Bitterroot Politics

You get what you vote for…

Bitterroot Politics - You get what you vote for…

County legislators and Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Brothers backed Super PAC released their scorecard for the 2015 Montana Legislature earlier this week.

They scored Montana’s legislators based on their votes on some of their key issues. Namely, voting down expansion of Medicaid, funding charter and private schools with public money, eliminating some campaign finance rules aimed at dark money, and lowering income taxes. There were a few other issues but they mostly fall into those categories.

Is it any surprise that all Ravalli County legislators except Pat Connell scored a perfect 100% on AFP’s scorecard? They all voted exactly as they were told by this out-of-state special interest group.

It’s a sad state when not one of these legislators could vote in the interests of their constituency on a couple of these issues. Ravalli County’s poverty level is pretty high and citizens in need of expanded Medicaid coverage got the shaft from their legislators. The county is the former home of Marcus Daly, a copper baron, and a reason why Montana has always had strict campaign finance rules. The valley schools are always struggling to make ends meet with the limited funding they have and these legislators all want to take money OUT of the school system to put it into charter and private schools?

The Koch brothers certainly got their money’s worth in Ravalli County. The Republican legislators are clearly bought and paid for and happy to vote how they’re told.

You can see the scorecard for yourself HERE.



Roads, roads, roads

It’s interesting to read through the correspondence of the county commissioners. It’s helpfully posted online. You can read it HERE.

One of the things you’ll notice if you peruse through all the standard correspondence from various government agencies is that people send a lot of letters complaining about the condition of the roads in the county. It’s probably the most popular topic overall.

The letters are consistent too. The roads are in rough shape and the current practice of filling in the holes with extra asphalt isn’t working. The hole is patched for a couple weeks then the patch falls apart and the hole is back, usually bigger than it was before.

It’s amazing that the commissioners are so tone deaf on this issue. In recent budget hearings there was no discussion of how to fund the road department in a way that would allow them to do more quality work on county roads. There was no discussion of whether the current funding levels would allow them to address the many, many, many roads that need serious work.

Instead, they acted like things were fine and kept the funding levels about the same meaning that county roads will continue to be in poor condition and many surfaces will continue to fail. You can be the commissioners get prompt service when they complain about the condition of their own roads… Too bad the rest of us can’t get that same level of service out of the road department. It’s even sadder that the commissioners are unconcerned about the condition of the roads.


Chilcott and the truth about unions

In discussing approval of a negotiated labor agreement with one of the unions, Greg Chilcott spoke of his feelings about unions. He was upset that union members would be paid better than non-union members. Arguing that all county employees should be treated the same, he revealed a couple of things.

1) Unions get better compensation from the county than non-union employees. Chilcott obviously believes it’s because they’re a union, which is essentially true… but only because a union has the ability to negotiate the terms of their compensation whereas a regular county employee has no such power. When employees band together to negotiate their pay, they’re far more likely to get better terms than if they try to do it individually. The power of the group is more than the power of the individual.

2) Chilcott would rather pay union members less rather than increase the pay of regular county workers to be on par with union employees. His argument that unions receive special treatment wasn’t about regular employees receiving too little, but that union members should get peanuts, just like all the other county employees.

It was obvious watching the video that Chilcott has a philosophical problem with unions. It was also obvious that he hated that they managed to negotiate better pay.

Some of these unions were arguing for pay that would reward longevity with the county. It would allow them to steadily increase their income to be similar to what they could get doing the same job in Missoula County. Specifically, the 911 Call Center Operators were asking to have pay bumps at 5, 10 and 20-year marks. The longest tenured operator the county currently has is 5 years. The county regularly loses employees to other jurisdictions because they can make far more money somewhere else. Paying them a little more allows the county to retain them rather than constantly having to train new employees. This is an overall cost savings for the county and a boost in efficiency.

It’s too bad all Chilcott can see is his hatred for unions rather than the benefits of paying someone a living wage.


Julie King schools complaining commissioners

The county commissioners have been up in arms recently that they don’t have standing to object to the Forest Service’s latest Travel Plan for the Bitterroot National Forest. They’ve argued that they should have a say in the travel plan and the forest should hear their complaints.

The problem with that, however, is that Forest Service rules only allow people who submitted comments on the draft travel plan to file objections. The county commission never commented on the travel plan so they have no standing to file an objection now.

The commissioners point to their “Natural Resource Policy” as their comment, but it was put out in 2012 while comments were taken on the travel plan in 2009. Three years before the natural resource policy.

They also complain that those were the actions of a previous commission. The problem with that argument though is that Greg Chilcott and JR Iman were on the commission at that time and never submitted comments on the draft travel plan.

Julie King, the current forest supervisor, takes the commissioners to school in her letter to them. You can read the letter HERE. She lets them know that not only does she have evidence that the forest DID include the commission in discussions back then, but that even if they didn’t, the travel plan doesn’t fall under the same regulations as forest management. And the natural resource policy which the commissioners point to as their comment addresses forest management, not travel management, so even if it had been done in time, it still wouldn’t give the commission standing to object now.

It’s also great to see her point to the fact that Chilcott and Iman were both on the commission in 2009 and didn’t offer comment at that time, but chose not to.

All of this points out, once again, that this board of commissioners is not forward thinking. They react to things. They don’t look ahead. They have no plan for the future. All they can do is react to things as they come. Instead of planning ahead and working to move the county in a specific direction, they’re content to just drift along and let the current take the county where it will. This is no way to govern and it’s hurting the county the longer it goes on.


Special treatment for Burrows

The current commissioners are fond of stating their political beliefs hold that a person should take personal responsibility for their actions and not receive special treatment from the government. That’s their belief anyway unless they are the people that want special treatment.

Jeff Burrows recently received some of that special treatment from his fellow Republican commissioners.

Several years ago, Burrows was appointed to fill the vacated seat of Matt Kanenwisher. At the time, Burrows elected to not join the state pension plan. The problem he’s stuck with now however is that once you decline it, you don’t get another chance to get in later. He made a choice, knowing that you only get one opportunity, and, according to his political philosophy, should accept the consequences. He’d just have to set up his own, private, retirement account separate from the county’s plan.

That’s not how it played out though. First, Burrows asked all of the county’s legislators to go to the Legislature and change the rules, thus allowing him to get in on that pension plan. When that didn’t work, he got his commissioner buddies to set up a way for him to get in  on a county-sponsored retirement plan just for him! While he did recuse himself from the vote, there really wasn’t a need as all four of his buddies voted to do him this favor.

This act shows how little Burrows really believes in his political philosophy. He’s just in it to get what he can for himself. His $60k-plus salary plus full benefits isn’t enough, he’s got to have as much as he can. He wasn’t interested in taking responsibility for his mistakes. He was interested in getting as much out of the taxpayers as he can.

This is the problem with a homogenous board of commissioners. They quietly slip this one through when no one is looking and help their buddy take more money from the people, knowing they’ll get the same treatment when they need it later.