There we were at the last fundraiser.  Counting money!  It was a favorite post-party past time for me, figuring out what would be available to spend, thinking about the generosity of people that believed enough in me to contribute money to help in my election.  Elsie, age nine, was sitting quietly, watching this process, three strangers and her parents standing around announcing figures, trying to add up the total in their head.  She wanted to be part of it, so she started writing down the figures and actually made the final calculation.  A success!!  Conversation then turned to the maximum donation ($160.00) and who had been able to donate that much.  Then, Elsie asked, “Is there a minimum?”  Without thinking, I said that really, no, there was no minimum, maybe one dollar.  We adults continued on with our conversation, not noticing that Elsie had slipped off to places unknown.  As we were carrying leftover food and literature how to the car, Elsie appeared.  “I’d like to give this to you—for the election.”  It was two dollars, presumably from her piggy bank.  More than the minimum.

I cried.

And I thought.  O my god, all of these people, like Elsie are giving that extra, dollar, time, work for my campaign.  I better win—for them.  And I better do a good job, when I get elected.

The ballots are out.  Now, is the time to sit down and VOTE. This will help us with our Get Out the Vote drive which will make a difference in the outcome.  So, the sooner you and others vote, the better our chances are.  Right now I am feeling good, but the last thing that I need is for anyone to think that this race is won.  We need to work hard until the end and everyone of our supporters needs to VOTE.

Remember to keep a Commission that is balanced and reflective of the ideas of our Bozeman community we need to elect Carson Taylor, Chris Mehl and Sean Becker.  The quality of our life and our community are in large part due to the careful planning that has resulted in a vibrant downtown, distinct and interesting neighborhoods, great schools, our trails and parks, our natural environment and a community that embraces volunteerism and involvement.  The focus groups of residents that built the Community Plan (formerly 2020 plan) and our citizen advisory boards are an important part of shaping the character of our community.  Virtually everyone says that Bozeman is a great place to live.  Some candidates are talking about abolishing some of the important Citizen Advisory Boards.  This is not a time to dismantle the processes that have served us so well in the past.  The only candidates that stand for a balanced approach to reform and continued growth are Taylor, Mehl and Becker.

We are reaching a point where conservation efforts are not only environmentally important, but where they can save us all some hard earned money.  As the City grows the demand for treated—-drinkable—water will soon push our present capacity to its limits.  In planning for the future the City has begun to think about purchasing more water rights and/or building a dam.  Both of those solutions will cost taxpayers a lot of money.  On the other hand, if we could lower our consumption of treated water, we would save ourselves the expense—at least until there are more of us to share the expense.

 One easy way to consume less water is to use less treated water in acts that do not require safe, drinkable water.  Landscaping and toilet flushing are the most obvious unnecessary uses of treated water.  The City has a voluntary rebate program for toilets, but few know about it and fewer use it.  The fact is that if every regular flush toilet in the city were exchanged for the new low flush models we could cut our annual water consumption by about 10%-15%.  (I do not know the precise figure because new houses all are required to use the low flush models, and I don’t have figures for how many households are new enough.)  The advantage to the low flush toilet solution is that once they are installed, the treated water is saved—without any further thought by consumers.  There are also showerheads that use less water, although I am not certain as to what those figures are. 

 The point of all of this is that we could save ourselves some money if we could get serious about conservation.  What do you think the City’s role should be here?  Voluntary, at least the present plan, isn’t working.  Should the City be more aggressive? How?

I think that there is an underlying philosophical question in most of the current discussions about the City.  That question involves what are appropriate functions of government, and what is inappropriate public intrusion into the private sector. One way to start this discussion is to see where there can be general agreement.  I think we can all agree that police, fire, sewer and water, and roadways are appropriate city functions, and I think that we can agree on that because those actions have been performed by government traditionally, because city government is uniquely qualified to perform those functions, and because they would probably not be done by private enterprise (although there are some notable examples of private enterprises building roadways for profit).  They are all areas where competition between private companies would more likely create problems than solve them.  We can also agree, I think, that city government ought not to create and run restaurants, stores.  Cities ought not run farms, manufacturing businesses, and they should not become land developers.  Why can we agree on the above?  I think because those are functions that are not typically done by government and they are things that are best done by private enterprise—in part because competition may create better and more efficient results for the community at large.  So, the real question is where does the line get drawn?  Should there be a public library?  I think, yes—in part because it is a traditional city function, because it benefits the community at large, and because it is unlikely that private enterprise would do it.  Once we get to trash hauling and recycling the answers are not as easy to come by—but I think the questions are the same.  Is it a traditional function?  Is it best done by a private or public entity?  Would it be done otherwise?

It would be easy to second guess Commissions of the past on their actions regarding the Story Mansion.  Regardless of what one thinks about its purchase by  the City, the planning, or lack thereof, that went  before the purchase, or the importance of historic preservation, the situation has to be considered in light of  present day reality.

