fbpx

If Truth Be Told

By Beacon Staff

In a recent column (Sept. 14 Beacon: “Choose Wisely, Whitefish”) David Skinner inaccurately “reported” on the upcoming Whitefish referendum. It was reported in his column that the referendum to repeal a city council decision, which changes the interlocal planning agreement between the city of Whitefish and Flathead County got the required signatures for placing this issue on the ballot for Whitefish voters, but it was inaccurately reported that a “parallel” county referendum “flopped dead.” The column then went on to imply that voting for the referendum is un-American.

The truth is, the upcoming ballot initiative is the ultimate democratic right, which allows citizens to directly vote on policy decisions that govern or financially impact them as taxpayers. Putting the new interlocal agreement on the ballot for a vote received strong support from voters and exceeded the amount of signatures required allowing Whitefish a vote for repeal.

The truth is, there was no “parallel” county referendum. County-doughnut voters were not even given an opportunity by the county to collect signatures for an additional ballot measure. When county residents asked the Flathead County commissioners to allow signature gathering to put the option for a Community Council on the ballot, the commissioners refused, claiming it wasn’t a legal issue for a ballot vote. This initiative would have created an elected Community Council and provided representation for the doughnut area around the city of Whitefish.

The county commissioners could establish this Community Council today without having to go through the ballot process. In fact, the commissioners have already established elected Community Councils for Bigfork and Lakeside. Why not for Whitefish? The truth is, in the last year alone, twice county-doughnut residents asked the commissioners to use their current authority to establish a Community Council. They refused both requests.

An elected Community Council would have seven members elected directly by county residents in the doughnut from their own neighborhoods. The truth is that this Community Council would give neighborhood representatives a say in planning decisions, which is far more than they have now. Why don’t the county commissioners want elected representation for county-doughnut residents?

The truth is, the county commissioners appointed a stacked deck of county residents to the joint city-county interlocal committee who only supported changing the interlocal agreement with the city of Whitefish. Many of my neighbors, including myself, did not want to see the interlocal agreement changed and also asked to serve on the committee. We were told there would be a process for appointments on this committee and were never contacted once we made our original request.

The county commissioners did not even hold a public hearing for county residents to comment on the commission’s decision to change the interlocal agreement. When the Whitefish city council held similar public hearings, the hearing was standing-room only and over half of those who spoke were county-doughnut residents. Overwhelmingly, almost everyone who spoke at that hearing was against changes to the interlocal agreement. Instead, they spoke in favor of the City Council continuing to make planning decisions that affect the character, water quality, and economic vitality of Whitefish, and in support of an elected Community Council that would act as an advisory to the county and city council reviewing planning and zoning issues in the doughnut.

Take the time to review the video or minutes of the Nov. 15, 2010 Whitefish City Council meeting. Mike Jenson and Bill Kahle were not present and John Muhlfeld who was acting as deputy mayor asked if they shouldn’t postpone the vote that evening on this issue. Turner Askew said they should go ahead. With a vote of 3-2 and Turner Askew, Chris Hyatt and Phil Mitchell voting to give the county more power in the new agreement, the giant leap was made without any consideration to the public comments. This referendum is our democratic right.

As a county resident who cares deeply about the future of Whitefish, I urge city residents to vote for repeal of the 2010 interlocal agreement. In the negative politics that are now pervasive in Whitefish, beware that you will be getting mailers and reading more columns like Skinner’s, full of half-truths and misrepresentations. Don’t be fooled, check the facts before you vote, and look for your mail-in ballot on Oct. 19.

Mary Person lives outside of Whitefish.