Misrepresented

I am writing to express my disappointment with the Northwest Montana Bar Association for failing to properly inform the public about the upcoming Whitefish City Judge candidates debate.

On Sept. 30, I was approached by a member of the bar association and asked if I would consider participating in a debate with my opponent.

On Oct. 2, I informed that attorney that I respectfully declined as I had a prior engagement and preferred keeping my campaign agenda on a more personal level with the voters. I asked the attorney to please relay my message to the members of the bar association.

I received a telephone call from Daniel Wilson, president of the bar association, and again asked if I would participate in a debate. I informed Wilson that I declined and gave him my reason. I trusted that these attorneys would respect my decision.

I again on Oct. 12, through e-mail to both attorneys, reiterated my decision to decline and my reason, asking that they respect my decision. I believed that they would respect my decision.

I received a formal written invitation from Wilson on Oct. 14. He noted that I had declined in his invitation and asked that I reconsider, or in the event that I had a prior engagement, submit a written "position statement" to be read at the debate.

I submitted my written statement. I also wondered to myself how many times do I need to restate my decision to Wilson.

On Oct. 14, an announcement was printed in the Whitefish Pilot through information provided by the bar association that a Whitefish City Judge candidates debate would take place on Oct. 19.

The announcement suggested to the public that both candidates would be present. The announcement did not state that I had formerly declined.

Wilson was well aware that I would not be present at the debate. I feel that, in fairness to the public, to the other members of the bar association and to me, Wilson should have informed the news media that I declined their invitation.

I strongly believe that as a judge it is very important to keep the public trust and sense of integrity in the justice system. Properly informing the general public of the true and correct facts helps keep that public trust.

I will not let myself be influenced or pressured by any outside source, not now and not in the courtroom.

Valarie Eve

Whitefish

Needs to show up

As president of the Northwest Montana Bar Association, I write in response to Valarie Eve's letter expressing her disappointment.

Eve takes the position that the public has been misinformed by the bar association about the debate. Specifically, she complains that an announcement provided by the bar association and printed in the Whitefish Pilot wrongfully implies that she would attend a judge's debate sponsored by the bar association.

Let's focus on the real issue here. Eve is running for a public office. The bar association authorized me, as president, to host a public forum where the candidates for the Whitefish City Judge position could address the voters and answer questions concerning their qualifications and their knowledge of the law. Encouraging public debate by candidates for public office is nothing sinister or new in this country. Plain and simple, public debate is the foundation of democracy.

I respect Eve's wishes. Whether she decides to show up and debate her opponent rather than conducting a personal campaign, as she puts it, is entirely her choice. All along, I have urged her to submit a written statement about her candidacy to be read at the debate if she chooses not to attend in person. On Monday of this week, I was informed that Eve would submit a written statement.

Finally, the announcement printed in the Pilot did not misinform the public by implying that Eve would attend. If we had posted an announcement that she would not be attending the debate, and then she changed her mind, she would criticize the bar association for that decision.

The invitation to Eve to participate in the debate was held open until the beginning of the debate. The choice was hers, and the opportunity to appear in public was to be held open until the last moment. Now she has decided to go public with her decision not to engage in public debate. Again, it is her choice.

Daniel R. Wilson

Kalispell

Brick wall

Last week, the Whitefish Pilot printed an "In My View" opinion article concerning the city of Whitefish and the city court. The writer stated that a serious issue arose in 2003 because of a memorandum circulated to the city court by Mike Eve, the city's finance director. The writer states that the memo specified a dollar amount or "revenue goal" that the court was to achieve from fines it levied.

I am sure that the writer was sincere in his understanding of the situation. However, as city manager, I can assure him and the entire community that no one on my staff, including Eve, sets revenue goals for the city court.

The "memo" referred to by the writer was not a memo but a finance report generated from the city's standardized accounting system. The revenue report, which has been apparently misinterpreted to be a "memo" from Eve, merely shows how much revenue has been collected along with the revenue estimates adopted as part of the city budget by the city council.

State statutes require the city to maintain a record of revenues collected and the source from which they were collected. It is also a generally accepted accounting practice to report actual revenue collections along with amounts estimated in the annual budget.

Revenue and expenditure reports are circulated to the various city departments on a monthly basis so that department directors can better manage their departmental budgets. In the case of the city court, there was no intent from the city's administration that the report be regarded in any way as a "revenue goal" for the court.

The city's administration, Eve included, understands and supports the necessity for the court to administer justice without regard to revenue consequences to the city.

Gary B. Marks

Whitefish City Manager