with Rev. Dawn Skerritt and First United Methodist Church:
As members of the clergy, we know that words have power. Power to heal or to harm, to build up or to tear down. We know that for those in positions of leadership, that power is magnified, and thus should not be taken lightly. Carelessness with words—particularly from those who have been vested with authority and charged with responsibility—is dangerous, even in the absence of any malice.
We do not know if Sheriff Jesse Slaughter has malice in his heart. That is known to him and to God alone. All we have are his words and actions.
These we condemn in the strongest possible terms.
In a radio interview on October 27th, Sheriff Jesse Slaughter used his words and social capital to make misleading, and even cruel, statements against the Rev. Dawn Skerritt, the First United Methodist Church, and the local unhoused population. A few days prior, an unhoused woman died on the property of First United Methodist Church. Her name was Dianna, and she had endured a lifetime of violence and neglect, and like so many people rich and poor, she suffered from the disease of alcoholism. Dianna died, according to the report released by Sheriff Slaughter in his role as coroner, from “natural causes” related to chronic alcoholism. Dianna had sought local resources and had tried to find a way to move forward in her life. However, the resources available and the care she needed were difficult for her to obtain. The two-fold struggles of alcoholism and homelessness can be insurmountable for many individuals. In Great Falls, the local Rocky Mountain Rehab program can cost in excess of $23,000. Psychiatric care is difficult to access, and providers are often scheduled out several months, even for critical cases and for folks who have good insurance.
In the interview, Slaughter blamed Rev. Dawn Skerritt and the First United Methodist Church for Dianna’s death, saying, “People are paying for it with their lives.” He was referring to the outreach at the church even though his own report made clear that Dianna’s death, while tragic, was the result of natural causes related to chronic alcoholism.
Sheriff Slaughter spoke in a demeaning way about Rev. Dawn Skerritt several times, but more than that, he belittled her title, authority, and education. Referring to Rev. Skerritt as “preacher or whatever,” Sheriff Slaughter with his words undermined seven years of post-secondary education, an arduous process to serve in the capacity of minister within the United Methodist Church, and the many years of service she has dedicated to the church.
This is an irresponsible, reprehensible use of the platform he has been given. Whether the words were spoken in outright malice, carelessness, or dangerous ignorance, Sheriff Slaughter’s comments are baseless and unbecoming of a public official.
If the community at FUMC did not exist and Dianna had never been there, would she not have still died from the disease of alcoholism? Maybe not. It’s possible that without a community of care, her life would have been claimed sooner by the violence she regularly experienced. Or else she might have frozen to death elsewhere due to lack of shelter.
In late March of this year, the remains of another unsheltered person—who remains unidentified—were found on the First Presbyterian Church property, having lain there through the winter. That church has not been blamed for the person’s death. If one church is culpable for the death of a person on their property, are all churches responsible in the same manner? How much more is a city or county culpable for the neglect and lack of care that allows such things to happen and be summarily forgotten? Sheriff Slaughter offers no such diatribe like the one he leveled at a person and a group of people attempting to solve the problem of unsheltered people in Great Falls that so many would prefer to ignore—or rather, to displace and forget.
No one is claiming that the work of First United Methodist Church, now led by Rev. Skerritt, is an ideal solution. But an ideal solution does not exist, and as long as there are people in need, the Church will continue to try to meet those needs in spite of petty bullying by elected officials.
In this interview, Sheriff Slaughter claims that the church is not inviting folks inside and caring for them, but FUMC is still providing warm clothing and food, and has even opened their building up as a warm space to spend the cold winter hours of evening when no other shelter is available. The exact solution that Sherriff Slaughter himself mentioned is what FUMC is doing, and trying to gain partners in trying to keep all of our community members safe and alive this winter.
Sheriff Slaughter has a choice to make: a choice between embracing a spirit of collaboration in fighting the ever-worsening crisis of homelessness in our community or living into a narrative of fear and bigotry. We pray that as a servant of the people he will choose the former, rescinding his hateful comments and pledging to work with those he has a duty to serve, whether they are housed or not.