At present the City owns the Story Mansion and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been used to renovate it as a public building (large public bathrooms, handicap access and design for a future elevator).   The bottom two floors look great and the rehabilitation includes an infrastructure that will support the renovation of the upper two floors.  Groups are renting the building and the base out of pocket cost of running the building is less than $40,000. per year.  In all probability that expense can be more than met through rental fees.  By a 4-1 vote the present City Commission has agreed to keep the building, if $391,000. in donations can be raised by January 2011.  Devotees of historic preservation are working through a tax deductible charitable foundation, The Friends of the Story, Inc., to raise that money, and the response of the public, despite a tough economy, looks promising.  There is no practical reason to act in any way other than to support the Commission’s plan.

Some candidates are saying that we should sell the Story Mansion.  In the present economy, the real value of this asset would not be realized.  City regulations require property to be sold at 90% of appraised value, not a likely amount to be offered in these times.  While there is no current appraisal, close to $3,000,000. has been invested in the property by the City, and $3,000,000. is the figure being used as a value by those that are talking about selling.  What is the rush?  The property, is a valuable asset for the City.  If the Mansion becomes too great of a burden, it is better sold in a good economy.  I submit that those that promote selling it now are allowing frustration to cloud their judgment.  Suffice it to say that despite rumors to the contrary no one has ever offered to buy the Story Mansion for a figure that is within 50% of its present value. 

Those that are frustrated by this situation need to temper the frustration with the understanding that the renovation cannot be undone.    One of the reasons that we got to this point, I think, is that this highly controversial purchase (Buy the Story to save it!) has never had the full support of the Commission and the community in any decision—whether to buy it, sell it, renovate it, or use it.  We cannot continue this way and take any of the above actions successfully.  I suggest that we, as a community, need to get behind he Commission’s Plan and see it through.  Only then can we develop a balanced view of the Story. 

Three other things are worth mentioning.  The community attitude toward the Story has gone through two changes since the purchase in 2003.  First, no one is now saying that the preservation of the Story Mansion is not a good thing.  The arguments are all about whether or not it should be saved in public hands or private hands.  Secondly, no one is asserting that the City should purchase other historically important property for the purpose of preserving it.   Third, there is some controversy about the City competing with private enterprise.  The primary argument is that by renting the Story for weddings the City is competing with other local businesses for the top-of-the-line wedding market.  There is presently no other private wedding business with a building of historic significance as its site.  There are businesses that offer wedding facilities and outdoor venues with incredible views.  I don’t see where there is competition between these very different wedding experiences.  Looked at another way, if the Mansion were sold, we would be depriving people of the opportunity to come to Gallatin County because they want to be married in a beautiful old building. 

At present the Story Mansion is seen as a City Park, perhaps an upscale Lindley Park or Beall Park.  To the extent that it is a “business” it involves rental for specific use.  There are no services (no food, no power point projectors, etc.) provided for the rentals.  Eventually, the Story Mansion may become a long term leasing area for non-profit business (There has been discussion of the Humanities Institute (MSU) leasing and renovating the second floor.)  But, this would hardly qualify as a threat to local for profit businesses.

I would like to hear other and contrary ideas on this issue.  I recognize that my opinions are nothing more than that—opinions.

On July 6, Chris Mehl suggested that all candidates agree to post, on their websites, their completed responses to issue surveys received by various groups. I think this is a good idea and I will do so.

The City should not have been asking prospective employees for passwords or access to their personal website groups (Facebook, etc.).

Any intrusion into an employee’s or potential employee’s privacy needs a strong justification. Before such an intrusion several questions should have been asked and answered. What important information did the City think it would gain from reviewing personal Internet networking sites? Could the same information have been gained elsewhere, less intrusively? Will the policy materially affect the employee pool of applicants or acceptees? What does the policy say about the kind of employer the City will be? Is there potential legal liability in the future? If it can be competently proven that the City is using the personal Internet policy to avoid discrimination laws (to find out religious affiliation, find out national origin, etc.), then there is great potential liability in the policy. If we were the only City in the country that was doing this, should we have wondered why?

Beyond the policy one also must ask how it was implemented without the apparent knowledge of any City Commissioners. Should this kind of policy be considered by the City Commission before implementation? YES!!!! Why wasn’t it? There is the issue of how much the Commission needs to micromanage how the City is run. The “Facebook” issue has the unfortunate consequence of forcing the Commission to look deeper into details of managing the City. The situation could have been avoided through better communication. I would think that the hiring city employees would have know that the implementation of such a policy was controversial and that it should be cleared by the Commission. Most importantly, what can be done to prevent this situation, or a similar one from occurring again?

At the recent School Board meeting I announced my intent to run for the City Commission, and I was pleased to receive encouragement from fellow School Board trustees Sarah Glover and Denise Hayman.

Read the details here in the Chronicle