New York Rose?

An interesting thought, via Instapundit:

Namely, that the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II ncluded radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points:

1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2 This war is illegal.
3 You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home.

Animal Shelter

After considering the little bit of information I have been able to obtain thus far, I have just a few minor observations on this pet control situation.

First, control of the animal shelter is a separate issue from Susan Overfield's removal from the City Commission meeting. Her right to speak, and the City's legal authority to remove her, if any, exist or don't exist regardless of what issue she was discussing.

Second, as noted elsewhere, I sat on the committee that set the new pet control fees. I did not see anything in my involvement that led me to believe there was any sort of ulterior motive on the part of any committee members. Bob James from the Animal Foundation raised the issue of funding for the new shelter a couple times, but this was done in an open way, and he and Jim Donahue discussed the issue in a civil fashion in my presence.

Third, I have been provided some emails from several years ago relating to the interplay between the Humane Society of Cascade County and the Great Falls Animal Foundation. There was obviously some dissension between the two groups. I am trying to obtain some additional background and context for these emails before I post them, assuming I will at some point.

Fourth, I think the City's proposal to the Humane Society is, frankly, unworkable. Imagine if you were on the board of an independent entity that contracted to provide a service to the City. Then imagine if the City asked your entire board to resign to be replaced by board members who will be recruited and appointed with the 'assistance' of the City. I do not have access to the Humane Society's governing documents, but I would be amazed if they allow the board to abdicate its responsibilities in order to be co-opted by a government entity. I think the City can contract with the Humane Society or not; anything else is overreaching.

Fifth, there have been numerous allegations of 'problems' with the Board of Directors of the Humane Society. What are these problems? Mr. Donahue informed me that the City wanted an independent financial audit and, according to him, the Humane Society obtained one and passed it. That doesn't sound like a problem.

Rather than vague references to 'problems' and 'complaints,' I think the City should lay its cards on the table. What, specifically, are the problems? Are they documented? Are the complaints documented? I would hate to think that the government would create a pretext for unstated goals. I am not saying that such is occurring, but unless and until we see something documenting a serious problem with the Board of Directors of the Humane Society, one has to wonder what is really going on. If circumstances are bad enough to merit what I anticipate will be justified as an 'emergency' response by the City, evidence of some wrongdoing certainly should exist.

Sixth, the City Commission voted to extend the Humane Society's contract for 30 days. On whose authority was the decision made to countermand the Commission's vote and seize control of the shelter?

Finally, I have one more observation at present, and it is based on my own experiences. I sit on the Board of Directors of the United Way of Cascade County. Occasionally we will learn of problems with our service partners, i.e. the entities to which we provide funding. While it is important to provide oversight, we always remind ourselves that these people are trying to do good.

Likewise, I don't want to be a scold, but I hope all involved, whether the Humane Society, the City, or the Animal Foundation, will all remember that for the most part we are talking about volunteers. These are people who are trying to do something good for animals in our community. There have been no allegations of personal misconduct on the part of board members from either charity. Let's keep personalities out of this, remember everyone's trying to help, and solve the problem.

Source Documents

In keeping with my goal of always trying to produce the source documentation for a story, here is a series of letters between Jim Donahue, Chairman of the Humane Society, and representatives of the City. There is also a copy of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding that the Humane Society rejected. These are, to the best of my understanding, in chronological order:

Even More Overfield

I received some additional information from Jim Donahue, the Chairman of the Humane Society of Cascade County:

In response to my letter yesterday to Corky Grove and John Lawton rejecting their proposal, Grove met with me after lunch. He described Humane Society of Cascade County as unreasonable. The main point of the meeting was his announcement that the City has decided that the Humane Society of Cascade County will provide interim animal control through midnight on July 4 and the City will assume control as of July 5.

To the best of my knowledge, the city commission has yet to vote on any Animal Control proposal so I have no idea on whose authority the City is acting to spend an additional $330k per year for animal control.

Grove also said the City will continue to accept proposals from any entities that might want to perform animal control.

No offense you dirty %##@&!

But yaaaawn.

More Overfield...sort of.

In reviewing this whole Susan Overfield dustup, I had an opportunity to talk with Jim Donahue, President of the Humane Society of Cascade County. Here is what Jim had to say about the bid letting process for running the Animal Shelter:

Knowing that our contract with the City was about to expire, we began contacting the City in January of 2007 in order to try to make arrangements for future operation of the Animal Shelter. Finally, toward the end of April 2007, the City decided to put out an RFP. The bids were due by May 18, 2007.

Two bids were submitted in a timely fashion, ours and the City of Great Falls Police Department’s. Commission action on the bids was scheduled for June 5 and June 7 through June 9 were designated as the deadlines for transition. In other words, assuming someone other than the Humane Society was to operate the shelter, the bid was to be awarded and the June 7 weekend would be utilized for transition.

On receiving the bids, the City did very little or nothing. June 5 came and went.

The Humane Society was trying to follow up with the City through the Clerk, Peggy Bourne, but we could learn nothing.

Finally, in last week’s City Commission meeting, the Commission voted on the consent agenda to extend our contract for another month. They did not talk to us first, and they did not give us written notice of this decision.

Once we learned of this, I wrote the City Manager, John Lawton, a letter proposing a new rate for this and any subsequent extensions. In response, I received a call from Police Chief, Corky Grove, and was invited to attend a meeting with the City.

I did so. At the meeting, Chief Grove stated that the City would like us (the Humane Society) to continue operating the shelter, but the ‘public has lost so much trust’ in our organization, there must be “significant changes.” After discussion, we learned that these significant changes would be a) resignation of the Humane Society’s entire Board of Directors, b) the City’s appointment of a new Board of Directors, and c) the City’s ongoing right to supervise and control the operation of the Animal Shelter.

The Humane Society has rejected this proposal, so the City will be operating without a contract on the Animal Shelter as of Sunday, July 1.

Finally, as an aside, several have suggested that Susan Overfield was a ‘puppet’ of the Humane Society last week, that we ‘put her up to’ the speech at the Commission. This is false. There was no encouragement of her whatsoever, not overt, and not with a wink and a nod.

Some at the City have made the comment that the Humane Society seems to be in disarray.

