly has a different situation than us, doesn't this at least give us an idea as to what way we should be trending? And aren't we trending, with our proposed $100 million plus investment in the coal plant, trending the other way?

Debate Update

2007-10-09T05:58:00.000-07:00

I will be meeting with the CMR Debate Team this Thursday to finalize the format for the debate. I hope to announce that format by Friday or Saturday.

I will meet with them again early next week to finalize the questions. We have some, but not enough to choose from. If you have question ideas, please email them to me at fallsblog@yahoo.com. One of the most significant complaints about this setup was the fact that the public can't ask questions....well, ask 'em!

I am going to try to send another invitation out today urging those who have not yet committed to attend. We'll see.

Finally, one of my goals is to videotape the debate, digitize it, and put it on YouTube. If you or anyone you know can help me in this regard, please email me at the above-address.

This Could Be Us.....

2007-10-08T19:06:00.000-07:00

AEP to End Lawsuit, Pay to Cut Pollution

American Electric Power has agreed to end a lawsuit by paying $4.6 BILLION to reduce pollution.
If the Highwood Generating Station is built, not only could this be us, but probably will be.

Another Confirmed Debater

2007-10-08T18:17:00.001-07:00

City Commission Candidate Stuart Lewin has indicated his intention to attend the October 17, 2007, debate.

Debater

2007-10-05T07:58:00.001-07:00

Bill Bronson is now a confirmed attendee. Any other candidates out there?

Excellent Question

2007-10-05T07:50:00.000-07:00

This guy asked an excellent question: "So what is your reccommended plan to turn the city around and bring the young people to Great Falls or does someone have an intelligent plan that you support?"

I am going to be indisposed for the next couple days due to the press of business, but I'm glad you asked.

I have some ideas that I'll throw out for discussion. And no, they don't involve more federal money.

Accountant's Opinion on the "Deposit" (Gift)

2007-10-04T04:56:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, October 2, 2007, SME's accountant, Randal J. Boysun, had a guest editorial in the Tribune about the $1.4 million dollars that the City of Great Falls has set aside to secure Electric City Power's obligations to SME. (I can't find it reprinted online)

The main point of Mr. Boysun's piece is that the conclusion of an earlier piece by Mr. Larry Rezentes is incorrect. Mr. Rezentes suggested that the $1.4 million dollar deposit was, in reality, a way to secure the City's debt back to SME resulting from the City's subsidizing Electric City Power's customer rates. I recall thinking at the time that, while Mr. Rezentes had a point, I couldn't quite get to his conclusion based on the information I had. In other words, while his suggestion was a possibility, it was only that.

Mr. Boysun responded that this deposit is a) a completely normal vehicle used by SME to ensure repayment and b) that it has nothing to do with repayment of the water credit, stating that the "terms of repayment for any amount owed from water credits are specified by a written agreement between the parties."

I've met Mr. Boysun. He's a good guy and, from what I understand, a good accountant.

But with all due respect to Mr. Boysun, his article misses the point. The question is not whether security deposits are the norm in the energy industry; they might well be. The question is why our City Commission elected to give one in this case when it was not contractually obligated to do so. In other words, if SME dropped the ball on the front end and forgot to require it in the contract, why should we give SME a gift now?

Further, as City Commission Candidate Mary Jolley points out in a comment, the "written agreement" he refers to is the same old Water Service Agreement we've known about all along. And no, it does not specify the terms of repayment.

UPDATE: I made a mistake. The link above does send you to the "Water Service Agreement," but that Agreement is not what provides for repayment of the water credit. This is the Agreement that provides for repayment. The relevant language can be found here.

The language is: "Southern shall give the City written notice of its intention to not construct the Highwood Station and the City shall commence making payments toward the rate subsidy within sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice from Southern." (More on this topic here.)

In any event, in a comment below, Mary Jolley says that she will "agree with the accountant" that the terms are "specified by a written agreement between the parties."

I won't agree. Exactly one repayment term is specified: the period in which payments must start. Terms not specified include the period of time for repayment, the interest rate, if any, the amount of the payments, security for repayment (hmmmm...), etc., etc. These are not insignificant items considering we are discussing a million dollar debt.

Sorry about the error.

The Absolute, Number One, Most Important, REAL Reason Why the Coal Plant is a Bad Idea

2007-10-03T21:43:00.000-07:00

Maybe they weren't paying attention. That's all I can figure, because I know they were there. I saw numerous City employees there.

There? Heck, the City of Great Falls was even a sponsor of Rebecca Ryan when she spoke here nearly a year ago. All I can figure is that somehow the City folks that went and listened to Rebecca just weren't paying attention.

For those of you who didn't attend, Ms. Ryan is an economist. She spoke to a large audience at the Civic Center about recruiting that killer 'young professional' demographic to Great Falls.

She told us about how things had changed over the years. You see, in our parents' era, kids would graduate from college, or trade school, or high school, and they'd pop their heads up and look around to see where the jobs were. Then they would move to where those jobs were, and they'd put down roots.

