Creating a public forum

Here at the Whitefish Pilot, we consider one of the jobs of newspapers to be creating a forum for discussion on important local issues.

Hot topics of late have been alcohol use and increased enforcement by police — and two op-ed pieces on this page attest to that.

We don't support some of the public comment we have put in print on these issues. The point was to open up dialogue and to alert the public to significant changes in city policy.

And Whitefish Police Chief Bill Dial has done a good job in responding to these comments we put in print.

The first time this came up was in our Sept. 8 issue when we printed the results of a city survey intended to measure the public's opinion on police enforcement. The results of the survey were contradictory, and we thought that was obvious in the article.

More than half of city respondents said the level of traffic enforcement had improved. When asked about the current level of traffic enforcement, about half the city respondents said it wasn't strict enough and about a third said it was about right.

So it looked like the residents of Whitefish favored what Whitefish police were doing — but the personal comments didn't reflect that. While they wanted dangerous drivers stopped, they didn't want the police to bother them personally.

Some of the comments were simply outrageous — there were allegations of conspiracies by police officers to entrap speeders, and one resident defended the right to drive faster than the speed limit after 10 p.m.

Chief Dial responded to the Pilot's article on the survey the following week. Besides providing a good, accurate description of the police department's operations — complete with statistics — he addressed the general allegations of improper or unethical behavior by police.

"Law enforcement is closely scrutinized by the public and the media and should be, since we possess the legal ability to take away your liberty and freedom," he wrote. "Many perceptions are fueled by rumor, speculation and inaccuracies."

The issue of alcohol use in Whitefish reached near-fever pitch this year because of two major city policy changes — the annexation of Whitefish Lake meant enforcement of the city's open-container ordinance would extend to boaters, and the fine for open containers increased from $65 to $250.

In a well-publicized 4-3 vote, the city council amended the open-container ordinance to allow boaters to drink — but only after councilors and city staff reported hearing more public comment on the lake issue than on any other in their memory.

Police, city staff and the city judge cited safety and health issues downtown when increasing the open-container fine to $250. Citations for DUIs have more than doubled since 2004, and unruly behavior on Central Ave. at bar-closing time became commonplace during the summer.

The biggest issue, according to City Judge Brad Johnson and Chief Dial, was bottles and cans being thrown at people, but there were also reports of vandalism, littering, public urination and fights.

The problem is that the city had gained a reputation in the Flathead as a place to drink and get rowdy — it was on a slippery slope and the city felt it had to respond.

Not everyone agrees the city's response is warranted. We've heard numerous comments by bar patrons and bar employees who feel the response is overkill. And for that reason, the newspaper felt it was a good idea to get this issue out front and debated.

There's another reason for devoting some extra editorial space to this topic — Whitefish is a seasonal resort town. Many of the summertime residents who learned about the escalated enforcement left this fall and were replaced by new residents — skiers and snowboarders. These people need to know what's going on.

Quite a few readers have expressed anger about how we've presented this issue. Some apparently believe we've unfairly taken sides.

So to set the story straight, here's our take on the situation — look at the police statistics. Alcohol-related enforcement is on the rise. Nobody has the right to break the law. And the city has a right to change the law and to enforce it when it believes safety and health is endangered.