When he’s not working diligently to keep his rental tenants in poverty with his hand out at their doors, he’s working in the House to make sure they can join the growing unhoused community in Great Falls. That’s right, Great Falls’ reigning Dairy King and local landlord, Rep. Steven “Mr. LOLA” Galloway, is heading legislation (HB-282) to speed up the eviction process for renters in Montana.
Specifics noted in the bill include:
Protections for landlords to issue 24 hour notices for property access or to correct rental agreement violations with tenants facing eviction proceedings within 3 days for refusing property access.
Putting extra stress on our already overloaded courts by significantly shortening the filing due dates and hearing scheduling windows. Meaning, where courts and tenants typically had a cushion of anywhere from 10-20 days before, multiple lines of Sections 70-24 and 70-33, MCA have been amended to an allowance of only 5 days instead.
Interestingly, or maybe better put – strategically, in reference to the 24 hour notices, there are no exceptions for tenants who may be working out of town, be hospitalized, on vacation, or otherwise. In sum, tenants who are working hard, severely ill, or enjoying time off away from home can find themselves in the crosshairs of their landlord’s impatience.
Rep Galloway was quoted by Montana Public Radio as saying this legislation is an attempt at “alleviating the stress on the judicial system that has more pressing issues”, but if that’s truly the case, why shorten their working time? With Rep. Galloway himself identifying that our courts have more pressing issues, these amendments read as a greasy attempt at further overwhelming the courts and floating their eviction actions with little to no pushback.
While some supporters of the bill say this proposed legislation will be used for “worst case scenarios”, anyone with any kind of sense can see that this is the first of many blows to deliberately weaken already feeble tenant’s rights, and Rep. Steven Galloway is more than happy to be the champion of those endeavors.
The E-City Beat opinion piece entitled“Mob Rule Dominates Great Falls Public Education Meeting” (1/4/2023) grabbed my attention. Its author Jeni Dodd identified herself as a “creative, multi-faceted, multi-talented, knowledge junkie. Liberty, integrity, truth, and critical thinking are among my most important precepts.”
Having attended that meeting, I found her article title completely confounding. So, I read the first sentence.
“Amid a chorus of boos and shout-downs, there were a few brave souls that dare (sic) to express opinions unpopular to the summoned mob.”
Wow! We must have attended different meetings. This “mob” consisted of an engaged, but largely respectful group of parents, current and former teachers, administrators, and legislators. Ms. Dodd followed that introductory grenade by stating that the above sentence was “my overall impression of the recent meeting … .”
Was she dreaming?
Ms. Dodd continued by “blowing” the line of communication that led to almost 200 people attending the meeting:
“… Moore originated the communication by sending an email to Great Falls Rising, who then forwarded it to the Cascade County Democrat Central Committee, who sent it via Mail Chimp to their mailing list.”
I sincerely doubt that only Great Falls Rising forwarded the communication to the Cascade County Democrat Central Committee. There were at least two other sources sharing communication about the meeting, each of which had CCDCC members as part of their email lists. The CCDCC could have gotten the information from any number of sources.
Ms. Dodd blustered on, “Moore approached me after the event, and I was surprised when he ask (sic) me if he had answered my question.”
The question wasn’t hers; Rep. Krebs demanded that Sup. Moore defend how he had come to hear about the meeting. Ms. Dodd later followed up by pointing her hypothetical finger at Sup. Moore as she rudely asserted, “You didn’t answer his question!!!!”
“I also let him know I had seen the message he sent to his so-called ‘partners’ and asked, ‘Who were these partners?’”
“He answered, ‘I sent an email to Great Falls Chamber, Yes to Education and the education advocacy group Great Falls Rising.’”
“By the way, his words, not mine, categorizing Great Falls Rising as an ‘education advocacy group.’ I would beg to differ.”
“I don’t know about you, but when someone won’t give a straight yes or no answer and instead, deflects questions and redirects to another topic, it makes me uneasy and suspicious. I subsequently told Moore that this wasn’t the first time I’d seen him evade and avoid answering questions.”
