Letters to the Editor
Not allowed to speak
Apparently censorship of citizen comment is alive and well in Charlo. I rise, as every American should, in defense of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. A few months ago during a Charlo School Board meeting, I was not allowed to speak on an issue before the Board by the president and presiding officer. I objected, however she disallowed my objection, stating that she and the board knew what I was going to say. But we will never know for sure because I was not allowed to speak to the issue at that meeting. She stated that her reason was that I violated board policy.
I have past board experience and I was sure of my position on the matter, so I Googled “Montana open meetings laws” and was directed to a website identified as: mtcoattorneysassn.org. I then printed out the 15 page document posted on that site entitled “The Basics of Open Meetings and Public Participation”. This document clearly articulated that I was within my citizen’s right to comment on the above matter, according to the website that I’m guessing belongs to the Montana County Attorney‘s Association. That particular school board president received a printed copy for the Board’s information from me and I explained to her quietly and in private that board policy is subordinate to the state law, which clearly applied here. No apology nor comment of any kind was forthcoming, she just ignored me.
Very recently, Charlo’s brand new board president wasted no time in telling me that I would not be allowed to comment on the new president’s response to a citizen’s comment during discussion of an agenda item. This specific board action seemed to have the effect of putting a damper on all following comments. Perhaps that was the intention, or maybe it was just personal. I happen to believe that stifling dissent and discouraging citizen participation is one of the hallmark actions of a dictatorship or an autocracy.
It is unfortunate that Lake Co. School superintendent Gale Decker, who was earlier present at the meeting to swear in the newly elected board members, didn’t stick around for the show. His comments would have given us some insight as to his position with respect to his candidacy for County Commissioner.
My feeling is that a citizen should be allowed to comment in an open public meeting about important public expenditures with as few restrictions as possible. Montana lawmakers have put it this way: “The state commission finds and declares that public boards, commissions, councils, and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this part that actions and deliberations of all public agencies shall be conducted openly. The people of this state do not wish to abdicate their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. Toward these ends, the provisions of this part shall be liberally construed.” (2-3-201, MCA).
I, for one, do not wish to abdicate my sovereignty. There are good people in Charlo counting on me to represent their feelings and concerns. Those positions may not always be popular with the board. But whether members of the Charlo School Board like it or not, I have a right to be heard.
TIA (This Is America).
Chuck Willet
Charlo
Concerned about irrigation water
For over a decade, representatives from the state of Montana, the Federal Government and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) have been working to conclude, by the end of 2012, a water rights agreement (compact) for the Flathead Indian Reservation. A number of subjects are being addressed including off-reservation water, groundwater, wetlands protection and the management and administration of water rights under a compact agreement.
For several years, open and publically announced compact meetings have been held either in Pablo or Polson. During these meetings the public has been made aware of the background technical work that has been conducted on many subjects. When preliminary drafts become available, the monthly compact meetings provide opportunities, ample time and a relaxed atmosphere for the public to ask questions and make comments for the record. Responses to questions and comments also are on the public record. Partial drafts of a compact and related documents are available on the Montana DNRC web site.
Having followed these negotiations for many years, I have been concerned that the approach to irrigation water under this Compact negotiation has not been consistent with the way that other water right subjects have been handled. It is planned that an agreement - called a stipulation agreement - between the CSKT and the FJBC on the legal status and management of irrigation water will become an integral part of a water rights compact agreement. Given that over 90% of surface water on this reservation has been used for irrigation, it makes sense for the FJBC to be involved in the process of reaching an agreement on surface water. For one thing, it has the necessary legal expertise.
But negotiations between the FJBC and the CSKT covering irrigation water and related instream flows have been conducted in great secrecy; until earlier this year the public was not even informed that such negotiations were taking place. Finally a draft stipulation agreement was released at a special meeting of the FJBC on May 31 and published on the DNRC Compact Commission web site on June 5.
The FJBC has announced that it will make a decision in early July and that the public must submit written comments by July 2. A public meeting on June 21 will provide individuals a valuable opportunity to ask questions on a one-on-one basis with FJBC and CSKT representatives. But there will be no opportunity for the public to ask questions and get answers on the public record as in regular monthly compact meetings.
At the May 31 FJBC meeting the public was not allowed to ask questions or make comments. After reading the draft, I found it difficult to understand and provide comments because it is written in legal language and relevant background information is not included. Thus on June 8th I submitted written questions to the FJBC for discussion at its scheduled monthly meeting on June 11. But we were informed that written questions will not be answered until sometime in July after the period for comments ends on July 2. Remember the movie Catch-22?
Time is running out. How the FJBC handles its decision-making regarding the DSA is up to the FJBC. But the state of Montana, the Federal Government and the CSKT need to directly bring consideration of the draft stipulation agreement into the open compact process of negotiation. Among other things there is a need for a technical presentation on the modeling and empirical work that has served as a basis for the stipulation negotiations. Compact meetings over the next two months also would provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and receive answers on the public record. In addition, quick responses to written questions should be posted on the DNRC web site.
Everyone on this reservation has a stake in the outcome of these negotiations, including not only tribal and non-tribal farmers and ranchers, but all residents of this reservation.
Dick Erb
Moise
Don’t play the blame game
I am guessing that everyone who reads this newspaper has inherited and needed to fix a difficulty that was generated by someone else. The tendency in that situation is to rail against/whine about the person responsible for the trouble. But most sensible people end up doing their best to fix the problem.
Sadly for people who love this country, our current president can’t seem to get beyond the blame game. I was thinking about his recent steak dinner analogy. I personally love poetic devices such as analogies. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s analogy about a steak dinner and a martini that was directed at President Bush falls way short. If Mr. Obama had switched his diet to Ramen noodles and water, it might make sense. But he has not sent one austere budget to Congress in his three-plus years in office. Rather, he has cranked up spending from his stimulus package to the GM bailout. Moreover, he has squelched potential cost-saving measures such as the Keystone Pipeline.
His refusal to go beyond the “blame Bush” mind-set speaks to me of a failed Presidency. In contrast, Mitt Romney is a vigorous, positive and insightful person who has achieved success, beyond just winning elections, in his life. In my mind, this upcoming November is really no contest. We need to move forward. And only Mitt Romney seems capable of doing that.
Carol Cummings
Polson