It's different now. After studying thousands of these younger men and women, Rebecca Ryan named it "Live first, work second." Now these youngsters pop their heads up after college and they look around to see where they want to live. When they get there, then they look for work. They drive the jobs, the jobs don't drive them. The whole model is turned upside down, get it?

So, what would you rather see come to Great Falls, a thousand $12.00 per hour jobs, or a thousand 26-year old college graduates? After all, one could argue that we're more short of people than we are short of work.

When GE was trying to decide between Great Falls and Billings, what were they really looking for? They were looking for workforce. Why do you think GFDA was trying to get us to contact out-of-state friends and family to apply for the GE jobs? Why did they want to flood GE with applications? Because people are the resource, not jobs. It's the people, stupid.

This was confirmed by GFDA's very own Brett Doney in a comment yesterday: "With regard to GE, the $500,000 issue was not the deciding factor. The decision was driven by workforce." We need smart, educated people in our community. Do you know how people always like to say that our kids grow up, go away to college, and then stay away for the higher wages?

Well, according to Ms. Ryan's logic, if they all moved back, year after year, eventually they would get those wages right here in Great Falls. Why? Because if you dump 800 college educated 24-30 year old kids into this community year after year, corporate America will take notice. This is a knowledge economy, and for knowledge you need brains and for brains you need people.

What does all of this have to do with the coal plant, you ask? Live First, Work Second. We're building a coal plant for 50-60 full time jobs. (The cost savings will be negligible. Cut through the funny numbers, like Ed McKnight has done, and we're not going to save enough to justify the investment.)

50-60 full time jobs.

At what cost?

Think about this for a minute. If we're going to recruit bright, well-educated young men and women to our community, who are we competing with? Missoula. Bozeman. Kalispell. Helena. Billings.

As much as I love this community, my hometown, I have to tell you that, for the average 25-year old single male professional, Great Falls over Missoula or Bozeman is a tough sell. (I know, I was one, and I damn near stayed in Missoula.)

So as people look around Montana, looking to relocate, we have an uphill battle. We lack the perceived amenities of many other places.

So what are our leaders proposing to do about this? Build a coal plant.

A coal plant.

We need to recruit from the greenest generation known to man, kids who were raised in the era of global warming and eco-friendly whatever, and we're going to offer them...a coal plant.

Is this the vision our leaders have for our community? A coal town?

I went to Rebecca Ryan's talk. And I did pay attention. She was enthusiastic and she made me enthusiastic. We have some great things here...blue skies, clean water, a river, scenic vistas and...a coal plant. All for 50-60 jobs (and to provide power to Billings and Bozeman).

Is this the vision? Is this truly our future?

Violation of the City of Great Falls Ethics Code?

2007-10-03T14:25:00.000-07:00

At last night’s (Oct. 2, 2007) City Commission meeting, a few citizens remarked about Mayor Stebbins not forwarding questions from the public to the appropriate city staff member at commission meetings. She more than once said she was not going to allow "grilling" of the staff. How requesting information or asking a question of a department head is considered "grilling" them, is beyond me. Maybe she’s afraid the staff cannot anwer questions they have not planned for or perhaps she just enjoys playing mother hen and protecting her brood from the "big, bad citizens" of Great Falls. Whatever the reason, it very much appears she may be in violation of the City of Great Falls Ethics code. (The Official City Code of the City of Great Falls Montana can be found here).

During the public comment time, Ed McKnight, mayoral candidate, quoted from the "Official City Code of the City of Great Falls Montana - Title 2, Chapter 52, Code of Ethics":

O. All officers or employees shall be sensitive and responsive to the concerns and questions of the public.

I. No elected officer shall be prohibited from making an inquiry for information on behalf of a constituent if in return, no fee, reward or other thing of value is directly or indirectly promised to or accepted by the officer or a member of his or her immediate family.
(Emphasis mine)

When she was questioned by Mr. McKnight, Mayor Stebbins stated that even if a question is legitimate (and who do you suppose decides that?), the commission meeting may not be the appropriate place to ask it. Huh?

A question for you Mayor Stebbins: Why are you so against public involvement in city government?

Power Contracts-Update II

2007-10-03T13:23:00.001-07:00

I am still waiting.

Who's on First?

2007-10-03T13:04:00.000-07:00

According to Martha Cappis, the City's Operations Supervisor, and Coleen Balzarini, the City's Fiscal Services Director, the Wholesale Power Contract that the Commission adopted last night was "written by Dorsey & Whitney, bond counsel for the City, with extensive review by the City's entire finance team, as well as the City's outside consultants."

Yet, today we learn that the contract was apparently drafted by SME's (or is that SWE's) lawyer, Mike McCarter, with apologies for the dearth of internet access in Great Britain:

"Mike McCarter, an attorney for SME, said he had been in England and found it difficult to get computer access there.

"'We apologize for the typographical errors,' he said. 'They don't change anything.'"

Can I understand the typos? Certainly, we all make mistakes.

