Guest opinion: One person's opinion by Pam Reed

Should decisions by our local county commissioners be based on fact or fiction? Should the county commissioners be given all the facts available before a decision is made or deal with the consequences of not considering all the facts at a later date?

My name is Pam Reed and in the past I have written “One Montana Opinion”. I have a blog, www.onemtopinion.blogspot.com. It’s been awhile since I’ve written but I have recently experienced actions by one of our county commissioners that, in my opinion, are alarming. With another election on the horizon, people need to take note.

As Mineral Independent’s Keith Cousins wrote about in the last issue of the paper, Commissioner Simons from the west end “misunderstood” what the county’s insurance carrier said to him. He insisted on several occasions, in public meetings and in private conversations, that the insurance company told him that our company was not to be contacted regarding the roof collapse of the county extension office/library. He insisted this was true even after he was asked by the other two commissioners for confirmation from the insurance company in writing. Written confirmation was never obtained nor was the information ever verified and decisions were pushed through and made based on this “misunderstanding”.

Had factual information been available to the commissioners, I have been told different decisions would have been made and that RMCI would have either been asked to repair the county extension office resulting from the roof collapse or, at the least, been invited to bid on the project and have had a 50/50 chance on a $71,500+ job (awarded to Galloway Construction). Instead, we were excluded from either of the options above.

Subsequent to the decision being made and as reported by Mr. Cousins, Commissioner Simons has, at my request, retracted his statement and has apologized in a public meeting. While his retraction and apology are nice, one has to wonder why he so steadfastly refused to clarify his understanding of what the insurance company told him when he was asked to do so. For me, it’s a matter of public trust. In my opinion, how can we, the people, trust that this won’t occur again?

One of Mineral County’s goals is to sustain the businesses located in the county and to recruit new ones so that our economy can improve and more jobs are made available for our people. For a public official to malign a local company, one with near 40 years experience and a quality reputation, in such a way is concerning. Will your company or business be next? How do you feel about this?

In addition to the above experience, I recently attended another commissioner meeting to observe the agenda item that read “Justice of Peace Resolution – Action Item”. Hmmmmm, I thought. What the heck does this mean? Is the investigation over? What is going to be resolved? In fact, what it entailed was a written “resolution”, prepared by the county attorney, describing the legal right the county had to appoint interim judges to handle the caseload while our current judge is out on paid leave. The replacement judges were named and it was a simple order of business. My concern isn’t with the unclear agenda item. It is with what occurred afterwards. Commissioner Zylawy asked a very important question. “How will per diem for those interim judges traveling to Mineral County be paid?” There was no factual answer but the commissioners were advised to “ask Stacy”. In my opinion, this is a concern. As Commissioner Zylawy knows (and why he asked the question), the county doesn’t have a lot of money in its budget and planning is vital.

My recommendation would be for the county commissioners to adopt a policy requiring every item coming before them for vote include a fiscal impact statement. Is there a fiscal impact, yes or no? If yes, the author of the item needs to estimate how much and tell them where the money will come from. If that entails visiting with “Stacy” before hand to gather all the facts for the commissioners, then do so. If there is no money currently funded for the item, the statement should tell how will it be obtained/paid? If I were a county commissioner, I’d want to have this information before I made a decision. And if the fiscal information isn’t provided, the item should be tabled for a future meeting. In other words, if you want action, bring all the information to the table.

Mr. Cousins also wrote an article entitled “Commissioners discuss making the hard choices”. In it, Commissioner Simons said “You make one happy, you make three mad”. Seems the odds are going down. Back in 2010 when I interviewed ex-commissioner Stang when she ran for Representative, I asked her “What was the most difficult challenge you encountered as a County Commissioner and how did you deal with it?” Her response was, “Having to make a decision because half will be happy and half will be mad.” I think it’s interesting that two commissioners from the west end have similar thoughts.

I’m beginning to formulate questions to ask the next round of candidates. If you have ideas or comments, email me at onemtopinion@gmail.com.