No Contract

I have long lamented the fact that we have no contract to protect the City of Great Falls' interests in this coal plant matter.

To me, as a lawyer, the reasons why we need a written contract are obvious. To a layperson, though, such reasons might be less obvious.

Here's an example: In a City Commission meeting on December 19, 2006, Commissioner Sandy Hinz asked staff to explain their request to spend $78,000.00 on a consultant to study the Highwood Generating Station Coal Plant. In response, the City Manager stated that, "in order for the City to secure 25 percent of the Highwood Generating Station’s output, the City was required to finance 25 percent of the costs to construct the facility."

Secure. Interesting choice of words. (By the way, our City Manager did not object to the characterization of his statement in the next meeting's minutes.) Secure means assured, or free from risk.

If we are paying 25% of SME's development costs in order to "secure" or assure that we end up with 25% of the power, that would make sense, wouldn't it? You see, in a contract situation, one gives up something, consideration, in exchange for the other person's consideration. Often it is something as simple as my making a promise to do or not do something in exchange for you making a promise to do or not do something.

For example, the City of Great Falls will pay 25% of SME's development costs in exchange for SME's promise that we will get 25% of the power from the Highwood Generating Station. It makes sense, right? No one gets something for nothing, right? Tit for tat...and all that.

Wait a minute, though. What's that? Now we don't get 25%, we get 15%? (Or here, or here.)

Buh...buh...buh...buh...but...but. But why does one side get to just change their promise, and the other side gets nothing in return?

Why would the City of Great Falls agree to tie up $1,400,000.00 in "security" for SME's benefit when it has no legal obligation to do so? And, we get nothing in exchange. Are we secretly indebted to SME, to these co-ops from elsewhere in Montana?

"The city has very significant leverage points in dealing with SME," according to the City Manager. Are we negotiating with SME as though we have leverage points with them?

What the heck is going on here? Isn't there one single person who will look out for the City's interests?

The City can still go forward with the coal plant, if the Commission thinks it's a good thing. But when these issues come up, why must our elected officials and hired administrators simply roll over? Some of these people have been in business before, or still are. Would they not sharpen their pencils a bit if it was their own business, their own money?

I guess I am just a crackpot.