That's not really the issue, though, in my opinion. I am more curious about what our City Staff placed in the public record about the "extensive review" of this document. Now, either this statement was truthful and, despite the "extensive review" of our lawyers, our "entire finance team," and our "outside consultants," we nevertheless were left with a draft document that is "full of errors."

Or the statement was not truthful.

Is this a success?

2007-10-02T10:34:00.000-07:00

The Tribune had this piece today about the City's failure to meet their electricity sales goals.

City fiscal officer Coleen Balzarini did not express disappointment Monday that the city missed its goal of at least 50 MW. "It is what it is," Balzarini said. She said the latest batch of agreements are "very good contracts that will serve us well when we go out to the market." She said city officials were "busy signing contracts all the way through 7:30 last night (Sunday)."

(Really? Why weren't they ready yesterday, then?)

I also received this unsolicited comment on the whole affair from a local professional:

I wonder how much time/man hours of City employees were spent pursing contracts for the City’s supposedly separate electrical utility company. In the end 4.9 of 25 megawatts were sold(and they were not disappointed?). Imagine if all the time spent by the City Manager, the City’s Chief Financial Officer, and the City’s staff on chieving less than 20% of their goal was spent instead on convincing GE Great Falls was a better location than Billings to place its Montana operation. Sorry, I do not have the data to compare long term jobs generated by the Highwood Plant and the GE Service branch. However, I am pretty sure there is a lot less in the way of pollution concerns.

Interesting point...

It's also interesting that we apparently lost the GE branch due to a lack of $500,000.00, ("They offered $500,000 in cash and we offered $500,000 in loans," [GFDA Director] Doney said. "We just don't have the resources for cash incentives.") yet the City had $1.4 million in "excess cash" to tie up for the benefit of SME.

Power Contracts-Update

2007-10-01T18:22:00.001-07:00

Last week I sought copies of power contracts. City Clerk, Lisa Kunz, called me today and told me she still hasn't been able to get them for me.

I'll keep you posted.

A Solution in Search of Problem...

2007-10-01T11:58:00.001-07:00

It's CMR.

No more, no less.

Debate Coverage

2007-10-01T06:08:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Rich Ecke at the Tribune for this nice piece covering the debate.

Tribune Discussion

2007-10-01T05:31:00.000-07:00

Here is the Tribune's first Q and A with the candidates.

City Commissioners Use Email

2007-09-30T15:52:00.000-07:00

Carol at Missoulapolis has this piece up about certain members of the Missoula City Council who exchange emails to each other during public meetings. I agree with the critics who think that the practice is probably illegal. After all, how can one "observe the deliberations" of a public body if those deliberations are observable only on the computer screens of certain members of the body?

What is especially egregious here, is the peek behind the curtain to see the disdain with which certain members obviously view the public. I wonder how common that is on public boards.

And while the Missoula City Council's practice is bad enough, some of the experts cited by the author of the Missoulian piece offered some observations that might apply to an issue right here in Great Falls:

"Some argue that curbing e-mails during meetings or demanding they be available will have a chilling effect on discussions. An unintended consequence could be slowing down the work of government.

Scholars say democracy isn't about expediency, though. In a democracy, society doesn't sacrifice efficiency for openness, Meloy said.“So that argument is worth maybe a half a cup of Starbuck's coffee - cold Starbuck's coffee,” Meloy said.

Lopach said the governmental system values open meetings and public participation far more than efficiency: “As a political scientist, I can say without a doubt that efficiency is not one of the key values of the American governmental system.”

Sound familiar?

Susan Kahn-Trib Question 1

2007-09-30T09:10:00.000-07:00

It would truly be an honor to earn your vote for mayor of Great Falls. I am running because I share your concerns about our future and the need to preserve Great Falls’ best values and assets.

To be successful, government leadership must be fully accountable to the people. We have lost this in Great Falls. Lack of oversight leaves citizen’s questions and concerns not adequately addressed. I’m a strong leader and not afraid to ask tough questions or seek out the answers. As mayor, I will see to it that our city officials respond to our citizens in a respectful and timely manner. It is your city and they are there to serve you.

With a Bachelor degree in Business and over 20 year’s professional experience from procurement to sales, I have worked with people and financial details most of my adult life. The city’s business requires sound business judgment of complex details, often at a fast pace. Of all the candidates, my background has best prepared me for this key oversight role on the commission. I will work hard to earn your trust and promise to look out for our best interests. Together with strong public involvement, we can make Great Falls the best place.

Thank you and I look forward to meeting you.

Ed McKnight

2007-09-29T03:46:00.000-07:00

Ed McKnight's full response to the Great Falls Tribune's first question, WHY SHOULD VOTERS PICK YOU RATHER THAN ANOTHER CANDIDATE?

