Guest editorial View

County must heed democratic process of state lands charter

By Don Gaynor, Bonnie Hodges and John and Souheir Rawlings, members of Friends of Spencer Mountain

We are heartened by both the tone and the content of letters that have been recently circulated in response to questions precipitated by the actions taken in deciding the future of state educational trust lands surrounding Whitefish.

However, while it is clear that conciliatory efforts are under way (Mr. Schultz of the DNRC in his most recent letter to the Daily Inter Lake was both courageous and forthright), there are still some elements of this process that we find extremely troubling.

All parties involved have reaffirmed their commitment to the democratic process generally known as the Whitefish Area Trust Land Plan. This is a diverse group of people who bring an enormous breadth of experiences to a forum that was formed at the request of the State Land Board. The two major players in the formation of this committee were County Commissioner Mr. Gary Hall and Mayor Andy Feury of Whitefish. Through this process both the city and the county have participated as voting members of the committee. This has not been an easy process, and given the diversity of its members and the constituents that they represent, this should be expected. We embrace Mr. Schultz's eloquent statement that "democracy is supposed to be messy, and conflict is a healthy component of the human condition." Our concern is that however conflicted this process is, it must be fair, and there are some factors that cause us great worry.

The recent and ongoing negotiating between the Whitefish City Council and the County Commissioners regarding control of lands surrounding Whitefish is in direct conflict with both the charter of the Whitefish Area Trust Land Plan and the democratic process that it embraces. If Mr. Feury and his council members bend to the pressures of the county commissioners they will give complete control of these state trust lands to the county. The commissioners, in turn, categorically state that they will then exercise this control and will accept the outcome of all the efforts of the plan only on advisory terms, and that all final decisions on these lands will rest with them. The intent of the charter as adopted by the Land Board and the DNRC is to have both the City and the County approve any development proposals on these trust lands.

How, in good faith, can Mr. Hall sit on a committee knowing that at the same time he is actively politicking for a position that will enable him to ignore and negate the very charter that empowered him to serve? Does this group of commissioners really expect us to believe they know more than the committee that has worked for over a year to collect information? What studies have they conducted? How many meetings have they called to collect democratic input? What, for that matter, are their individual credentials that they would use to justify such imperialism?

Their election to office had much more to do with their political affiliations than any particular skills that they possessed, and at no time were they given unilateral powers. Are they representing the majority or the special interest here?

No matter how sensible it may seem to have a single, central authority over its surrounding lands, how can Mr. Feury and his council even consider such a proposal all the while the commissioners are planning to take such a unilateral approach? How will this in any way represent their constituents?

We have done a remarkable thing in bringing together diverse interests in a truly innovative and ground breaking process. Unless the commissioners honor their prior agreement and the democratic process of this charter, the work of hundreds of people will be negated and the public lands which contribute so much to the quality of life in Whitefish will pass out of control of its true owners.

Most of the recent conciliatory rhetoric has been aimed at assuring us that the playing field is level and fair. If, however the final decision in all of this is to be made on another playing field, this rhetoric is to no avail, and is in fact dishonest.