But until that time, we stand in solidarity and love with Rev. Skerritt, First United Methodist Church, and all who are victimized by a culture of neglect and fear.
Signed, the clergy of the Great Falls Ministerial Association.
Rev. Tammy Bull, New Hope Lutheran Church
Rev. Jessica Crane-Munoz, Sunrise Presbyterian Church
Rev. Barbara Gwynn, retired ELCA clergy
Rev. Scott Hedegaard, Redeemer Lutheran Church
Rev. Marcia Lauzon, Episcopal Diocese of Montana
Rev. Jessica Obrecht, Bethel Lutheran Church
Debra Oldfield, S.A.M., St. John’s Lutheran Church
Rev. John Ritchie, PCUSA clergy at-large
Rev. Lynne Spencer-Smith, First Congregational United Church of Christ
Rev. Stephen Underwood, Central Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Let’s Talk, Lola: An In-Depth Look at Lola Sheldon Galloway
Do you know Lola Sheldon Galloway? She’s a representative of local House District 22 running for re-election. Lola Sheldon Galloway certainly counts as a person in power but does she serve the People? If not, who is she serving? Let’s take a look at some of Lola’s most outrageous claims to see if we can determine who exactly she’s serving.
Let’s start with those who have been victims of crime. Rape is heinous act that traumatizes and devastates the victims, often for lifetimes. Most people involved in civic positions empathize with the victims and pursue protections and rehabilitation for them. Lola, on the other hand, is deeply misinformed on the subject. She believes that roughly 98% of victims miscarry due to that trauma, and seeks to ban abortion, even due to life threatening health issues, stating without a proper source beyond “reading this once”
In defense of her rather indefensible position on abortion, Lola once stated,
“Never once has a human ever delivered a platypus or any other kind of animal. We deliver human beings.”
Yeah, Lola, you’re right. Under no circumstances has a human woman given birth to a platypus. Perhaps in the future some kind of nightmarish clone hybrid, but right now, just human babies. I was taught around 6th grade to research and cite things before I declare them fact. A quick Google search proves that Lola’s “statistics” are in now way factual. The number of miscarriages experienced by sexual assault survivors, not platypi. Roughly 39% get carried to full term. Lola is also known to protest right outside Planned Parenthood. Rape victims, people with health issues regarding your reproduction system, people wishing to get tested and have info and resources for safe sexual health; Lola is for Lola. Not for you.
Next up, let’s look at the unhoused population in Great Falls. There’s no denying Great Falls is facing a housing crisis, and as such, there has been an increased presence of homeless people in Great Falls. She is on record for both complaining about the homeless presence at First United Methodist Church earlier this year,( a number of them using her nearby Dairy Queen restroom for basic essential hygiene) yet also stateing she does not want to provide further shelters and housing in the city because she believes it will attract further homeless people. Lola, in her selfishness, has created her own paradox. She wants the homelessness to be less visible, but she also does not want to create shelters or work against the current statewide rent increases or housing availability. Are you disabled or homeless, or know and love someone like that? Lola is not for you.
Are you an Indigenous person of Montana? Both Lola and her husband have loudly protested the incorporation of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, continuing a colonialist tradition of erasing the history of our indigenous people. Lola doesn’t care, Lola is not for you. Like fire for Frankenstein’s monster, Lola seems to retain a deep seated fear for people of color.
Finally, let’s get to the meat of the issue. Lola Sheldon Galloway has no shame about where her interests lie, and is using her position of power for her own financial gain. In 2022 alone, during the August 2nd and September 2nd meetings, Lola used her position to make requests of “personal favors” to ensure her business alone did not lose any money. If I tried that during a session, I’d be told to shut up, told I was a greedy idiot, and barred from the commission meeting. Check out Lola’s comments at previous meetings confirming that she is only out for herself, not our community.