Imagine a Mayor with the desire to achieve the ideals of openness in government, the ability to understand very complex situations and skills using a balanced pproach to problem solving, then couple that with my ability to think independently and I am your candidate.My leadership experiences are geared toward investing in the can-do spirit of people. I know how to listen and believe in citizen-centered government as essential to the process needed to improve city life. I believe in open government through accountability and since fiscal responsibility is a key to my success that core philosophy should bring peace of mind to taxpayers. My technology, business and military experiences clearly show my record in accomplishing challenging tasks with great success. Considering my talents, abilities and efforts to lead in a civil and dignified manor, I have the ability and desire to facilitate, to include all people doing their best to improve our community.

I would like to add the folowing,

I am very sincere about Fiscal Responsibility, Open Government and Civil Leadership. I think I can best serve in day to day business by investigating and providing factual information to the public so we can decide as a community what direction we want to take. Also, I would facilitate the people who are trying very hard to make our community a better place to live. Currently there is no bigger issue than Electric City Power and Highwood Generating Station. I know there are other issues but I don't think most people realize the magnitude of the finantial distaster we are on the brink of.

Here is a small sample of the information I have accumulated regarding ECP and SME. Besides my own investigation I am receiving information from many sources and try my best to verify everything. I welcome any corrections.

Out of the 25 electric cooperatives in Montana, 14 were originally members of SME. Only five of those members found themselves in dire straights where if they did not build a coal plant the lights were going out or prices were going through the roof. The nine other cooperatives have no problems at all.

There is a total generating capacity of 5,500MW in Montana.

The average production of all generation is 3,000MW

The average consumption in Montana total is 2,500MW

SME total average load is 54MW

SME is guaranteed 20MW from Western Area Power Administration.

SME's total requirement is 34MW

Judith Gap peaks at 135MW and has set a record for wind turbine capacity factor and is now expanding. Northwestern Energy very competently negotiated a 30 year fixed contract price of $36 per MW and after firming totals $42MW.

Electric City Power buys blocks of power at a current theoretical average price of $46.57. If 100% of that power is not sold then ECP takes the loss and the actual price is higher.

ECP contracted to sell to the city for an average price of $52.24 until 2011, a premium of 11%

ECP contracted to sell to private business for 45.46 until 2011, a discount of 2.4%.

The Maximum the city could save at the theoretical discount of 10% is $70,000

The city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2005 Electric Fund change in net asset shows a loss of $392,941

The city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2006 Electric Fund change in net asset shows a loss of $425,388

The city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2007 is yet to be published.

The city's 2008 budget for the electric fund shows a beginning negative balance of ($971,490) and ends with a negative balance of ($1,529,381) a predicted loss of
$557,891

None of the losses cited include over $100,000 per year on interest payments, $100,000 transferred from the General Fund to the Electric fund, 1.4 million deposit for Southern Montana Electric, approximately 3.5 million invested in the Highwood Generating Station, something that may or may not be built.

The city's fiscal services department engaged in deception when setting a public hearing for resolution 9648 June 5, 2007 establishing ECP utility rates by quoting a residential rate for electricity when the city does not pay a residential rate. Furthermore, during the comment period someone pointed out to the commission that the rate quoted was incorrect and the commission said and did nothing.

I will stop here. I have volumes of information that I am more than happy to share with anyone.

Ed Mcknight Quality Leadership in City Government

Again, I will post the extended answers of any candidate that emails them to me.

Apologies Owed to Mr. Valois

2007-09-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

I owe Rick Valois an apology. As was pointed out in a snotty comment, which I will get to in a moment, I wrote a piece referring Mr. Valois that, on second reading, did not portray him in a very positive light.

You see, Mr. Valois offered to pay the $400.00 to put on this debate in exchange for changes in the format. I spoke with Mr. Valois and (I think) politely declined his offer. The next day I made this statement: "With all due respect to Mr. Valois, the format is not for sale." Mr. Valois, please accept my apology. You didn't try to buy the format, and I know from talking to you that your intentions were good. Sometimes I write things because they sound appropriate for my 'story line,' and forget to critically consider what they mean.

As to the comment, I must confess that I remain unimpressed by the opposition to this debate. This individual "wants this democratic and open to all. Not merely those who pay." Well, newsflash, partner, the venue isn't free. Granted, Mr. Valois agreed to pay the $400.00, but I didn't accept his terms. He is, I think, going to organize his own forum on those terms and his is an undertaking that I support.

"I am not for someone else deciding the questions or which constitutes the best form of the question."

Well, who decides the questions? Or are there no limits? Any person in the audience can ask any question of any candidate at any time with no time limits? Your false priggishness about my red meat comment aside, what you propose is not "democracy," it is, if recent City Commission meetings are any indication, a tinderbox.

The individual does have the right to question. You can question the candidates on the street or on the telephone. Or, perhaps more to the point, you can start your own blog or set up your own debate and question them however you want. Hell, I'll even attend. Be sure, RN, to let us all know the date, time and place of your debate.

Oh wait, I'm wrong. You would "prefer to stick to" a town hall meeting. Feel free.

Not us. We're having a debate. (By the way, thank you for your condescending definition of a debate. As a trial lawyer who has practiced for nearly 20 years, I had no idea.)

