No need for more government

Whitefish Government Study Commission has recently recommended changes to the Whitefish City Charter which would add a new government layer in the position of ombudsman.

As active citizens in the community, we vehemently oppose the addition of more government, which will in turn raise taxes and hamstring the city council and city leaders. Many safeguards already are in place to ensure citizen input and protect against violation of public policy.

Specifically, an ombudsman position is unneeded and unwanted by the majority of citizens in the community with whom we have communicated. Current state laws, city codes, and city policies have been enacted to address complaints or concerns a citizen may have regarding city council and city staff actions. To add an ombudsman would encumber city department heads and subtract from their ability to address the needs of each department.

The commission suggests that this position is needed because there are people in the community who might have something to contribute or have a complaint, but are “too shy” to stand before the city council during public comment.

To spend $85,000 per year on a person who will take the hand of such a person and lead them like a small child because they are too reticent to come forward is plainly ridiculous. The city council regularly receives emails and letters from the public having concerns. In addition, there are numerous state boards which those citizens can contact if, in their opinion, city policy and/or laws are not being observed by the council or city staff.

For years, study commission member Rebecca Norton has unsuccessfully clamored for action to city council for an ethics committee to address citizen concerns. The city staff and council have repeatedly explained that, as mentioned above, there are numerous safeguards in place to protect our citizens, and that another level of government is unneeded. Now, the commission is attempting an end run by creating an ombudsman position.

We applaud Whitefish for being a leader and innovative example to small town governments throughout the state. However, this initiative sets a bad precedent for a government that is already working well.

The addition of an ombudsman would negatively impact the ability of the content experts, city manager and department heads to adequately staff their departments.

Due to the potential $85,000 annual cost of such a position, adding one would result in the potential loss of a current staff position, raise taxes, and prevent the hiring of critically needed new staff.

What citizens should be cognizant of is that our city is currently staffed to serve a static population of approximately 7,000. However, for approximately 10 months a year due to tourism we daily serve about three times that number, which stresses emergency services, public works and parks.

Looking toward the future, Whitefish is facing additional fees for water, sewer, garbage and storm water; some increases which are going to be mandated by DNRC. Do we need additional taxes for an ombudsman position? No.

In a recent Pilot guest opinion, study commission members Williams, Norton and Askew defended their position on two issues: the ombudsman position and the city manager attending planning board meetings. Their article is confusing and misleading, much as is the ballot for those two issues.

In their opinion, the commission states that Study Commission Question Number 1 on the ballot simply addresses “housekeeping issues” for the city. The ballot reads that Study Commission Question Number 1 amends the city charter to remove the citizen’s standing committee and appoint an ombudsman.

To clarify, in our opinion as well as neighbors and friends in Whitefish, we recommend for Study Commission Number 1 that you vote against amending the city charter. Casting your vote in this manner will do away with the study commission’s creation of an ombudsman.

We are neutral on Study Commission Question Number 2; however, we opine that the city manager should be able to empower the department heads to attend planning board meetings as needed.

In summary, we appreciate the study commission’s work, however, we feel that their suggestions are ill advised and have not been adequately vetted.

As a couple: Bill, Whitefish Police Chief and member of two state boards which monitor police ethics and licensing, and have oversight of grant administration of statewide agencies, adamantly disagrees with the recommendations of the study commission.

Jo Ann, as a grant writer who has been contracted by the city for many grants over a period of 13 years, has come to know the workings of the city administration, and believes that the city staff and council always operate in an ethical, thoughtful and highly effective manner, encouraging open communication between constituents and city government.

— Bill and Jo Ann Dial, Whitefish