Who’s in disarray?

Sorry. That was snide. But if what Mr. Donahue says is true, the whole Overfield issue seems as though it might have been a somewhat predictable byproduct of a process that doesn't seem to have been handled very well.

PC Law

I had a call yesterday with a question that required me to do some legal research: "If you give someone an engagement ring, and that person then breaks off the engagement, do you get the ring back?"

The answer astounded me. The answer, for all of you potential paramours, is no.

If that is not bad enough, the reasoning is based on avoiding gender bias:

Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution recognizes and guarantees the individual dignity of each human being without regard to gender. This Court and the Montana State Bar have recognized the harm caused by gender bias and sexual stereotyping in the jurisprudence and courtroom of this state. In the Matter of the State Bar of Montana's Gender Fairness Steering Committee, No. 90-231 (1990) (Petition and Order); (Case omitted). In its Petition to the Supreme Court, the State Bar of Montana's Gender Fairness Steering Committee listed four forms of gender bias: a) denying rights or burdening people with responsibilities solely on the basis of gender; b) subjecting people to stereotypes about the proper behavior of men and women which ignore their individual situations; c) treating people differently on the basis of gender in situations in which gender should be irrelevant; and d) subjecting men or women as a group to a legal rule, policy, or practice which produces worse results for one group than the other.

The Montana Legislature made the social policy decision to relieve courts of the duty of regulating engagements by barring actions for breach of promise. While not explicitly denying access to the courts on the basis of gender, the “anti-heart balm” statutes closed courtrooms across the nation to female plaintiffs seeking damages for antenuptial pregnancy, ruined reputation, lost love and economic insecurity. During the mid-20th Century, some courts continued to entertain suits in equity for antenuptial property transfers. The jurisprudence that rose upon the implied conditional gift theory, based upon an engagement ring's symbolic associations with marriage, preserved a right of action narrowly tailored for ring givers seeking ring return. The bright-line rule of ring return on a no-fault basis, which Albinger urges this Court to adopt, sets forth as a matter of law “proper” post-engagement behavior in regard to this single gifted item. The proposed no-fault adjudication of a disputed engagement ring also ignores the particular circumstances of a couple's decision not to marry.

Conditional gift theory applied exclusively to engagement ring cases, carves an exception in the state's gift law for the benefit of predominately male plaintiffs. Montana's “anti-heart balm” statute bars all actions sounding in contract law that arise from mutual promise to marry, absent fraud or deceit, and bars all plaintiffs from recovering any share of expenses incurred in planning a canceled wedding. While antenuptial traditions vary by class, ethnicity, age and inclination, women often still assume the bulk of pre-wedding costs, such as non-returnable wedding gowns, moving costs, or non-refundable deposits for caterers, entertainment or reception halls. Consequently, the statutory “anti-heart balm” bar continues to have a disparate impact on women. If this Court were to fashion a special exception for engagement ring actions under gift law theories, we would perpetuate the gender bias attendant upon the Legislature's decision to remove from our courts all actions for breach of antenuptial promises.

No, I don't make this sh*t up. And, once again, I find myself agreeing with the "liberal" Justice Trieweiler:

Gender discrimination is a bad thing. I am glad the majority is against it. However, I regret that the majority has taken this opportunity to declare their good intentions because gender equity has about as much to do with this case as banking law. Furthermore, the parties in the District Court will be as surprised to hear about the basis on which this appeal has been resolved as I was when I read the proposed pinion. Principles of gender equity were never argued or even raised by the parties at any stage in the proceeding and the District Court had no opportunity to consider the relevance (or irrelevance) of Constitutional theory to any of the simple issues which were presented in the District Court.

Read the whole thing before you head to the jeweler.

Overfield Follow-Up

I have received some off the record information about the interplay between the City, the Humane Society and the Animal Foundation. Suffice it to say that there is more than meets the eye here, and I think we'll learn more in coming days.

That is a separate issue from the removal of Ms. Overfield from the meeting. We have the Mayor's response:

Geeguy, had Susan Overfield requested more time in a civil fashion, I would have given it to her. Instead, I believe her words were, "NO, you are going to hear this!"

I reiterated the three minute rule before opening the public comment period. And she chose to ignore it.She was belligerant [sic] and combative, as well. Again, had civility prevailed, there would have been no reason to remove her.

I don't know what else I can say.

At least not in three minutes. (That was a joke.)

No Gag Order in case of the Flying Imams.

The First Amendment takes precedence over political correctness in Minnesota:

A federal judge will not block the public from accessing court documents or attending hearings in a lawsuit filed by a group of imams who say they were wrongly removed from a US Airways flight.

The imams' lawyer, Omar T. Mohammedi, had asked U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery in Minnesota to "remove members of the media" from the court's electronic case filing distribution list and hold proceedings in closed session.

Mr. Mohammedi did not respond to a request for comment, but he told the judge his clients had received death threats and had been unfairly criticized in press reports and Internet blogs.

"Under the First Amendment, the public and the press have a significant interest in full access to all judicial proceedings, both criminal and civil. You have provided no legal authority supporting your request to limit public access to this case," Judge Montgomery said.

Unfairly criticized? Give me a break.

Drug Companies = Bad...Right?

Look what happens when Hillarycare meets the pharmaceutical industry:

Socialism fails. Always has. Always will. And the toll in Europe in so many areas is clear...America is the last refuge for pharmaceutical innovation. And the left wants to kill that off...This is what the left wants to do to pharmaceutical research in the US as well. There's a case for it: the usual leftist case for nominal equality over quality and progress. They're not being honest about it. They need to be.

Plank Two

I will stand in front of the mirror every morning and repeat the following: "I am an elected official in a small town in a smaller state. I am not smarter than the people who elected me, no matter how long I have been in office or how many terms I serve."

Dream Platform, Part I

I had an idea. I thought it might be interesting to devise a dream platform for our 'ideal' City Commission candidate, Robert Redford thirty years ago (it was the only reasonably appropriate image I could find on Google). I will start it off and you are welcome to join me in the comments. Anything that I, in my ULTIMATE BLOGMASTER WISDOM, feel is worthy will be elevated to post level, or a plank in the platform, for further discussion and refinement by the community. (And, unlike Larry Kralj, if I occasionally use all caps, it can be assumed to be moderately tongue in cheek.)