Please do not attack the format until you know what it is, ok? And then if you think that there is a better way to determine the candidates' positions, you can choose a different format at your event.

Finally, please accept my apologies, RN, for the tone of this post. I have grown accustomed to potshots and anonymous criticism about the debate and other topics. I do not, however, think I need to be lectured about my motives, intentions or plans.

Especially when you don't know jack about any of 'em.

Look Right

2007-09-28T19:32:00.000-07:00

Look right, twice.

First, look right here to the Last Best Place for a pretty cool roundup of conservative/libertarian Montana bloggers (And no, I am not just linking him for his kind words toward me). There's a big red state out there, ladies and gentlemen. There are many well-spoken, intelligent commenters from the 'other' side of the aisle.

Second, to help you find these other bloggers, look right again. Literally this time. You'll find the new DextraMontana aggregator (code by Craig at MTPolitics.net). This serves as a real-time blogroll with feeds to the latest posts on those self same righty bloggers.

These are worthy reads, folks. Go talk to them.

Another invitation to candidates?

2007-09-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

I was informed this morning that the Tribune sought written responses to their Candidate Questionaire. I have also been informed that the Tribune has asked the candidates to limit their responses to 150 words or less.

If a candidate edits his or her responses for publication, that is certainly reasonable. Alternatively, I am more than happy to post the candidates' complete responses regardless of length (well, within reason). Candidates, if you want your responses posted, just email them to me.

So, here is Mary Jolley's complete response to the question "Why me?"

"We need a Commissioner, at least one, just like me. I am a Certified Financial Planner, I work on behalf of abused and neglected children as the Board Chair of the Casa Guardian Ad Litem Program, I volunteer through my church visiting homebound parishioners and I regularly attend city meetings. I've seen the misadventures our city is in because the present commissioners asked no questions. It is imperative that a commissioner delve into details before voting on ordinances and resolutions. If commissioners are presented only one side of an issue, some independent research is in order. "There is no risk" or "there is no downside" are not realistic responses. We need a "real" budget. At present we allow the City Manager to move funds in and out of accounts and designate others to do so. I think city leaders have lost track of what its residents expect from their local government. If the residents pay for studies on issues, at least one commissioner should read them Why is the city getting into things they need studies on in the first place, keep it simple. Fewer incursions into what is best left to the private sector would be something I would advocate. I will be more than willing to state my reasons for my votes. Public input will be welcome. We need a commissioner who wholeheartedly believes in OPEN GOVERNMENT. With few exceptions the word private should never be used in connection with the City of Great Falls. Any employee who has access to documents, emails or any other paperwork at the Civic Center should provide copies to any resident or reporter who asks for them. If an employee does not do so they should not work in city hall. The city should do nothing that is not in the best interests of the residents."

Power Contracts

2007-09-28T06:21:00.000-07:00

The Tribune reported yesterday that Electric City Power has signed up a number of new customers.

I called City Staff yesterday seeking a copy of the contracts.

I was informed that the contracts have been signed by the customers, but not by Coleen Balzarini. Ms. Balzarini is on vacation until this Sunday, at which point she will return and then sign the contracts.

I will then be provided with copies on Monday, October 1.

Debater Tally

2007-09-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

So far, we have some confirmed debaters. Ed Mcknight and Mary Jolley are for sure. Susan Kahn I think is a pretty sure, so I am putting her in the yes category. I received an email today from Elna Hensley; she's in.

So, two Mayoral and two Commission candidates.

I think we'll get more.

Can I Please Be a Censor?

2007-09-27T21:20:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder why I let crockpots...er...crackpots, come on here and take personal shots at me like this person.

Then I remember that it's because I truly believe in the First Amendmen...hey! Wait a second!

The First Amendment doesn't apply to me. I'm not a government. I am a private citizen, and this blog is my own private space.

I have no obligation to let some person who obviously doesn't bother to read what I write show up and take anonymous potshots at me.

So why do I do it?

Because I think it is interesting to demonstrate just how far individuals in government will go in order to try to discredit their critics.

Hey, Crockpot. Feel free to boycott the debate.

B, B and B

2007-09-27T21:19:00.000-07:00

Well, I went to Bed, Bath & Beyond.

A buncha Chinese stuff....

Format Change

2007-09-27T04:40:00.000-07:00

Oh, one more thing. As noted below, I met with members of the CMR Debate Team yesterday. I almost forgot to mention one more detail.

There has been criticism about the manner of voting for the 'winner' of the debate. People have suggested that it will create a mere "popularity contest" with groups of supporters voting for their favorite candidates.

In order to inject some objectivity into the process, there will be a second vote. The Debate Team will create its own ballot, and will judge the debate on a more technical basis, something along the lines of what they are judged on in their meets.

Thus, we might well have two winners. The popular winner and the technical winner. And if both are the same person, I might suggest that we will have a clear winner.

