Commissioner questions transparency of letters

A Flathead County commissioner is questioning the handling of letters sent by other commissioners to state legislators and officials in opposition to the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes water compact.

Commissioner Gary Krueger has taken issue with what he calls a lack of transparency in the public process, something Commissioner Phil Mitchell had promised in his campaign for the office last year.

Krueger cites a draft letter addressed to Gov. Steve Bullock and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Mitchell, in which Mitchell states “we believe that you may have misunderstood the questions, intent and concerns expressed by our letter.”

Mitchell was referring to a letter sent to the governor and Attorney General Tim Fox on Jan. 8 that expressed the opposition of Mitchell and Commissioner Pam Holmquist to the water compact. Krueger supports the compact and opposed sending that letter to state officials.

Throughout Mitchell’s letter, which the Senate Judiciary Committee received Feb. 16, Mitchell used the terms “we” and “our.” Mitchell, however, was the only commissioner who signed the draft letter, and the letter was not discussed during county commission proceedings.

Krueger also cites a one-line correspondence sent March 16 reaffirming the commissioners’ opposition to Senate Bill 262, the revised water compact bill. He maintains both letters should have been discussed in a public format, especially considering the importance of the matter.

“This is doing things outside of public view,” Krueger said. “It isn’t the way you do things in government. The transparency Commissioner Mitchell spoke of (during his campaign) is gone.”

Mitchell, however, said he believes he has conducted county business with “100 percent” transparency. He conceded, however, that he “probably should have rewritten” the draft letter to reflect it was from him speaking as an individual commissioner. He said time was of the essence when he sent the draft, which was not written on county stationery.

“I have rewritten that letter, and it is going to the House Judiciary Committee,” Mitchell said Monday. “It’s the same letter, more or less, taking out the ‘we’s.’”

Mitchell said Kate Vandemoer, president and chief executive officer of Watershed Resources Inc., a consultant to the compact opposition, and former Republican state Sen. Verdell Jackson helped him draft the letter.

“I want to do my job,” Mitchell said, adding that he believes he has the right as an individual commissioner to express his views on proposed legislation.

Harold Blattie, executive director of the Montana Association of Counties, said individual commissioners have the authority to correspond with legislators or state officials if it is clear the correspondence does not represent the entire commission.

“An individual commissioner does not forfeit their right of free speech and the ability to represent something they want to represent,” Blattie said. “We recommend if there’s going to be a representation of the Board of Commissioners supporting something or doing something, or sending a letter to someone, that nothing leaves the office being represented by the board without at least two signatures.”

The long-standing procedure for Flathead County commissioners to sign letters in support or opposition of state legislation has been to put any letter drafted by either a commissioner or the county administrator in a folder and provide each commissioner an opportunity to sign it, Holmquist explained.

Former Commissioner Dale Lauman said he and his fellow commissioners wrote letters of support for bills without putting them on the agenda, but he also agreed the crux of the issue defining those matters of public significance that warrant full commission discussion.

Blattie agreed.

“If it’s a matter of public significance, you’re darn right that needs to be publicly discussed,” Blattie said, “especially if they (the commissioners) are changing their position.”

Krueger argued that the proposed water compact is truly a matter of public significance, and that Flathead County’s actions — even to reiterate its position on the compact — rises to that level of significance.

When Holmquist and Mitchell reversed the commission’s earlier vote of support for the water compact, the matter was on the agenda and a vote was taken to send a letter to state officials opposed the compact.

Krueger faulted his fellow commissioners, though, for sending a letter opposing the water compact to state officials in January without the Flathead County Attorney’s Office first reviewing it.

Flathead County deputy county attorney Tara Fugina confirmed she did not review a copy of the latest letter reaffirming the county’s opposition to Senate Bill 262. She said she doesn’t know how common it is for the commissioners to send such letters.

“What I’m hearing is our office never sees those,” Fugina said.

In a related matter, Krueger said Flathead County commissioners were asked by another county to weigh in on House Bill 496, which would establish a task force to study the feasibility of the state assuming ownership or management responsibility for federal lands in Montana.

Holmquist and Mitchell signed a letter supporting the bill. Mitchell maintains Krueger “sat on it for a few days,” and by the time Krueger addressed the letter, the bill already had been tabled in committee. The letter was sent after the fact with the support of Mitchell and Holmquist.

Krueger said discussion on HB 496 was significant enough that it should have been put on the agenda.

Mitchell disagreed, saying he was elected by a large margin and he campaigned on the federal lands issue.

“I’m doing what I said I would do,” he said. “If that doesn’t fit in Gary’s purview, are we doing stuff behind the back? No.”

Mitchell also noted that Fugina advised him that she doesn’t have to review letters regarding legislative matters unless the commissioners are asking for legal advice.