I will start it off:

PLANK ONE: Freedom. Our candidate will support freedom in our community.

1. The Sign Code: Repealed. (Do you really think repealing it will make a difference? Has it made a difference?)

2. Smoking Ban: We will defy state law. Any owner or other person with the legally enforceable right to occupy property (i.e. tenants, for the legalese challenged) retains the right to authorize all activities thereon otherwise permitted by state law.

3. Land Use Code: Repealed. New one: Three zones. Residential. Commercial. Industrial. Any applications for zone changes will be considered by the City Commission after a public hearing. No input from any 'staff bureaucrat' is allowed. Testimony will be allowed from a) the property owner and b) owners of contiguous property. Period. A particular piece of property is allowed one zone change application per year.

4. Animal Code: Repealed. If your animal is caught on my land, you negotiate with me for its return. My decision is final.

5. Fireworks Code: Repealed. City wide referendum. Fireworks are legal from date x to date y. Or not. No more micromanaging.

Next?

Sad, but too close to home...

An Interesting Question

The City Commission adopted Resolution 9634, setting a 3-minute time limit on public comment at City Commission meetings. Notice that the Resolution itself does not contain a remedy for its violation.

Now, Section 1.04.070 provides that violation of the City Code is a misdemeanor, but I could not find any corresponding section rendering violation of a Resolution is criminal in nature or, for that matter, I could not find any remedy for violation of a Resolution.

Well, you say, doesn't a Resolution have force of law? I don't know that they do. MCA Section 7-5-109 provides remedies for violation of an ordinance, but I can't find such a provision for Resolutions. See, generally, MCA Secs. 7-5-121, 7-5-122, and 7-5-123.

So, if we assume that Resolutions don't carry that force, is it proper for a governmental official to require an employee to forcibly require compliance with a Resolution? For example, if the Department of Interior refuses to recognize the Little Shell Tribe, can we have him arrested if he every shows his face in this town? If a shopkeeper in the Business Improvement District fails to pay their assessment, can a City Commissioner order a city employee to restrain the shopkeeper's liberty?

So, then, what is the legal basis to order someone forcibly removed from a City Commission meeting?

Interview

Here's Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, interviewed by Mother Jones.

I think he's got it nailed pretty well.

A new City Clerk

The City has hired Lisa Kunz as the new City Clerk. I know Lisa from her former job, and I think she'll be very good as City Clerk.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz was heard to say at yesterday's agenda meeting that Kunz has much to recommend her for the position, including the fact that she "won't take crap from anybody." Did Peggy Bourne get a lot of crap?

Anyway, there's a new clerk. I suppose we'll give her a week or so before we start with the FOIA requests...

Chouteau County

I mentioned a letter yesterday from the Chouteau County Commission protesting the coal plant. I didn't know if it was legitimate or not.

Turns out it was.

Open Government, Part V

Below I asked what I thought was the somewhat rhetorical question, "Don't we want increased citizen participation in government?" I was, of course, referring to the forcible removal of Susan Overfield from a recent City Commission meeting.

It turns out that the question was not so rhetorical at all. We do want increased citizen participation in government. In fact, it is a stated policy of our City: "Ensure open and accessible government." It goes on to say that "[i]ncreased communication with the citizens it serves has been and remains an important goal of the City Commission...Openness and the free flow of information also are critical components to operating any healthy, innovative organization or business."

All of this made Mayor Stebbins a natural fit for her position. When she was campaigning against former Mayor Gray, she said, "I’m not happy with the level of citizen involvement in city government."

I guess something has changed.

Hat Tip: Thanks Rich!

Unseemly

Unseemly: adjective
1. not seemly; not in keeping with established standards of taste or proper form; unbecoming or indecorous in appearance, speech, conduct, etc.: an unseemly act; unseemly behavior.

Now that I have finally seen most of the events that occurred at the last City Commission meeting, I think my original impression sticks:



In fairness, though, there is no question that Mayor Stebbins articulated the three minute rule:



Three minute rule, or not, is it really necessary to use force to remove a citizen for speaking 60 seconds longer than allowed at a public meeting? Especially when she wanted to address an issue near and dear to her that was placed on the consent agenda foreclosing public comment.

Think about this for a minute. This woman works in a particular industry, and the City Commission was considering an issue involving her industry. She was clearly incensed about what had happened, although she generally remained respectful. She put in time to prepare cogent, if pointed, remarks.

It's sixty seconds over the limit. Or, my goodness, a hundred and twenty. We don't have one or two extra minutes to hear her out?

Don't we want increased citizen participation in government?

Fort Benton

I can't vouch for this; it just landed in my office.

For what it's worth:

Speaker's Bureau

After talking to the Pachyderm Club about the coal plant last week, I have had several contacts inquiring as to whether I would speak to this group or that group.

The answer is, generally, yes. If you would like me to provide your group with a 20 minute summary of all I have learned about the coal plant, just send me an email at fallsblog@yahoo.com.

Confidential Government Information

The Airport Board is considering this:

[A] policy involving the closing of meetings to discuss preliminary business and development authorities at the airport until Mick Taleff, airport attorney, can be present to address board member concerns.

I wonder what part of this they don't understand:

Article II, Section 9. Right to know. 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.

Where's the Tribune on this? Maybe they did sign a confidentiality agreement?

Maybe they'll reduce my federal income taxes while they're at it...

Well, at least our City Commission isn't like Missoula, wasting time discussing issues over which they have no jurisdiction.

Make Love, Not War.

Peace.

Open Government, Part IV

"There's something creepy about a political class so determined to impose a vast transformative bill cooked up backstage in metaphorically smoke-filled rooms on a nation that doesn't want it. It's an affront to republican government and quasi-European in its disdain for the citizenry."

City Commission?

Nope, Steyn's talking about the Immigration bill. I agree with him either way.

We're famous! (More Susan Overfield)

But not in a good way.

Other people are talking about Ms. Overfield's forcible removal from the City Commission meeting.

• 4 & 20 Blackbirds.
• Montana Netroots. (Same post as above, but much commenting and gnashing of teeth.)
• Left in the West.
• Missoulian.
• KXMC.