Really? I think Sup. Moore directly answered Ms. Dodd’s question. Maybe she should ask the real question: why does the MT OPI not want the educators it is meant to support attending meetings it organizes?
Here’s my impression of the Anrtzen’s “faux” public education meeting.
Sup. Arntzen organized the forum to attract a specific minority of Montana residents in each of the towns she visited. She did this by selectively sending meeting notices through certain sources to get the audience she wanted to interact with – Republican legislators so that they could use the meetings as a way to spread disinformation and raise popular support for for passing anti-public education legislation. (She held a fifth “forum” on January 2nd at the Capitol Building attended by her selected audience and, I would guess to her dismay, Occupy Montana Leg attendees there to express their opinions during the opening session of the Legislature. They watched as the meeting that she had tried to orchestrate in Great Falls actually played out in Helena (as it had in the first three meetings she produced in other Montana cities.) They said wildly conspiratal things: that public schools are “confusing” students by moving “far, far Left”, and that school administrator positions are a waste of taxpayer money.
Sup. Arntzen’s selection of the first four Montana cities for these “productions” (Kalispell, Stevensville, Billings, and Great Falls) is illustrative of Sup. Arntzen’s true purposes. She did not list Bozeman, Missoula, Helena, or Butte. What’s the difference? The four cities that got selectively-sent notices were Republican and the four which did not were Democrat.
The “chorus of booss” referenced by Ms. Dodd was directed at Sen. Emrich’s (R) suggestion that the inadequacy of funding for education could be addressed by reducing the funding directed toward school administrators. The “shout-downs” were an automatic shock response by attendees to the suggestion that too much funding was going to administrators and that reducing administrator funding could begin to adequately address the education shortfall. It was also a result of the obvious, insidious attempt to pit teachers against administrators by Sen. Emrich and other Arntzen “production” partners including Rep. Kerns. But Sup. Arntzen et al totally misjudged their audience. At one point, she asked the attendees who support public schools to raise their hands. With the exception of these legislators, nearly the entire room did raise their hands. Sup. Arntzen had an agenda she wanted to communicate, but she was forced to read the room. Regrettably for her, educators and parents were allowed to voice their very real concerns about education in Cascade and surrounding counties.
Ms. Dodd concluded her fallacy-filled confabulation with this:
“A picture emerged from my attendance at this forum and it isn’t a pretty one— the picture that far too many of the summoned bunch that attended don’t want parents and taxpayers to have a voice with OPI and legislators in a public forum— at least not a voice that they can’t control.”
Ms. Dodd, in the above quote, got it backwards. In fact, the Great Falls “bunch” was a voice that they (Sup. Arntzen et al) could NOT control.
Below is a summary of the suggestions coming from many of the meeting’s “uncontrollable” attendees:
We must pay our educators a salary commensurate with the responsibility they bear for our most valuable resource, our children.
We must bookend traditional K-12 education with
(a) public preschools taught by certified teachers in all school systems and
(b) direct connections to post-secondary training/education leading to jobs.
3. We must address the mental health/substance-abuse issues that threaten our children.
4. We must fully fund the woefully underfunded federal special education mandate
Readers of this commentary, please look carefully if you see/ any legislators referencing parent/public comment as a basis for an education bill. If the reference differs from the four suggestions listed above, they may have originated from a deceptively choreographed series of meetings like Sup. Arntzen’s that produced a predetermined result supporting the game plan of the MT Republican party to destroy Montana’s vitally important public education system.
Finally, Ms. Dodd failed in her self-proclaimed devotion to liberty, integrity, truth, and critical thinking. In fact, her opinion piece is filled with untruth, emotionally-based conclusions, and attempts to manipulate its readers.
Integrity? Sadly, Ms. Dodd, on that criteria you earned an “F”!