If a President is not supposed to utilize their own properties and business for profit in relation to their position, why do Lola and her husband get away with it… perhaps they think they’re more important than the POTUS?
At the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us the people. If you haven’t already voted, I urge you to vote this next Tuesday, and remember this: at the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us, the people.
There aren’t anywhere near enough homes for the children who are here
One of my prior and greatest purposes, while working in various roles across the landscape of human services, was coordinating the licensing for people wanting to be therapeutic foster parents. The purpose of my role was to recruit, train, and support people willing to foster children who came with all the trauma heaped on them from physical and sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect. Let’s talk about the number of children in foster care, the number of licensed foster homes, and how taking away reproductive rights is only throwing gas on a fire that is already out of control.
It is no easy feat to step into the role of fostering children who have been put through the things I have seen children put through. I have seen children who had been locked in a closet while the parents used drugs, sometimes for days at a time, eating their own feces and left with minimal language or motor skills due to severe neglect. I’ve seen children who have been sexually harmed at ages so young they were permanently physically scarred. I’ve seen children who have been tied up for not properly pimping their mother. I have witnessed infants who have had their legs broken because of parents who were struggling with addiction and dropped them. I could honestly tell horror stories for days on the things I have seen children put through. Needless to say, these children don’t enter foster care as a blank slate. The people willing to become foster parents are often tested to the core of their being by the behaviors and needs that come with such deep trauma.
According to the data reported in “Who Cares: A National Count of Foster Homes and Families,” as of 2021, Montana had 1,674 licesed foster homes and only 697 of those foster homes were willing to foster children who are not a friend or family member, (https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/non-relative-homes). However, there was a staggering number of 3,223 children in foster care, in Montana as of 2021. The national numbers are just as bad. Per the federal data for 2021, there were roughly 212,045 licensed foster homes and 402,140 children in foster care in the U.S., (https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/total-licensed-foster-homes).
With numbers like this, the first question that comes to mind is. “Why the funk are reproductive rights being taken away?” There is no apparent strategy in forcing women into child-bearing when we can’t take care of the children who are already here.
There are many reasons a woman would need an abortion. Some examples are addiction, severe mental illness, taking medications that affect fetal development, cancer, septic uterus, ectopic pregnancy, fibroids, HIV and other diseases, pregnancy from rape or incest, a dead fetus, a fetus not developing correctly, too old, too young, or too unstable to be responsible for a life are all excellent reasons to make a decision for abortion. If the government forces every pregnancy to be a birth, what will the numbers of children in foster care look like then? Who will be responsible for them?
Shouldn’t this massive responsibility fall to those who are so concerned with a heartbeat that they could care less about the woman and her circumstances? Yet it doesn’t. During my time of recruiting foster parents, I asked many of the pro-life sign holders standing outside a medical facility harrassing people going in, if they would like to make an appointment with me to become foster parents. I quoted the statistics of children who need foster homes. I figured they would be the most interested.
My effort was futile. I was given loads of excuses like, “I’ve heard horror stories, it’s not for me,” and, “I have my own children. I can’t risk something happening to them by taking in a child who might hurt my own kids.” Then why the funk would you stick a sign in someone’s face when you are unwilling or unable to help with this massive social issue?
I suppose if we lived in a perfect world, with perfect pregnancies and perfect health and no social issues, we wouldn’t need abortion. That is the irresponsible fantasy of every person raising a pro-life sign. Not all women are alike, not all wombs are alike, not all bodies are alike. The uterus is a complicated place, as is the entire body.
It’s deplorable that pro-life advocates and the govorment have turned their back on all the social, mental health, and health crises that have caused the high numbers of children who are in foster care. Instead they jumped on a fantastical soapbox that a heartbeat should negate all issues the woman, children, and society are facing.
Two texts I’ve received from Barbara on countless occasions.
When initially deciding on how I wanted to go about writing this, I couldn’t move past the first question “How can I help?” which is essentially Barbara’s signature phrase at this point. Not just for me though, but to essentially anyone who reaches out to her.