I'm so proud.

Also, as I noted in a comment, I was involved in the committee that helped set the new pet fees. I guess I did not learn enough through my involvement to appreciate how, if at all, this impacted or was impacted by the apparent interplay between the City, the Humane Society, and the Animal Foundation of Great Falls. So, in the future, I am going to try to restrict my comments more to the 'good governance' angle, and let someone else tackle the substantive issues, if any.

Some Numerical Observations

The City is seeking a 4.63 percent tax increase. There will be a public hearing July 3, 2007, for non-time limited comment on this issue. (The date was no doubt selected to ensure maximum public involvement, right?)

The City's total tax revenue last year was $12,661,975 (p.1). 4.63% of that amount is $586,249.44. A pittance, right?

Do we really need to raise taxes to get that money? Or, perhaps, could different decisions have prevented this tax increase?

For example, we have paid SME over $1,500,000.00 in development costs for the coal plant. That amount alone would have funded nearly three years of our increased revenue needs.

Further, our electric utility, Electric City Power, lost $425,388.00 in the fiscal year ending 6/30/06. (p.7) That could have gone a ways toward addressing any shortfall, couldn't it?

How much did we lose on Explore: The Big Sky? How much do we use on golf courses? How much do we spend on the water park?

My point here is not to simply attack everything the city has done. Doesn't anyone else see a trend? When our city government ventures outside of its traditional roles and begins assuming what would normally be a more private-sector role we end up paying, and paying, and paying.

It isn't just the financial drain, either. It's also the 'brain drain.' We pay a full-time City Manager and a full-time Fiscal Services Director. Check their schedules and you'll see how much time both spend managing the city's electric utility. (I would say check their appointment books, or their email, but those have never been produced!)

If city government would, perhaps, stick to the knittin', they might have a better handle on the core functions. Who knows, better management of these functions might result in lower costs. Lower costs might result in no tax increase.

Susan Overfield

Susan Overfield is the woman who was forcibly removed from the City Commission meeting last week. She emailed me a copy of what she was reading when her 'time' expired. She is allowing me to reprint it here.

I do not know if what she says is true, and I am certainly not adopting her words as my own. For the sake of discussion, though, I thought it made sense to at least publicize what caused all the fuss to begin with. Since we're all talking about it, let's see what she had to say.

So, without further ado...

It is my personal opinion that what is transpiring here this evening is a sub-rosa or behind-the-scenes agenda in which specific people are manipulating the bid and awarding process for personal gain, closed corporation tactics and ignoring fiscal responsibility and animal welfare.

Upon investigation I was surprised to discover that there is not one single person involved with the current shelter and bid or award process that is employed by the city.

I did, however, find the following, which is very cozy:

Mary Willmarth– Foundation involvement – husband Mark is city employee

Peggy Bourne– city employee – husband Rick, Foundation involvement

John Gilbert – Foundation involvement – former city commissioner

Melanie Lattin – Foundation involvement – city employee

Bob James – Foundation involvement – litigation for the city possibly

Gloria LaMott – Foundation involvement – previous shelter board member, resigned before asked to quit, has a rabid anti-shelter recent history, is a close, personal friend of Mayor Stebbins, has been heard on at least two separate occasions to say she is “planning a career change and will become a ‘Director’ of a new city job” and she’s “planning on heading a new position opening in the city managing animals.”

Donna Stebbins – Foundation involvement – on the bid award committee – close personal friend with Gloria LaMott, was heard yesterday after an inspection of the current shelter to say, “I’ll do everything in my power to make sure the shelter’s not awarded the contract.”

And while I have not had time today to find a link between the police department and the Foundation, I have no doubt it exists and will be discovered.

To my knowledge the city, during the run of this expiring contract with the shelter, has never allocated an increase in funds in order to keep up with general rising costs which would negatively affect the running of the shelter.

This would constitute negligence and/or cruelty in the care of the animals housed at the current shelter as well as causing otherwise adoptable animals to be euthanized for lack of necessary maintenance funding.

San Diego (I spoke with Dr. Goldschmidt), Santa Fe (I spoke with Dwayne Adams) and Denver (I spoke with an original foundation member Mrs. Brown), to name just three, all allocated a percentage of their fundraising monies for new the shelter to be earmarked for the use of the shelter being replaced in order to guarantee quality care of the animals in the old shelter until such time as the new shelter was up and running and the animals were relocated.

The Animal Foundation of Great Falls has done no such thing. As a matter of fact it has required the current shelter to make donations to their fund raising with no regard as to the hardships it causes the current shelter and animals. That is not animal welfare, it is self-aggrandizement.

All this put together leads me to one conclusion. The bid award is co-opted and possibly already predetermined by an unseen committee which is interested in assuring the Foundation complete control and the city the ability to circumvent or ignore actual bid and awarding procedures. The Directorship of the new shelter seems to be a foregone conclusion if Ms. LaMotts statements are to be taken as truth.

Donna Stebbins should remove herself from the City Commision and the bid award procedure, as well as anyone else with city employment and Foundation involvement, due to conflict of interest. Anyone with dual interest of city employment/Foundation involvement should be considered ineligible to apply for employment in the new shelter.

It occurred to me that the city may have planned at some future point to attempt to claim ignorance of the current conditions of and at the shelter and once the bid is awarded and the Foundation can step in, the city can then pass a bond onto the public to underwrite the Foundation’s cost in running the new shelter.

Fiscal responsibility in non-existent here. Award a bid to a higher priced entity without background, infra-structure or experience in shelter management, possibly pass a bond onto the public for the running costs of the new shelter, which is non-profit, and then run the future shelter as a closed corporation with only select individuals being awarded work, contracts, and employment positions.

The bid and award process is in place, dates have been established…meet them and award the bid to the lowest bidder as it should be. The HSCC [Humane Society of Cascade County-Ed.] has no financial or legal blemish on its record of running the current shelter and as such, there is no reason NOT to award the bid to them without extension.

If I am wrong, provide me proof and I’ll recant publicly. If, however you merely wish to state, or infer, that I am making unfounded accusations, you bring your proof and I’ll bring mine and we’ll meet at the newspaper and let the facts be public.