Debate Team

2007-09-27T04:32:00.000-07:00

I met with the coach and members of the CMR Debate Team yesterday.

I was extremely pleased with the enthusiasm they demonstrated toward this event. These are smart young people, and they know what they are doing. I am very glad we asked them to be a part of this event.

They will assist with developing a format. There will be time limits on responses, just like a real debate. Also, we are going to work hard to develop a way for candidates to question other candidates about their positions. It seems to us that we can learn an awful lot about a candidate not only from his or her answers, but the way he or she approaches the consideration of the other positions.

They will assist with developing the questions to be asked. This is not because the questions will be "censored" as some have said. It is to ensure that the topic areas are presented in a concise, reasoned fashion that will be easily understood by candidates and audience alike. It will also help to ensure that the questions can be answered. Directly, and not through long, evasive ramblings.

We also plan to allow a certain number of students to attend this event for free. We're still working on the criteria. Since we have no idea about attendance numbers, we do not know if we have the ability to just allow all students to attend.

I am very pleased with the level of commitment I saw from these guys. This will be a good thing.

Debate Sponsor

2007-09-27T04:18:00.000-07:00

I had an offer for a sponsorship in the comments: "I will put up the entire $400 fee for the building use for the debate, will accept GeeGuy as moderator, but I want a true town hall debate; No entry fee, no question fee,allow questions from the floor, anyone can ask any question when called upon. Call me: 965-3013,Ric Valois, The Tree Man"

With all due respect to Mr. Valois, the format is not for sale.

I called Mr. Valois last evening and explained to him that while I certainly appreciate his offer, we have many reasons for doing things the way we are doing them, only some of which appear here.

I think Mr. Valois and others intend to create their own forum more along the lines of what he discussed. More power to him. If I learn of such a forum, I will post the details here.

Our intention in choosing a structure for this debate is to provide a systematic format to allow the audience to hear the positions of the candidates.

We considered a more open format as suggested by Mr. Valois. We opted for more structure for several reasons. First, time is limited so we wanted to ensure that issues considered important by many people will be adequately addressed. Second, and probably most significant, is that we did not want this event to devolve into a free for all. While ticked off, red meat opponents of City Government might well relish an insult-laden shout fest, I don't want to be a party to any such thing.

And, how likely is it that an incumbent would choose to be a party to such a thing. If you were Mayor Stebbins, would you choose to stand up in front of the same bunch that has been haranguing you at Commission meetings and listen to them spew anger? I sure wouldn't.

Don't get us wrong; this is not about protecting the incumbents from criticism or difficult questions. It is about trying to create an environment whereby the incumbents can have a fair opportunity to present their point of view. We do not know if either of the incumbents will participate, but we want them to, so we are trying to create a venue that increases the likelihood of their participation.

Then Don't Come

2007-09-26T16:05:00.000-07:00

Life is all about rules.

For all of you debate naysayers, give it a rest and grow up. GeeGuy, David at GreaterFalls and the others did NOT have to sponsor this event. I’m sure GeeGuy could find other worthwhile causes for his $400.00. They are trying to do a community service here. What are you doing besides complaining and finding fault? As far as I know, this is the only opportunity any of the candidates have been given to address the public and promote their platforms. The fact that a couple of them have criticized the rules pretty much indicates to me they don’t really appreciate the opportunity they’ve been given and neither do you. If they or you don’t like the rules, don’t come.

Confidentially Speaking...

2007-09-26T08:02:00.000-07:00

The Tribune had this little blurb in the paper today about the Airport's Confidentiality Agreement:

[The Airport Authority was] told by Airport Authority Chairman Ben Ives that a controversial confidentiality agreement, under which boardmembers are required not to divulge confidential information, won't be enforced until the authority's attorney clarifies some points.
Meanwhile, Ives said, certain information about legal matters and airport prospects will not be given to board members. Authority member Jeff Mangan, a critic of the confidentiality agreement, questioned whether it was legal for Ives and airport staff to withhold information.

What?

'We won't enforce the Agreement, but in the meantime we're going to keep secrets from our own Board?' Aren't they charged with managing the Airport for our benefit? Can we really expect the Board to do its job well if certain information is being withheld?

Who is deciding that it is more important to keep secrets for someone's benefit, than it is to allow the Board to perform its statutory duties? Who is making these calls?

And I agree with Mangan: Can this possibly be legal?

Debating the Debate

2007-09-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

Wow, I fly to Boise for a deposition, and when I get back to the Internet y'all damn near talk me out of this whole stinkin' enterprise.

Let me premise this whole discussion with one fundamental fact: I speak only for myself. What David at GreaterFalls will or will not do is up to him.

First, to Ms. Kahn and Ms. Jolley: While I appreciate your input I have no intention of allowing the candidates to set the 'rules.' At present, I certainly do not intend to change anything. If David, others, and I decide the something needs to be changed, we will. Without saying more, I will only comment that even your response to the invitation suggests how you might govern.

