Skees defends his work in Helena

Editor’s note: The following is a response by Rep. Derek Skees to an opinion piece by Matthew Bussard published in the March 9 Whitefish Pilot.

I must disagree with most of what you wrote. It is a shame that you didn’t attempt to communicate with me about your concerns before you printed your suppositions. In light of this, it has been suggested, sir, that you didn’t write the letter to question me or gain my input but rather to air out your political bias against my performance.

I am saddened by the ignorance displayed regarding what I am doing here. I assume part of the responsibility for not getting you the data needed to come to a fair conclusion.

I would, however, like to attempt to address some of your concerns in the hope that you are actually just seeking clarification:

1) I do not understand the reference to development of private land without land-owner consent. Please clarify further which bill this is in reference to, as I have always voted to protect and enhance property rights, and always will (e.g. House Bill 198).

2) The “disturbing bill” regarding guns in schools was drafted by Rep. Jerry O’Neil, R-Columbia Falls, using one of my extra reserved slots (he had used all of his). This was his issue in Columbia Falls, and I never signed for it nor carried it.

A little research would have been sufficient to determine this, as well as reading further on the www.leg.mt.gov Web site.

3) The tax you asserted to be on the private property owner was actually designed to be on the transfer of the easement to the federal government and would have been paid by the transferring authority (for example, the Nature Conservancy, which has been estimated to have earned more than $3 billion in transfers of this sort, tax free due to a not-for-profit organization exemption).

This was a constituent’s bill draft and idea, yet after discussion with the conservation folks and the pressures of time, I decided not to continue the draft.

4) I have always been a proponent of consolidating the school administrative units of this state, as we are second from the bottom in the nation in terms of schools per district (1.9). I am also an advocate for delegating many of the responsibilities of the Montana Office of Public Instruction in order to allow for more local control in the districts.

I have been working with teachers and administrators in the Flathead on this issue, and we agree that these ideas could be one of the best ways to reduce the heavy overhead costs of a very large administrative unit (429 districts in the state). The money saved would allow for more money in the class rooms and increased salaries for teachers.

Many states have 200-300 schools per district, so this has easily been proven to be a possibility. I felt a study bill over the interim to discover how to do this in Montana would be the best way to get everyone to the table and see if we could do it.

5) The healthcare crisis you describe must refer to Obamacare and its impending demise from various judicial branch decisions and exemptions currently being offered to the states.

Our caucus has provided many state-based heathcare reforms, compacts and free-market solutions to offer in lieu of the federal plan, and I suggest you research the bills offered by Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, and Rep. Champ Edmund, R-Missoula, for details. We are also passing many tort-reform bills to reduce litigation costs as well.

6) Finally, I do not understand your statement ”settled over a century ago.” What was settled? States’ rights? Are you asserting that violence solved that issue? Where is that settlement written in the Constitution?

I disagree with this simplistic statement and conclusion. By extension of your logic, sir, would you suggest to the Plains Indians that the U.S. Army settled that issue more than a century ago as well?

There are many in our district and this state who have encouraged me to take a stand for them against an over-reaching and unresponsive federal government, in order to allow us to continue to determine what’s best for the citizens of this state. It is for the proper use of our taxpayer dollars that this fight needs to be waged.

Sir, I must tell you that I ran on a platform of responsible resource-gathering, job growth through regulation and state-spending reduction, increased personal freedoms and strengthening the state’s role in deciding its future in the face of federal encroachment. I was elected to office and must therefore assume that a majority want me to do these things.

I contend that I am doing everything I said I was going to do.

It is fairly obvious you never studied my positions in the campaign. I would suggest a trip to my Web site (http://derekskees.com) to view the archived stories, debates and personal mission statements. You can also see an 18-page document showing a summary of all our work to date in this session.

Yes, I won by a small margin, yet I must vote by the principles I said I would support, all of which I clearly laid out over the 10 months of the campaign.

The last sentences in your letter make for some colorful prose, but once again you have strayed from fact. You wrote correctly that all of my bills have been defeated, and I would therefore suggest what power am I drunk with?

In light of what I have tried to gain for Montana, what am I a danger to? Federal extortion using our own taxpayer dollars to seduce our state to comply with any state sovereignty-killing policy derived from an out-of-touch czar-driven federal executive branch?

I am for local control in all things and consider Montana to be the best at determining our future when compared to Washington, D.C. I have determined this conclusion through a lifetime spent in study of the founding fathers.

I have sacrificed most of my time, treasure, family and business to be a servant to you and to the ideals of freedom, self-determination and taxpayer responsibility here in Helena. I put in 12-hour days, six days a week, absorb an incredible amount of data daily, and have to be away from the wife and children I love dearly for weeks on end.

I do this willingly out of respect for my constituents and love of service to this great state. Where is the same respect from you, sir? I have always been an open book for what I represent and how I view things. A tiny bit of research on your part would have revealed this, as well as a simple attempt to discuss your concerns with me.

Hopefully, sir, this letter has answered some of your questions. I fear, however, that you already knew many of my positions on these issues and the printed letter was just an attempt to discredit me with supposition. I pray this is not true.

This is my rebuttal if that is the case. If it is not, then I am hopeful we can now begin a dialogue and come to an understanding and eventual alliance on what we both hold so very dear: the future of this “last best place.” Thank you for the precious gift of your time.

Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, represents House District 4, urban Whitefish.