Open Government, Part III

This is, I guess, part of a series of posts about local government and the recent forceful removal of a citizen from a City Commission meeting for the citizen's attempt to continue speaking in violation of the City Commission's 3-minute rule for public comments. (See here, here, and here.)

Specifically, I want to follow up on a comment to an earlier post:

"I used to come to this site to read well reasoned criticism of our city government. Now, though, you seem to pull punches on almost everything (except the coal thing).

Are you afraid to criticize the Mayor? Are you afraid to criticize the commission. It seems like everyone but Lawton gets a pass.

Mayor Stebbins came to office on a promise of change and she has failed to live up to her promise. She used to be the "people's mayor." Remember all the time she spent commenting on the blogs? It was all about access.

Now its nothing. She put up some lame post at GreaterFalls about Alex Percic, but she hides on all the issues.

And you don't say shit to her or about her? Don't any of the local bloggers have any guts any more? Your about as bad as the Tribune."

I have a few thoughts on this. First, as compared to my analysis of what the City staff does, I do somewhat pull my punches with respect to the Commission and the Mayor. For all intents and purposes, these people are volunteers trying to do the right thing by our community. The fact that I might disagree with them on a particular issue does not make them "wrong" or "bad."

That does not mean, though, that I think they are beyond criticism. For example, I think that our Commission needs to wrest control of this City back from the bureaucrats. The Commission is supposed to create policy and lead the community, not wait for and react to the suggestions of the City Manager. I do not think that this Commission leads. I think this Commission tends to view its role as approving or disapproving staff's suggestions. I would like someone to tell me about one big initiative in the last 5 years that originated solely with the City Commission and that was then delegated to staff for completion. I cannot think of one, but I hope to be proven wrong.

Second, I agree that Dona Stebbins has governed differently than I anticipated. She spent a great deal of time on the blogs before her election as the blogs offered her a base of support. She comments much less now, although this might be due to greater time commitments as Mayor. Conversely, it might be that she finds the blogs more critical now and tends to avoid the potential confrontation. And it might be for a myriad of other reasons.

Nevertheless, I think that, had our prior Mayor suggested a 3-minute speaking rule, Candidate Stebbins would have been apoplectic. No doubt the view from the other side of the lectern is different, but I would like to see more consistency in her governance.

I also think that, had our prior Mayor had a critic removed during a critique, Candidate Stebbins would have been highly critical of such an action.

I would like to see Mayor Stebbins take the critic's allegations head-on. Apparently some on the Commission referred to the Mayor's "friends" as ready and willing to take over the animal shelter. Rather than attack the critic, I think Mayor Stebbins should fully explain her motivations and relationships in this process, and let us all judge why everything is above-board and appropriate.

She can certainly post it here, and I am sure the Tribune would allow her to do so as well. I, for one, am curious why it is important for the City of Great Falls to spend an additional $330,000.00 per year to run the animal shelter, especially in light of the recently announced tax increase.

I think one can fairly question, too, how it is that 5 diverse people such as our City Commission can agree unanimously so often. Not that I want a cantankerous board, but there seems to be so much consensus.

One other suggestion that has been made over the years is that the City Commission 'rubber stamps' Manager Lawton's plans because things are done in the back room. I have wondered whether, perhaps, if the public were privy to all the same information as the Commission, would the Commission's actions seem more measured? If true, though, that would be a sad state of affairs indeed. There is very, very little "confidential information" in government.

Yet, my long journey through the Freedom of Information Act requests has led me to believe that many in city government wish we would just butt the hell out. The conspicuous lack of support I and others have received from the Commission and the Mayor in trying to obtain public information troubles me. (By the way, the City Commission is not alone in this. I am currently looking into another government entity that thinks public records should be "confidential." More to come.)

To me, it really comes down to leadership. The people we vote for need to do more than serve as an approving entity for unelected City employees. Perhaps with the retirement of a strong city manager, our City Commission can once again seize control of the reins of our local government.

Attorneys on Water Deal

Most coal readers will recall that the City has signed a Water Service Agreement with SME. I have remarked in the past that this is to the credit of Tim Gregori, the head of SME, because SME absolutely needs the water to build the power plant. He obtained a signed agreement for water, even though the City of Great Falls has no signed agreement with SME.

Given that the terms of our eventual agreement with SME have not been finalized and reduced to writing, one could suggest that it was somewhat, say, premature to enter into a binding, enforceable agreement to give up our water. We have lost any leverage that SME's need for water might have given us in the negotiations since we cannot threaten to withhold that to which SME has a legal, contractual right.

As an attorney, I could suggest that one might have wanted to make the Water Service Agreement conditioned upon certain things, most notably the City's continued involvement in the project. Or, perhaps, one could have conditioned it on the City and SME being able to negotiate a mutually satisfactory Development Agreement.

These are clauses that anticipate contingencies and allow one side or the other an 'out' to the contract. For example, most contracts to purchase a home contain one for financing: if you can't get your financing, you can get out of the deal.

Since the Water Service Agreement does not contain a contingency clause, my professional curiosity led me to wonder who represented the City of Great Falls in negotiating the agreement. This is because one could make a reasonable argument that this Water Service Agreement should have contained such a clause, and that the attorney representing us in the negotiations should have insisted on such a clause.

At one point, I wondered whether, perhaps, the City was represented by Luxan & Murfitt, a Helena law firm on this. If the City's attorney was Luxan, that would be a potentially troublesome issue because we know now that Luxan represents SME. If we were to encounter a situation where one law firm represented both parties to a contract, that would be a fairly unusual situation.

I have researched this issue as far as I can. I cannot definitively answer the question without drawing certain inferences. Since those inferences could lead to very strong conclusions, and since I cannot say that they are 'factual,' I will not draw them. I will only state the facts as I know them.

Fact: By email dated April 30, 2007, the City of Great Falls, acting through Peggy Bourne, informed me that the "legal counsel who worked on the water service agreement was a Mr. Torske. He was retained by SME. Dave Gliko provided legal review" for the City of Great Falls. Mr. Torske is James Torske from Hardin, Montana.

