HOW TO RUN A VILLAGE 101

Last night’s Valier town council meeting, was displaced from Thursday to Tuesday in order to accommodate the newest council member, fearless sheriff’s deputy Shannon Gabbard, because he had a schedule conflict. Of the two remaining vacancies, one was filled last night by Velda Loch, the previous mayor. No one applied for the last vacancy. Reluctance to serve either on the council or as mayor has been at the heart of the difficulty. The biggest problem is getting everyone “into the room.” Though there were more people present than usual, not all factions were represented.

The regular meeting was preceded by a “training session” led by two men: Dan Clark of the Local Government Center at MSU http://www.msulocalgov.org/ Dan Clark (daniel.clark@montana.edu). In 1993, the Montana State Legislature formally established the mission of the Center to "strengthen the capacities of Montana's local governmental units to deliver essential services efficiently and to provide training, technical assistance, and research to local officials" (MCA 20-25-237). Dan has been the mayor of Choteau, a bigger, more prosperous and more sophisticated community nearby. His background is teaching and agriculture. He was the carrot.

The stick was, Alan Hulse from the the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority. He can be contacted through the website:

http://www.mmia.net/about_admin_staff.asp The MMIA explains itself this way: “The availability and affordability of insurance is cyclical. In the mid 1980’s, the cycle hardened. Government agencies across the country were experiencing incredible rate increases or were cancelled all together. This “hard market” was driven by unfavorable loss experience and a sour national/international economy.

“This crisis hit Montana hard in the mid 1980’s. Many of our cities and towns were cancelled or unable to obtain affordable liability insurance. In response to this crisis, the Montana League of Cities and Towns Insurance Trust (MLCT) was created. Conventional insurance markets were unable to help. After researching the options, the evidence suggested pooling provided a device whereby government could take back control of the management of its insurance needs.”

Hulse’s background seems to be law enforcement education. The bottom line is that either town councils go by the “handbook” (the Montana Code) or not, but if they do anything illegal, the “insurance” will dump them out. Both men admitted that there are many decisions that are in gray areas or where the law is unjust or where it just doesn’t fit or give enough detail. If the state judiciary reviews the situation and finds the town council at fault according to the law, again they are dumped out. NOT insured. This begins to explain why sensible businessmen are home watching television.

If brave people come to serve their community in spite of the risks, this is the way it works.

1. Montana has a constitution which governs all else. It is, like every good constitution, based more on principle than detail. This constitution is revised every thirty years and we’re almost to the deadline to convene a new convention. This is necessary because values change, the world changes.

2. We are now operating under a constitution that was written in 1973. Since then it has accumulated many commentaries and legal precedents. (This practice goes back to Torah, people!) Often one sentence in the constitution will have 35 pages of explanation, comment, and definitions. (Watch those definitions!)

This is online or can be acquired on paper as a bound book or on a CD. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/index.htm Title 7 specifically addresses town governance.

3. The Montana Legislature also has things to add or change or explain.

4. Administrative rules add another layer of guidance and interpretation.

5. Montana Supreme Court decisions develop over time, particularly arising from communities where there is contention. (Butte, Troy, Libby, Missoula)

In short, there is a handbook for managing towns but it is a living document that breathes and grows and keeps all the lawyers busy (at $200 an hour) as well as costing the taxpayers huge amounts of money if the council steers them wrong. For instance, one town quarreled over whether to pay their water upgrade contractors, which meant they were sued for the original payment plus every kind of damages and necessary recompense the contractor could think of. (Valier is in the middle of just such an upgrade project. It is contentious, partly because of the switch-over to a metered water bill system.) Again, if the town is at fault, the MMPI will not pay for lawyers or insure the damage award.

The town council handbook does not provide one-size-fits-all patterns, but gives one big choice (whether to accept one of the provided systems or to devise one creatively) and seven small choices. In the specific recipe Valier has chosen, the mayor is elected, appoints officers with the consent of the council, but can fire without consultation. The council cannot fire the mayor nor can the mayor fire the council members. Most MMPI claims arise out of employment: unjustified dismissal, hostile workplace environment, unsafe conditions, working outside one’s scope and so on. This explains why the three-person Valier employee force is so interested.

Dan’s basic message was that the executive/legislative/judicial separation of powers is MEANT to allow friction (politely called tension) and it should, BUT that friction should be creative rather than destructive or paralyzing. Finding that vibe is not easy, but clarity of goals (especially when budgeting), appointment of committees (politely called task forces) who can spend the necessary time (often years!!), and operating as a Body Politic with inclusion, diversity, and transparency will build the kind of trust that makes a town livable. (Title 2 contains the Montana Code of Ethics, which speaks to such matters as conflicts of interest, nepotism and so on.)

This sort of thinking is crucial because as populations move around the country and the economics of the whole planet change, the small towns who operated by the seats of their pants (everything going smoothly because everything stays the same) are disrupted by people moving into their communities who do NOT share the same values, who do NOT understand the systems, who want to do everything the way they are used to doing it. (The formerly Seattleite mayor wants to “post” meetings by putting them on a website and “distribute” minutes by emailing them. She is unaware of how few people in this town use computers for daily business.) The local people WANT growth, but they wrongly assume that new residents will want to conform to what’s already there.

After the trainers had left, the regular meeting did the usual thing but a number of people were there to find out specifics about the water system. The “trouble shooter” for the contractor gave us mixed messages, which was the theme of the evening. Bottom line: we’re doing the best we can, but there are no guarantees.