Changing city charter shouldn't be taken lightly

At the Sept. 30 candidate forum I was asked if I supported the ballot measure to change the city’s charter to provide for an ombudsman. I replied, “No.” Here’s why.

For starters, what is an ombudsman? An ombudsman is a government official appointed to investigate complaints made by individuals. To be sure, this would not be a case of the fox guarding the hen house. An ombudsman, appointed by council, is autonomous and would have free range to investigate and follow up on complaints.

Statewide there are ombudsmen connected with Child and Family Services and programs dealing with the elderly and disabled. Montana cities do not generally have an ombudsman. There is, for example, no city ombudsman in Columbia Falls or Kalispell.

While I applaud the work of our Government Study Commission I don’t believe a strong case has been made for the need to change the city charter and create this new position.

An ombudsman, if full time, would require the addition of a city employee at a cost of approximately $65,000 per year, including benefits. That money, if available, might be better spent on an additional police officer, firefighter, or parks maintenance worker. As it stands, to employ an ombudsman will require either an increase in taxes or elimination of a current position.

I remain unconvinced that having a part-time or full-time ombudsman would have prevented past litigation or will prevent future legal challenges.

If voters approve an ombudsman it will be 10 years before a new Government Study Commission can revisit this issue. Changing the city charter should not be undertaken lightly. I don’t believe the time is ripe for such a change.

— Richard Hildner is seeking re-election to Whitefish City Council