Fact: Harley R. Harris, a lawyer with the Luxan & Murfitt law firm, prepared a Memorandum, dated November 22, 2004, and entitled: "Legal Analysis-City of Great Falls Water Service To Salem Plant."

Fact: On December 7, 2004, the City of Great Falls ratified a contract whereby it agreed to pay Luxan & Murfitt $140.00 per hour for legal services.

Fact: On January 18, 2005, the City Commission authorized a payment of $2,737.28 to Luxan & Murfitt.

Fact: On March 15, 2005, the City Commission authorized a payment of $5,220.96 to Luxan & Murfitt.

Fact: On March 15, 2005, the City Commission was presented with and approved the Water Service Agreement.

Fact: On August 16, 2005, Harley Harris, a lawyer with Luxan & Murfitt represented to the City Commission that he had been representing the City for the last "six to eight months" on the water rights issue involving "concerning the change of the present point of diversion to be diverted upstream of the Morony Dam to allow the place of use to be the location of the proposed Highwood Station coal-fired generation plant."

Fact: On March 21, 2006, the City Commission authorized a payment of $6,050.81 to Luxan & Murfitt.

Fact: On May 16, 2006, the City Commission authorized a payment of $5,154.24 to Luxan & Murfitt.

Fact: On March 20, 2007, the City Commission authorized a payment of $8,712.19 to Luxan & Murfitt.

Fact: SME sends the City of Great Falls "Cash Flow Projection" sheets documenting SME's development costs, and the City of Great Falls then pays 25% of these expenses.

Fact: The City of Great Falls has provided me with what it represents to be all of the "Cash Flow Projection" sheets documenting all of the development costs that have been reimbursed or contributed to SME by the City. According to the information provided by the City, the total amount contributed is $1,534,412.55.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $9,588.17 prior to its January 13, 2006, report.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $19,785.43 on May 15, 2006.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $11,864.27 on June 15, 2006.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $20,412.09 on October 15, 2006.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $28,170.44 on January 10, 2007.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $25,717.26 on January 10, 2007.

Fact: According to SME, it paid Luxan & Murfitt $23,566.93 on February 15, 2007.

Fact: On February 21, 2007, I received a letter from Luxan & Murfitt wherein they represented SME.

Fact: The City of Great Falls paid 25% of all Luxan & Murfitt's charges to SME by way of reimbursement.

Fact: The disbursement records provided to the City of Great Falls by SME (and ultimately provided to me by the City) do not show any record of any payment to an attorney James Torske of Hardin, Montana. (UPDATE: I should have thought of this sooner. Thanks, Firefly. This is a search result from the City's website.)

No conclusions drawn.

Open Government, Part II

UPDATED BELOW:

Earlier I put up a post discussing the Mayor's removal of a complaining citizen. That post engendered some thought provoking comments, so I thought I would continue the discussion.

First, to some of our more, shall we say, enthusiastic posters, please, take a breath. Regardless of whether you believe Mayor Stebbins was right or wrong, this is not Nazi Germany, nor is it anything even slightly resembling Nazi Germany. I do not like the 3 minute rule any more than some of the rest of you because I think it is arbitrary, unnecessary, and potentially applied as content-based restriction on speech. But don't squander your credibility by overstating your case.

I do not agree that the recent incident signals the end of free speech as we know it. I do think it was an ugly incident and, hopefully, will provide an impetus to re-evaluate the City Commission's policy to handle people who wish to comment, even critically.

Second, to this poster who accuses me of going soft on the Mayor, I plan to post a complete response later. Suffice it to say that, at present, I have to admit that he or she might have a point. I'm still thinking about it.

Third, to Larry Kralj, I understand there is videotape. I agree that such tape might provide conclusive evidence of what it depicts. It might also lack nuance, discussion, and evidence of thoughts and motivation.

Fourth, Mary Jolley raises interesting and potentially incendiary allegations about "friends of the Mayor." If this is true, it should be easy enough to prove. Anyone? UPDATE: A reader pointed out to me that this comment left the wrong impression. I don't think Mary was making allegations; as I recall, the citizen who was ejected from the meeting made these allegations. Further, what Mary referenced was the fact that the issue of the Mayor's "friends" was "a topic of discussion at their Agenda Meeting the Wednesday before the Tuesday Comission Meeting."

Finally, to the anonymous poster who wrote this: "But the problem seems to be THEY aren't doing THEIR jobs in spite of public outrage. THEY seem to be digging in and holding ground regardless of public outcry." I agree that what you say appears as though it could be true. But don't fall victim to a Pauline Kael mindset. I don't know if you can really say there is a "public outcry" on this or any other issue. You don't really know what the public thinks outside of the small group of people you encounter on a daily basis. (Although, I would urge the Commissioners to remember the same thing if they are hearing a great deal of support for the removal of the citizen from the meeting.)

Back to work, eh?

More later, I hope.

Updated Pants

This was a popular story.

Well it's over. The guy who sued for millions for some pants has lost.

Reading List

I thought Townhall had some interesting columns recently:

Dick Morris on the 14% approval rating of Congress:

The results are hardly surprising when you look at how little the House and Senate actually work, their minimal accomplishments and their generosity to themselves and their families. They have not been able to pass important legislation on minimum wage, immigration reform, or anything else of importance. Instead, they spend their time raising money for themselves, bickering and passing bills to change the names of courthouses and post offices, commending winning sports teams, and suggesting that the flag be flown on Father's Day. These are their weighty concerns.

Star Parker on "Sicko." On Michael Moore:

Is he a social commentator? A man who lives to reform?

No, this is an entrepreneur from the far political left with a business model that is serving him very well. The usual left wing Hollywood con artist, who talks socialism and gets rich off capitalism.

Moore's films are to social commentary what pornography is to human relations.

Find vulnerabilities and hot buttons, stimulate, provoke, exploit and sell tickets.

I've had a chance to see "Sicko" because I was on a TV panel that hosted Moore as part of his promotion campaign.

The film, which cost $9 million to produce, and likely will generate nine figure revenues, is out of the usual mold. It pitches socialized medicine by cherry picking stories that allegedly testify to the success of the government-run systems in Great Britain, France, Canada, and even Cuba, and then finds horror stories to show how bad things are in the U.S.