As far as pulling the questions out of the hat, Ms. Kahn, you can do that at your debate. I am not undertaking the work involved in this event so that I can hear you tell us what your favorite color is, or what animal you think you best embody.

Second, to the anonymous poster who continually laments that this will be nothing but a 'popularity contest,' could it be that you are simply an unpopular candidate? If you are so convinced that the results will be skewed by the attendance of candidates' supporters, let me offer a few observations. First, if you think that the audience at any debate does not contain vast numbers of the candidates' supporters, you're nuts. Second, why not help us fill the hall with independent voters. Third, what if a candidate wins the debate because they offer the best ideas? Finally, who cares who wins; isn't it really about hearing what these folks have to say?

Third, to the anonymous who points out that I am involved in the gaming industry, isn't that really a non sequitor? In other words, do you really think I would not want to know their position on gaming? So I would screen out gaming questions? Ya knucklehead.

Fourth, and this one really gets to me. The idea that I am a shill for Mayor Stebbins is, frankly, laughable. We are going to screen questions because we won't have time for 200 questions. My guess is that a few common themes will emerge. I have also included a neutral mediator and the high school debate team to act as additional layers of neutrality. Until you pose a question of some import that does not get asked, you might just keep your paranoia to yourself.

Further, I have been a very outspoken critic of City Government. In fact, my 'best friend' Mayor Stebbins refused to participate in the Mayoral Forum, won't return my emails, and will probably not participate in this debate either. As far as going to a movie instead, have at it. The candidates are not "hiding" at all; they have nothing to do with this. You might read their comments.

I apologize for my tone...sincerely. It's been a long day, and I want to get home. I am typing this in the SLC airport.

I might soften it later, but for now, I am really surprised at some of the criticism.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind criticism. But really, ladies and germs, some of this reads like you are trying to find problems. Show me how all of the other forums to learn the candidates' views will do so much better.

Finally!

2007-09-24T05:45:00.001-07:00

I have been chomping at the proverbial bit to make this announcement, but we had to get our ducks in a row.

They're lined up and quackin' (metaphor alert!).

Our friend David at GreaterFalls.com is taking the lead on a DEBATE for the City Commission and Mayoral Candidates. It will be sponsored by the Great Falls bloggers, and we'll be getting a great deal of help from the CMR Debate Team.

Here's the cool part. Not only will the questions come from you, the readers and the commenters, but there will be an actual winner of the debate. How, you ask? The audience will vote. And not only will they vote with their heads, they will vote with their pocketbooks.

Each attendee will be required to cast one $10.00 vote for the candidate he or she thinks won the debate. The candidates who receive the votes will also receive the money for their campaigns. Pretty interesting, isn't it? The Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices has already approved this voting method.

The exact format of the debate is still being worked out (again with the help of the CMR Debate Team) but will be some sort of modified town hall format. With local attorney Channing Hartelius serving as the moderator, the whole event will be designed to allow the audience to really get to know the candidates and how they perform under pressure.

If you have proposed debate questions, please leave them in the comments or email them to me. We'll then go through those submitted and select our favorites for inclusion.

Mark your calendars: October 17, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. Admission is $15.00, $5.00 for admission and $10.00 for the vote. It will be at the Northwest Center, 2201 Northwest Bypass.

I think that the local blogosphere, readers and writers, represents the most informed and interested members of our electorate. We're counting on you to prove that.

Please plan to attend.

Psssst....don't tell anyone.

2007-09-23T14:21:00.001-07:00

The Tribune had a good editorial today about the Confidentiality Agreement recently adopted by the Great Falls International Airport Authority Board.

While I think the editorial board did a good job of addressing the issues, there are a few additional points that can be made.

First, even assuming that 4 members of the Board believe that the public's right to know interferes with what they contend is their mission, such beliefs are inapposite.

"'It's respect to our clients," [Board Chairman Ben] Ives said. 'If they come to us and say it's absolutely confidential, then it's part of the work product.' Once there's a deal, he said, it becomes public." Airport Director, Cynthia Schultz says "the agreements are necessary to reassure business prospects that proprietary information, including such things as financial details or possible expansion plans, won't become public knowledge."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the decision is not driven by necessity or expedience. The decision must be driven by the law, in our case, the Montana Constitution.

Regardless of how the pro-secret faction tries to spin this, opposing the Confidentiality Agreement does not mean one is opposed to economic development, or is anti-growth, or is trying to stand in the way of the Airport's success. Opposition to the Confidentiality Agreement simply represents an understanding that all citizens, regardless of how and where they might fit in their public and private roles, must be bound by the law.

If a) economic development is truly a mission of the Great Falls International Airport (and I think it properly is) and b) the Airport cannot succeed with the level of openness required by law, the solution is not to ignore the law but to either change it, or create some new structure that allows compliance with it. Simply putting a spin on it does not work.

Second, the Board's reliance on what the Great Falls Development Authority does or does not do is misplaced. As the Airport's attorney, Mick Taleff, said, the Airport Authority is "a public body, corporate and politic"..."the 'open meeting' and 'right to know' laws and constitutional provisions apply to the Airport Authority. There has never been any disagreement as to those principles."

