Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Great Falls Mayor Donna Stebbins Offered Choice to Resign or Face Recall

Last night I sat through what had to be one of the poorest examples of representing citizens at a city meeting it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

I also observed a stellar example of why Mayor Donna Stebbins, two commissioners (Beecher and Rosenbaum), the City Manager, John Lawton, Police Chief Grove and shelter director, Jamie Bennett, were asked to tender their resignations by this morning or face a recall by the citizens of Great Falls which would commence at the end of this week.

Montana allows for a recall for a limited number of reasons. Two being pertinent to this discussion: violation of the oath of office and official misconduct. Ladies and gentlemen, they were apparent in spades last night.

The room was packed with local firemen, a Missoula fire chief, paramedics, local ambulance company representatives, a gentleman straight from a corporation in South Africa, boy scouts, animal shelter crisis people, airport authority issue people, a Cable 7 supporter, and at least one television camera (other than cable 7) and Richard Ecke of the GF Tribune.

Correct me please, as I only have the on-line Trib version, but I saw no coverage of 5 people's request for resignation or recall reported in the newspaper this morning.

Two new commissioners were seated last night, Bill Bronson, who gave every indication he's a party-line man with his unwavering support of whatever the old regime required, and Mary Jolley, the only Commissioner who questioned anything and whose questions showed just how out of skew this entire shell-game has become.

And let me tell you, it IS a shell-game.

Today's Tribune, in Opinion, had this statement, "What is not needed or justified is a campaign for recall of city commissioners or, worse, a boycott of an unrelated foundation's fundraising efforts. "

The Tribune is sorely remiss in the one job they exist to do - to report news. This shows where the paper is aligned. This shows where they receive their bread and butter. This shows they present ONLY the news that is "approved by committee." They censor. They filter. They decide what you hear.

The Tribune did NOT report a request by 5 citizens for resignations of the above entities and failing that, the inception of a recall by citizens.

By saying there will always be problems with the animal issue they have given it tacit approval.
They are saying, in short, "There's always been an animal problem. There will always be an animal problem. Why address it? Learn to live with it because it won't change. And keep giving your money to entities which WE endorse, that won't do anything to change it."

Do it our way. The way we approve, through the Animal Foundation, Spay of the Falls, etc., just not YOUR way. YOUR way is not to be borne. YOU are not legitimate. YOU are not US.

This is the exact ideology and intent which demonstrates the penchant to take anyone's money, but decides that the animal activists who voice concern over actual care and life and death of animals are of no consequence, not worthy of acknowledgement and that the concern they voice for the animals is of no importance.

We actually find ourselves in the exact position that the animals we care about are in...the animals are of no importance to them. WE are of no importance to them.

The Trib cries, "It's not that animal suffering is less important than human suffering; it's that people seem to get more worked up about pain among animals than about pain among fellow humans."

This is because the animals cannot file the paperwork for recall or blog to protect themselves. They have no recourse to fight back. WE can on their behalf.


7 comments:

GeeGuy said...

"Two being pertinent to this discussion: violation of the oath of office and official misconduct. Ladies and gentlemen, they were apparent in spades last night."

Like...?

mt vista said...

Susan - I totally agree. I couldn't believe what was published (or what wasn't) in the Trib. today. Your assessment is accurate.

Mary Jolley was awesome. She was the only one who actually questioned anything, and saw the whole ambulance ordinance for what it was.

Thanks, Susan. We'll hope for some positive action out of this mess.

Overfield Kennel said...

City Charter

Section 2 - Open Government

and here - Code of Ethics

2.52.020 Findings.
A. Public office and employment are a public trust;
B. The vitality and stability of representative democracy depends upon the public's confidence in
the integrity of its elected and appointed representatives;
C. Governments have the duty both to provide their citizens with standards by which they may
determine whether public duties are being faithfully performed, and to appraise their officers and employees
of the behavior which is expected of them while conducting such duties.

In just that meeting, a report showed up in the Commission meeting itself that Jolley had to ask where it came from. Reply - we had it, we just didn't get it to you in time.
This is not the first time documents have failed to reach the Commissioners on city issues.

Stebbins went straight to vote on items and was called to task by Jolley who reminded her of the step which asked if there was discussion by Commissioners on the item on the table. The vote was already made and Stebbins had to back up to allow Jolley to make statements and ask questions.

This is the normal SOP for Stebbins and the Commission. I would think, as do many others, that failure to run the meeting in the correct manner, not once, but repeatedly over time constitutes misconduct (as you yourself pointed out last year - from April on there wasn't a dissenting vote on the Commission.)
It would also fall under violation of oath as it is not upholding the intent nor the duties of her office. Dona just steamrolls ahead on issues she wants.

GeeGuy said...

Fair enough.

While I don't necessarily agree that a Commissioner should or shouldn't be recalled for failure to follow Robert's Rules of Order, if you would have included those suggestions in your original post I would not have asked the question.

Bandit said...

I have a feeling the mayor and fellow commissioners, city administration inc. will do their best to isolate Mary on the issues. An attempt to embarrass and spay so to say.

Big mistake.

Sunni said...

I think the next time we vote for a mayor, someone should do unofficial polls before the election to see what the citizens are thinking. That way a person can change their vote for a candidate before election day. I voted for a certain mayoral candidate but would have changed my vote accordingly had I thought there was a chance we would not have a new mayor. There were so many candidates last time not once did I think about the chance that the votes would be divided between all of them and Great Falls would be stuck with the same mayor. I admit that I voted for the mayor the first time she ran. It did not take me long to figure out that I had made a huge mistake. She was nothing like I thought she was. I found this out through her actions and comments.
Since I was unable to attend the Town Hall meeting the other night, I have been waiting to hear how it went. Any comments?

Overfield Kennel said...

Hey, G: I gave a short, generalized answer. But, the truth is I don't have the time to list everything we've collected. I don't have time to list the complaints by citizens.

It would take me as long to list them as it did for them to commit the acts