Mike Adams on sociologists:

But, recently, a respected political science journal published a study asserting that there really is no liberal hegemony in American higher education. The study says there is also a recent trend towards greater political moderation among professors at American universities. Why does the study contradict what Horowitz has been saying? The answer is simple: It relies on a survey of the professors’ subjective evaluations of their political leanings relative to others, rather than objective data regarding their partisan political affiliations. (“I’m not really an extremist. In fact, I feel that I’m middle of the road. Just ask me and I’ll tell you!”).

When the study of the subjective feelings of American professors was published a Democrat in the Political Science Department forwarded it to a Democrat in the Sociology Department. The Democrat/Sociologist then forwarded it to another Democrat/Sociologist. (But he wasn’t engaging in political discrimination because there are no Republicans in the Department of Sociology to whom he could forward it in order to ensure a more balanced critique of the study).

Next, one of the Democrat/Sociologists forwarded the study to a Marxist/Sociologist who sent it around to the whole Department. Then, a Democrat/Sociologist hit “reply all” in order to tell the whole department that he agreed with the results of the study, which claimed that there is no liberal hegemony in American higher education. That’s when the soon-to-be-retired Democrat/Sociologist Gary Faulkner responded.

Faulkner’s response was very simple. He said that there was nothing like “the cool hand of the empiricist” to quiet the “ravings” of the “ranters.” It is not surprising
that Faulkner dismisses people like David Horowitz and Mike Adams as “ranters” for asserting that there is a leftist bias in higher education. This is because, a) Sociologists are a well below the professorial average in IQ – that is, if you buy into the use of objective indicators - and, b) those below the average in workplace IQ are prone to resort to name-calling when their culturally acquired beliefs are challenged.

Paul Jacob on "The Two Americas":

There is the vibrant America . . . and the stagnant one.

There is the America of ever-increasing wealth, innovation, creativity, of a dynamic economy, new jobs, new products and services. Choices galore. Information overload. The abundant work product of freedom.

And there is the politician's America: The regulated America, the subsidized America, the earmarked America. The failing America.

In one America it is what you produce that gets you ahead. In the other it's who you know. In one America, to earmark some money means setting aside funds (into savings) for a purchase — a car, house, college.

In the other America, to earmark is to grab from taxpayers to give to cronies. It is the highest rite of career politicians: buying their votes with other people's money. Oh, there have been reforms, sure. But a recent bill in the House contained 32,000 earmark requests.

Open Government

We have a fairly good discussion going about a citizen's ejection from a City Commission meeting for exceeding the 3 minute time limit for public comments.

Larry Kralj, a man I disagree with often, put up a rather lengthy post about the whole affair. My experience as an attorney tells me that in a situation like this, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I don't know if what Larry writes is the "truth," or if the City's eventual version will be "truth."

What I do know is that the whole thing is very unseemly. We have a citizen being forcibly removed for the 'offense' of offering her opinion for a time period exceeding an arbitrary 3 minute limit. Her substantive position on the issue, while perhaps not correct, is at least a legitimate point of view. There was actually a physical altercation. How could anyone involved feel anything but embarrassed by this?

I remain concerned, too, that the willingness to remove her might have been content based. In other words, if she had been praising City Government, would the powers in charge have been so quick to have her removed?

Limousine Liberal

John Edwards, Limousine Liberal:

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

Treasure State

Aaron over at Treasure State Judaism is discussing the Humane Society issue.

I have a request, Aaron. Since you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about procurement, (here and here) please grab this one and tell us what's up. Is something rotten in Denmark? Or is the City Commission speaker out of line?

Oh yeah, and we're all busy. So don't even try that excuse, friend! :)

Sick of Logins?

Lots of times when there is a link to a newspaper or other media piece, it is hidden behind a free login feature. Not a big deal, perhaps, but an annoyance without a doubt. Not to mention the fact that you usually have to give up an email address, which inevitably leads to more spam.

Enter BugMeNot. Go here, enter the URL, and they'll give you a username and password for most sites. Very nice.

You're welcome.

(Oh yeah, they'll give you a dummy email too!)

Support for the Coal Plant

I had the good fortune to speak to our local Pachyderm Club today about the coal plant. For those who do not know, the Pachyderm Club is a generally right-leaning bunch allied with the Republican Party. These folks are typically pro-business conservatives. Tree-huggers they ain't.

Guess what. When presented with the facts about the coal plant as presented in this blog and elsewhere, most of them were shaking their heads when I was done.

I'm not dumb enough to try to extrapolate public opinion from a small group of people who have just been exposed to an extremely persuasive speaker (ok, that last part was a joke), but it does suggest to me that perhaps a significant portion of the community support for this project stems from a lack of objective information.

On Blogging

I don't know if I would (or could) put it like Wulfgar does, but I agree with many of his sentiments. Especially (most of) this one:

If there is one foundational principle to blogging, it is that we do it for ourselves. When we start to do it for others we become lame, apathetic, pathetic, joyless ... or worse, we become Michelle Malkin.

I say (most of) because I actually like Michelle Malkin. But that sort of proves his point, doesn't it?

Liberty

Long time readers (both of them) will remember that eons before I discovered the coal plant or the Freedom of Information Act, I was obsessed with the City Sign Code. (Here and here, for example).

Well, fortunately our friend Firefly has not given up. In two good, recent posts (here and here) she is revisiting this issue. As much as a property issue, or a freedom issue, Firefly demonstrates that the sign code is a competence issue.

Our City Commission had no trouble spending oodles of hours on a sign code, only to pass it and forget about it. Why the fuss? Who on the Commission, who on staff, is responsible to ensure that this grandiose plan actually gets carried into fruition? Or shall our government merely wander from issue to issue like a bored child in his playroom, taking up whatever strikes his fancy for a moment until distracted by the next interest? All the while, of course, imposing his tantrum-like will on the rest of us.

Where is the Tribune? Why is there not an 'investigative report,' something like: "The Sign Code, Two Years Later." Going around, taking pictures of signs bad signs, putting local officials on the hot seat. I thought journalists lived for that kind of sh*t.

Oh well, at least we have Firefly.

