Transparency questioned in water compact letters

Flathead County’s handling of letters sent to state legislators and officials in opposition to the proposed tribal water compact has prompted Commissioner Gary Krueger to take issue with what he says is a lack of transparency in the public process.

Krueger referred to two different letters sent recently to make his point.

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

Mitchell was referring to a letter sent Jan. 8 to the governor and Attorney General Tim Fox, expressing the opposition of Commissioner Pam Holmquist and Mitchell to the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ reserved water rights compact. Krueger supports the compact and opposed the letter to state officials.

Throughout Mitchell’s draft letter, received by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 16, he uses the terms “we” and “our,” yet Mitchell alone signed the draft letter. The letter also was not discussed during commission proceedings.

The other letter Krueger noted was a March 16 one-line correspondence, reaffirming the commissioners’ opposition to Senate Bill 262, the revised water compact.

Krueger maintains both letters should have been discussed in a public format, given the public significance of the water compact.

“The significant public interest is the benchmark” for putting items on the commissioners’ agenda, Krueger asserted. “This is doing things outside of public view ... it isn’t the way you do things in government. The transparency Commissioner Mitchell spoke of [during his campaign] is gone.”

Mitchell said he believes he has conducted the county’s business with “100 percent” transparency, though he admitted he “probably should have rewritten” the draft letter to reflect it was from him 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 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 do indeed 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,” Blattie said.

The longstanding procedure for Flathead County commissioners to sign letters in support or opposition of state legislation has been to have a letter drafted by either a commissioner or the county administrator, put the letter in a folder and have each commissioner sign it, Holmquist explained. Often the commissioners are under time deadlines to weigh in on proposed bills, she added.

County Administrator Mike Pence said Flathead County uses this same general procedure for various letters of support. He said a letter supporting a Montana West Economic Development project would be one example.

There are times, though, when legislative issues rise to the level of full commission discussion, Pence said.

“If something is of significant public interest, we try to put those on the agenda; we’d want to put those on the agenda,” Pence said.

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,” Blatte said, “especially if they (the commissioners) are changing their position.”

And, Blattie added, the amount of public notice and participation need to be in direct relationship to the public’s interest.

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 County Attorney’s Office first reviewing it.

Flathead County Deputy County Attorney Tara Fugina confirmed she also 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, legislation that would establish a task force to study the feasibility of the state assuming ownership or management responsibility for federal lands in Montana.

Once again Holmquist and Mitchell opted to sign a letter supporting the bill. Mitchell maintained 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 again alleged the discussion on House Bill 496 was significant enough to put on the agenda.

Mitchell countered, saying “part of this has to do with that, in a nutshell, I was elected by a large margin. This [House Bill 496] is a lands issue. I’m doing what I said I would do. If that doesn’t fit in Gary’s purview, are we doing stuff behind the back? No.”

Mitchell further said he was advised by Fugina that she doesn’t have to review letters regarding legislative matters unless the commissioners are asking for legal advice.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.