For background, not only am I Barbara’s treasurer, I’m also her cousin. Though we’re tied by blood, we really didn’t know each other until 2015 when I moved to Great Falls. One of the first things we talked about was her desire to run for office and be able to help her community on a larger scale than just her position working Substance Abuse Prevention in Cascade County. 2016 was too soon to fully prepare, but she set her eyes on the 2018 cycle and dove in.
I’ve had the privilege of walking with her while she’s knocked doors on multiple occasions and, not only does she speak (and continues to speak) truthfully with constituents, but she listens actively and wholeheartedly. Barbara remembers specifics about those living in her district. She takes causes they’re passionate about and concerns they have to heart and, from the second she walks away from the door, starts brainstorming solutions on how she can help.
I’ve watched Barbara face many obstacles as a candidate, Representative, and person. I could list a slew of traits that I see in her that she keeps close in her toolkit to be the very best representation for House District 24, but at the end of the day only one thing matters.
Barbara wants to help.
I’ve heard, personally, on the doors in HD 24 that some voters feel Barbara’s opponent will “say anything” to get the vote. In contrast to that, Barbara isn’t the candidate that will smile at your door for five minutes and disappear until the next election.
She’s the candidate with true integrity and tenacity.
Grit.
The candidate that is reachable year round – not just during the election, and not just during legislative sessions.
Truly, Barbara Bessette is the best candidate to represent -all constituents- across House District 24. Period.
A 5,000 pound elephant was sitting in the room on Monday night at MSU-Northern in Havre while the Hill County candidates participated in the public forum sponsored by the Havre Daily News. Republican Incumbent Senator Russ Tempel of Chester and Democrat challenger Dave Brewer of Havre respectfully agreed on nearly all issues and demonstrated what politics can be like when you’re not a partisan hack. Independent Les Odegard and Democrat Sheri Williams challenged Republican Diane McLean on her history as Hill County Commissioner in a spirited discussion.
And then there he was, the giant elephant we couldn’t ignore: the empty chair where Representative Ed Hill was supposed to be sitting. Democrat Paul Tuss running for House District 28 was not shaken by the no-show status of his inferior (on all levels) opponent. Tuss focused his answers on breaking through partisanship to achieve progress for Montanans. He touched on utilizing the private sector to address Montana’s housing crisis, using the budget surplus to support nursing homes, and affirming his support for the right to privacy as guaranteed in the Montana Constitution. Where was our lone representative Ed Hill? Why wasn’t he sharing his legislative vision for the people of Havre and answering honest questions in front of his constituents?
According to a constituent in Havre who had the unfortunate experience of having his door knocked by Ed Hill on Tuesday, “He declined to debate because he wanted to speak on neutral turf.” Of course Ed Hill would consider that an institution of knowledge such as MSU-Northern would be considered “unfair turf”.
Hill further buried his head in the sand Monday night by refusing to speak to the Havre Daily News for their Campaign Profile series, because “he couldn’t get the questions ahead of time.” Why is Ed Hill so afraid to answer questions from the people of Havre? Why can’t he think for himself on his toes? Havre is essentially a small town, and folks notice when you don’t have the guts to answer basic questions. The other six (two of them Republican) candidates did, and all answered with integrity and bravery.
If ever a title fit the Representative from House District 28, Coward of the County would be it. Except if Hill came across poor Becky after being assaulted by the Gatlin brothers, he would probably tell her that life begins at conception and be on his way.
By Lindsey Ratliff Lindsey is a lifelong Montanan born and raised in the Malt Barley Capital of the World (Fairfield, MT). A Dirt Road Democrat and political junkie, she interned in Sen. Baucus office in 2012 and has been active with local Democratic races since. She currently lives in Havre where she teaches kids how to draw, paint, and discern between facts and bullshit. She is currently serving her 2nd term on the Havre City Council.