And, back to the liberty issue, the sign code also makes one think like our friend at the Montana Liberty Project. He has a great post up about liberty, and a quoted passage sounds an awful lot like the 'impetus' for our sign code:

In the grand scheme of things, it might seem like a minor inconvenience to buy a different kind of light bulb (and to have to start recycling instead of throwing them away) or to stop smoking in your own car if kids are present or include certain nutritional information on restaurant menus, but such minor violations of liberty add up over time. Before long, you look back and realize that you have given up a lot of your freedoms merely by acquiescing to others’ beliefs on how you should live your life.

Or how you should advertise your business.

UPDATE: Firefly's got pictures. After all the hullaballoo about the sign code, why does the City get a pass on enforcing it?

What?

What? You mean the sun has something to do with climate?

It's not the market, it's rigged!

The 'problem' of conservative talk radio has been solved! According to a "progressive" website, talk radio isn't conservative because that is what the people want, it's because the system is rigged against the other side:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

People don't avoid Air America because it sucks, they avoid it because our system is structured wrong!

Sad Day

It's a pretty sad day for open government in this town. A local woman was physically removed from a City Commission meeting last night for talking after "her comment time was up."

I don't fault the police officers who were doing their jobs. I do fault the woman for escalating the situation to the point where she converted her constitutional rights to criminal behavior.

But my god, people. We have a citizen with a complaint about government. We're going to start physically removing people from government meetings because their comments exceed 3 minutes?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sound familiar?

The "3 minute rule" should be repealed. Post haste.

Coal Plant Discussion

One of the difficult things we've encountered in trying to analyze the coal plant transaction is the fact that information is often found or generated in bits and pieces. Further, when City Staff are asked about various components of the deal, it is rarely within a context that allows meaningful discussion. Instead, it is usually within the context of a meeting where the ability to prod and question is very limited, if not absent.

So, with the help and suggestion of a City Commission candidate, Mary Jolley (and a teenaged videographer) we're going to try something new. I obtained a DVD copy of last week's City Commission Meeting (6/12/07). With this copy, we can take a little more time to address Staff's statements.

First, let's consider the "water credit." This is the arrangement whereby Electric City Power offered to sell its power for less than it pays for it, the difference being made up by a payable to SME that is secured by the City's water.

Here is what the Electric City Power Executive Director has to say about the water credit:




According to Ms. Balzarini, since the City was inexperienced when it decided to get into the power business, the water credit was created as a "buffer" or "safety net" for the utility.

See, this has never made sense to me. If you're new to a business, why would it be a "safety net" to deliberately price your product below your cost? Why would you intentionally agree to subsidize your customers while growing a huge debt to your supplier? That's not a safety net, it's a leash to your supplier.

Plus, we knew the locked in price when we agreed to give the water credit discount to our customers. SME went out, bought the power from PPL Montana, and we knew that. We just intentionally discounted it and made up the difference with water.

The only "safety net" we have seen is the City's touting its subsidized price as providing a great deal for its customers.

According to Ms. Balzarini, the water credit is a $5.50 per megawatt hour credit:




That's not quite right either. It's a $5.70 credit. That's not a huge inaccuracy on her part, but you need to remember this is not some mystical, moving number. SME went out and bought its power from PPL for $41.70 per megawatt hour and sold it to the City for resale at $36.00. The difference is $5.70, and that is the extent to which ECP's rates are subsidized.

Ms. Balzarini then goes on to compare rates between Electric City Power customers and Northwest Energy (NWE) customers:




For example, she states that in March 2005, when ECP customers were paying $36.00, NWE customers were paying $44.15. Fair enough, but remember that we were actually paying $41.70 for our power with the water credit. Further, had those same NWE customers purchased their power at the same time we did (and SME did), they too would have been paying $41.70 instead of $44.15. It's called locking in your rates. Most homeowners have done it. It's a real smart play in times of rising rates.

She then notes that in March 2006, Electric City Power customers were paying $40.00 and NWE customers were paying about $45.65. Add the water credit to what the ECP customers were paying. Was that a great deal?

Next we have Mary Jolley asking about the water credit:




Mary makes a couple points. First she says that the accrued water credit debt needs to be repaid to SME within 60 days if the coal plant is not built. She then comments that the citizens have about a million dollars worth of exposure to SME for this water credit debt.

Ms. Balzarini responds that the million dollar debt to SME is "down to" $800,000.00 because we "have actually made money on the surplus that we had." I'm not really sure how the water credit is being paid down. It's not contemplated by the agreement that it will be repaid until 2009. There's really no 'mechanism' for it to float up and down, so something must be happening in the accounting that is not contained in original transaction.

Finally, our City Manager responds:




First, he says taxpayers don't owe the money to SME, the electricity fund owes it. First of all, aside from being smoke and mirrors (who do you think is responsible for the fund's debts?) it is demonstrably false. The CITY OF GREAT FALLS contracted with SME to incur this debt. If you can find where SME agreed to only accept repayment to the extent there is money in the electricity fund, please point that out to me!

Second, he asserts there there is no 60 day repayment provision. False. We might argue semantics and point out that the agreement only provides that the City will "commence" making payments in 60 days, but aside from the misleading nature of the statements let's talk about the real issue.

We're talking about a debt that is anticipated to be in excess of $1,000,000.00, and the City Manager rubs a citizen's face in the fact that "we have never negotiated the repayment terms in the event it actually had to be repaid." Well, that's ok, right? SME is a nice bunch of folks. I'm sure if the coal plant isn't built, they'll be happy to wait, oh, ten, twenty years to get their money. And really, that will be the best time to negotiate the repayment terms, won't it? After we already owe them the money?

City Manager Lawton claims that this sum is "due to be amortized over several years." Oh really? Show me that in the contract, please. (Hint: It's not there.)

This is good utility company management? Kind of like spending millions of dollars without a contract?

I have been harping all along that our Staff refuses to take a hard look at the potential downside to this project. This type of statement just clarifies that. Why do we need to negotiate arrangements in case the plant isn't built? That can never happen, right? Nothing ever goes wrong, right? "There's no risk."

Doesn't it seem like many of the statements offered to our City Commission sound good, sound right, but maybe are not borne out by...oh...say, the facts?