The Great Falls Development Authority may or may not be legally allowed to keep matters confidential.

So what?

The Great Falls Development Authority is not an Airport Authority. Further, even if another Airport Authority adopted the exact same agreement, so what? The fact that another entity does or does not do something that is or is not legal is simply not relevant to the determination of whether this entity is doing something legal under the statutes and Constitution.

Third, the Airport Authority could probably adopt a procedure to legally protect the documents they want to be protected. According to the Great Falls Tribune case, the Court allowed a procedure that gave the third party the opportunity to make a showing that what they are providing to the public entity should be kept confidential. Thereafter, the agency (in this case the Airport Authority) can make an independent determination whether the information should be kept private. The Confidentiality Agreement here makes no such requirement for a showing or determination.

In fact, the Confidentiality Agreement adopted by the Airport Authority does not even discuss who decides what is confidential and what is not. It does not even discuss how such a decision is to be made, and what criteria will be used to make the decision and when.

So if your friendly neighborhood blogger calls up and asks for some documents, the Airport Authority or its staff can simply respond "no, it's confidential." Since the requestor will have no knowledge about what the information is or is not, and will have no record of any showing or determination, the requestor will have two options: go away or sue. Do you think that's what the drafters intended by "No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure?" I don't.

Fourth, what is the idea of including an attorney fee provision? Normally, in litigation the winner is not entitled to have his fees paid by the loser unless provided for by statute or contract. (The "American Rule")

If you take a volunteer Airport Authority board member acting in good faith who comes across information, knowing that if he discloses it he might have to pay the Airport's attorney fees, is he going to be inclined to make the information public? Is he going to err on the side of public disclosure, or is he going to err on the side of keeping a secret? Which way should he lean? (Hint: "No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure." or "constitutional presumption that all documents of every kind in the hands of public officials are amenable to inspection, regardless of legislation, special exceptions made to accommodate the exercise of constitutional police power, and other competing constitutional interests, such as due process." )

Finally, one further observation. The Tribune fell all over itself to make it clear that it was not implying any sort of malice or ill will on the part of the Board. I agree, and I think the Tribune was right to make the point. But isn't it sad that we have to make the point?

In other words, has our political process become so partisan or so paranoid that mere disagreement over a political and legal question can be construed as an implication of improper purpose? Just because we think that 4 members of the Board made the wrong decision, how does that lead to a suggestion that they had some horrible, hidden agenda?

We can disagree. Even strongly.

It's called democracy.

We are... Coal 'tards

2007-09-23T00:55:00.000-07:00

Nice tip from anonymous yesterday regarding a recent article in the Billings Gazette (Highwood plant has objectors within co-op membership).

"The Highwood Generating Station is proposed to be built in Great Falls. But the major share of its energy will power the 35,000 meters of the Yellowstone Valley Electric Co-op, the Beartooth Electric Co-op, the Fergus Electric Co-op, the Mid Yellowstone Electric Co-op and the Tongue River Electric Co-op.

Currently, the Highwood proposal awaits decisions on two lawsuits. More importantly, however, the plant awaits a decision on a loan request from the national Rural Electric Service.

Dave Grimland, another Beartooth member and resident of Columbus, views Highwood as a financial white elephant. He and his wife, Kathleen Ralph, say the coal-fired plant could soon be outdated - perhaps even before it's completed.

Arleen Boyd, a Fishtail resident and member of the Beartooth Co-op, questions why Highwood should even be considered for government loans. Boyd reasons that much of the projected increase in demand for electricity comes from new subdivisions and expensive trophy homes - and not the family farms and ranches that were the original mission of rural cooperatives. She also takes issue with co-ops nationwide, which have pressured Congress to exempt themselves from any clean energy requirements that may be instituted."

The Billings area is growing and needs power but not more pollution. Hey, here's an idea ... let's ship our coal to Great Falls. They will burn it there and keep the pollutants, then send the energy back to us. They are such doormats there. We may even be able to send up a bunch of our workers to build the thing.

I predict that if Gregori and Lawton pull this off, they will both end up with trophy homes in new subdivisions in Red Lodge.

Mommies

2007-09-21T08:21:00.000-07:00

I remember a commenter offering support for Sally Fields' worldview: if only moms ran the world it would be a better place.

So, when I read about this piece on Instapundit, I thought it was worth linking:

Sally Field and her ilk don’t really mean they want just any mom or woman to run the world, what she really meant when she talked about moms taking over is that leftist women should run the world. Notice that the women who are always talking about how great and different things would be if women were in charge never mention real women leaders like Condi Rice or Margaret Thatcher because they are conservatives. Unlike some leftist women who think that their sex puts them beyond the human traits of aggressiveness and violence, Rice and Thatcher understand that the realities of national security mean that negotiation and “making nice” with the schoolyard bully does not always work.

Hey, how does it feel to be an "ilk?"