City councilor gives her side to budget fracas

As you may know, the Whitefish City Council is going through the budget process, and as you may know Judge Brad Johnson came before the council to request an increase in his budget that amounted to an increase of approximately 30 percent.

When questioned on it by the council, he used Columbia Falls as his comparison, stating twice that the Columbia Falls city court was a full-time court with two full-time clerks, and therefore he wanted his part-time clerk to become full-time. The mayor told him that we would not decide the issue that night.

The next day I received a phone call from Valerie Eve, who is running against him. She informed me that Columbia Falls is a part-time court with two part-time clerks. After I checked that out with the Columbia Falls clerk, I guess, I reacted. I started to question the most recent $7,000 raise that we had given Judge Johnson.

In the meantime, Val Eve gave me more information about other courts around the state, which, by the way, is public information.

I also found that in 2004, the Columbia Falls court processed almost 100 more cases than Whitefish. I double checked the case-load numbers, but did not double check the pay scales for other courts. I called the city attorney and the mayor because I wanted to do the right thing. I was told to pass on the information to the rest of the council so we could make an informed decision.

At the July 5 meeting, we discussed the information and decided to give Judge Johnson time to respond before making any decision. Since that time, all hell has broken loose.

In bringing this information before the council, I chose not to tell where I got the information because I thought it would distract from the fact that Judge Johnson gave us inaccurate information as a reason to increase the budget.

Sure, Valerie had something to gain by the council looking at the information, but so did the council and therefore the taxpayers. The more we know before making a decision like this, the better off this community will be. Maybe I was wrong not to note on the information where I got it, but it is all public information. In my opinion, that information needed to be in front of the council so that we could make an informed decision.

It sounds like I am being accused of being unethical for not revealing my source. My only intention was to make sure that the council had all the information before making a decision. I do not take my job lightly. I feel I owe it to the taxpayers to make sure their money is not spent foolishly.

As far as this being political, I guess the voters will have to decide. I have known Brad for 20 years and Valerie only four, and I like and respect both of them. They are very different people with very different ways of looking at the world.

I would have taken this information seriously, no matter who gave it to me. Hindsight is 20-20. I do not regret asking the questions, and I do not regret not telling where I got the information. I have learned a lot about how courts work and about proper procedure for the council. I have almost have two years under my belt but still feel like I am learning the ropes.

I still need more information before I am ready to decide about increasing the court budget 30 percent. I plan to spend a day in the court so I can have a better understanding of how the court works.

Did I do something unethical by not telling where I got the information? I know there are some that may think that. Was I unethical in asking the council to look at other courts, their caseloads and pay scales? I think not.

Was I wrong to not talk to Brad Johnson before it came to council? That was probably my mistake, and I apolozed to him today (July 22) in person and I apologize now in writing.

Was I practicing due diligence or sneaky underhanded politics. I felt I was practicing due diligence. My job isn't to rubber stamp whatever staff recommends. My job is to make sure it is in the best interest of the community.