Pilot Program
Regular readers will recall that the City, in its attempt to gain permission from the Public Service Commission to offer small (residential) customers default power supply, sought and received permission to operate a 'pilot program' for 5 years. According to Ms. Balzarini, Electric City Power's Executive Director, this program will "be a good opportunity for the City to familiarize itself with serving small electricity customers." All this occurred last fall.
Of course, back in June of this year, then-City Clerk, Peggy Bourne, informed me that this 'pilot program' had never been implemented: "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." Yes, I emphasized the language.
Well, I have obtained the names of this "diverse group" of people and businesses who were to obtain power from the City's electrical utility. Remember, please, that the City's utility subsidizes its power rates by promising to give SME our water in the future when the coal plant is constructed. I have confirmed the following list with the Montana Public Service Commission:
Balzarini
Source GS
Ten Hundred
Patton
Stephenson
Whitman
Cappis
Boysun
Lawton
First Int
Bennett Mot
Cari Yturri
Lacy & Ebl
Ebling
Gray
Walker
Golie
Gregori
The document filed with the PSC that "identifies who those 20 customers are only has last names in the case of individuals and abbreviations in the case of businesses."
Wouldn't you agree that it's quite a diverse group? And they're very, very unbiased. No coal plant cheerleaders in that group, right?
14 comments:
I bet this test group of people was randomly selected from a group of 20.
What?
Why should this surprise anyone? Keep digging - there's more dirt to turn.
What a big surprise. You got to give them some credit for having the balls to rub this in our face.
Nobody ever said thieves are bright. Does this mean Lawton plans to retire here, since he is getting cheap power subsidized by the tax payers?
For those of us coming in at the middle of the story, who are these people and why is this list suspect?
Moorcat
Balzarini, Coleen, City of Great Falls Fiscal Services Director, Executive Director, Electric City Power
Source GS
Ten Hundred
Patton, Cheryl, City of Great Falls, Assistant City Manager
Stephenson
Whitman
Cappis, Martha, Employee, City of Great Falls Fiscal Services Office
Boysun
Lawton, John, City of Great Falls, City Manager
First Int
Bennett Mot
Cari Yturri
Lacy & Ebl
Ebling
Gray, Randy, Former Mayor, City of Great Falls, Board Member, Electric City Power
Walker
Golie, George, Former Legislator, Sponsor of Pro-ECP bill, Board Member, Electric City Power
Gregori, Tim, Chairman, Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission
This is all so wrong!
Yawn. Incestuous business practices among the leftwing socialists it appears.
I really wish people could get past the partisan bs and just marvel at the insanity...
Who gives a rat's behind if they are "leftist socialists" or not.
What they ARE is "strange bedfellows". I have a hard time believing that these are "objective" in any way, shape of form.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me, GeeGuy. I understand now why you are upset...
Moorcat
Dear Moorcat:
As a partisan here is why I am one who gives a rat's behind about apparent socialist philosophy in Great Falls government. The ease with which these seemingly odd alliances are formed is of concern.
As a partisan, the differences between social democrats and those who want a representative republic are worth, at least, a rat's behind notation.
To quote Madison:
"It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
Unfortunately, you misunderstand me completely. You see, I have over 130 credits in Sociology and am well aware of what the terms mean (BTW, I don't think they mean what you think they mean and Wiki is a VERY poor source for information...).
No, my problem isn't with the people you refer to as being Socialists, my problem is with you labeling them Socialists. Far too often today, people are really quick to give (usually derogatory) lables to people without the least understanding of who and what they are labling.
Geeguy assumed I was a liberal when we first "discussed" something because I supported a Democratic Candidate and I supported a liberal idea. Yep, it can happen. Fact of the matter is that I am far more conservative than most people know in a lot of ways.
If I am going to lable someone (my personal favorite is koolaid drinker - which I have used for both Neocon, Religious fanatic Republicans and over the top leftwing fanatics...), I am going to give specific reasons for labling them that way.
Not all Democrats are "tree hugging socialists acting out a communist agenda to weaken our country while taxing the citizens into bankruptcy" and not all Republicans are "gun toating, god fearing, homophobic, redneck, beer drinking, racists that think business can solve everything". Believe or not, there is actually some middle ground in there. GeeGuy is a perfect example. I have actually seen him advocate something that could (gasp) even be considered a Liberal idea (though I promised not to reveal the issue so he could save face).
My point here is that it is far more useful to discuss the issue, not the person (or your assumed stereotype of the person)
Moorcat
Moorcat makes a legitimate point. We do have to be careful when we label people online.
I am often...well, occasionally...chastised for referring to something that "the left" advocates. Someone from that side of the aisle will invariably come on and say "Wait, I don't believe that. Don't characterize me as 'the left,' that's not fair or accurate." It's a great tactic for blog debates, but it is really just as unfair as the argument it seeks to confront.
In other words, are there no widely held liberal beliefs? Can I only debate with one person at a time? Can I only write about one person's viewpoint at a time?
To that extent, I guess I disagree with Moorcat. I do not think the problem is over generalizing (most liberals are pro-choice, anti-war, environmentalists.). I think the problem is refusing to engage people on a legitimate basis of their arguments. Case in point: Moorcat's brother and I disagree often. I don't hate him, I like him. I don't refrain from calling him a tree-hugging socialist because I don't think he is one, but because using that loaded language is insulting to him and gets in the way of our ability to really discuss things.
130 credits in Sociology? Good for you.
Then there is no misunderstanding about what I posted.
People promoting socialist agendas should have their doctrine identified appropriately.
People embracing socialist policies should hear the word socialist over and over whether or not they are comfortable with it.
The issue is socialism vs. a representative republic. So from a social-psychological perspective, it doesn't matter if you label them Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives or koolaid drinkers. Their motivation and end goals will still be the same:
More power and control to a bureaucratic, centralized government and less in the hands of the people.
BTW, with your 130 hours in Sociology, you might already be indoctrinated and not even realize it.
Drink up! Cherry or Grape?
Again, you fail to identify what is "socialistic" about the people you are refering to. From what I gather from the various posts here and from other articles written by people watching the situation in Great Falls, it is much less socialism and much more fostering a hidden agenda that may or may not stand up to the light of public scrutiny. I don't see that as socialism... I see that as illegal given the Montana Open Meeting and Open Document law. There is also the question of who is getting paid what. The answer to that question may very well make a huge difference between an assumed socialist agenda and one far less... altruistic.
I do not see the individuals involved as being overly socialist. I see them at believing that they think they know what they want to accomplish and don't want to be bothered by pesky things like citizen scrutiny. This isn't socialism. It is arrogance.
And GeeGuy - I can pretty much agree with your generalization of Liberals with one exception. It is my firm belief that the focus on Environmental issues is a subset of liberals. Not all liberals are environmentalists. Just I like I do not believe that all Conservatives are Christian fundamentalists. This is a subset of Conservatives.
There is also a significant difference between "anti-war" and "anti-Iraq war". There are many conservatives that are NOT supportive of the current war in Iraq - if for no other reason than the Multi-Trillion dollar price tag this one has. I, for one, have been against the War in Iraq from the beginning (though I think we should have been a LOT more serious about kicking Osama's butt in Afghanistan).
Moorcat
"I don't see that as socialism......"
Of course you don't. And I'm not surprised. You seem to have your own agenda for one allegedly coming in at the middle of the story...
For those who seem to come into the middle of the story it becomes prudent to continuously define and discuss what is is. It is the only way to expose those with histrionic problems or fostering a hidden agenda from gaining excessive power over the proletariat.
One's inability to see oneself as socialist does not make one any less socialist.
Post a Comment