Having a great morning, sipping on some tea from my favorite local coffee shop. Knowing in the peripheries of my mind that somewhere, somehow, a Cascade County Representative was making a mockery of themselves and our city. But alas, I was blissfully unaware of exactly what was occurring.
And then it happened.
A friend sent a photo of Great Falls’ very own, LOLA (aggressive capitalization intended) Sheldon-Galloway sporting a vomit-inducing, repugnant fringe number while attending today’s House Judiciary Committee meeting which included a hearing on HB 163 – a missing and murdered Indigenous women task force bill.
I’d say that seeing the photo was like watching a car crash, but it’s more like watching those cyst removal videos on Tik Tok. Like, “Damn, I don’t want to see this but apparently the universe wanted to present this to me.” You don’t *really* want to witness it, but it’s now been put in front of your face, and even though your stomach kind of hurts and you want to look away… you can’t.
Since “Discovery” [insert a massive eye roll here], Indigenous people, particularly women, have been stolen from their homes and forced to perform sexual acts with, carry out manual labor for, and bear children to colonizers. A major contributing factor to this? The sexualization, fetishization, and dehumanization of Indigenous people. When colonizers, and particularly those holding political office, have woven legal policies and heighten rotten social customs to distance themselves from Indigenous people we get: LOLA, in fringe.
Truly, it doesn’t take the late Joan Rivers to point out what an atrocity the caped leather vest is, especially paired with what appeared to be double braids in her hair. But we’re not here to pretend play ‘Fashion Police’, as fun as that may be. What we are here for is to call out our local representation to leave sexualized imagery of Indigenous people in the past, not present it on a statewide platform in Committee meetings.
While we’d love to believe that LOLA has turned a page and today’s get up is how she’s showing her support and solidarity for the MMIW/MMIP crisis (however misguided), her documented history of voting against protecting and uplifting Indigenous people makes it hard to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Some specific instances from back in 2019 include: a no vote to HB 33 – a bill to extend a Montana Indian Language Preservation program, voting no to HB 42 – a bill to extend the Cultural Integrity and Commitment Act, and yet another no to HB 135 – a bill to create a tribal college credit transfer and student opportunity task force.
Knowingly using the likeness and sterotypical, wild west fantasy-esque imagery of Indigenous people while simultaneously and continuously proposing legislation that will no doubt harm that same population is right on track for LOLA.
Today’s showing is a good reminder that LOLA is in fact simply one of many wolves in sheep’s clothing (or colonizers clothing) ‘representing’ Great Falls.
Our state has a rich and deep labor history. Individuals began joining together to collectively advocate for themselves and their workplaces years before Montana even became a state. That’s right, Montana unions and the spirit of collective action has been “Montana” even before Montana was Montana.
Fast forward to present, and Montana and its citizens are still heavily steeped in labor tradition and philosophy, even for our non-unionized neighbors. Montana is the ONLY state in the union with worker protections enshrined in our laws- one of the biggest being Montana’s wrongful termination law. Montana is the only non at-will state in the U S of A, meaning that outside of a designated probationary period, law requires the employer to have just cause for terminating an employee. Montana is truly unique and has always valued the labor and contributions of its sons and daughters through worker protections like just cause laws and the right to unionize and collectively bargain. Even after Federal and State lawmakers over the decades have made it their mission to diminish the strength of unions and therefore effectively stifle the voices of the working citizens of Montana (ya know, the people they work for), the labor movement perseveres.
OUR RIGHTS UNDER ATTACK
The 2021 Legislature saw many an anti-labor bill, but like a true David and Goliath story, Montanans came out in droves to demonstrate our love for our fellow citizens, their labor, and the best vehicle workers have to maintain a proverbial and sometimes literal seat at the table- unions. Now, make no mistake, no one thought the detractors who put millions of dollars into stifling the voices of the average worker were just going to go away. Much like a mosquito, they continue to annoy and look for any opportunistic moment to swoop in and feed on the lifeblood of our state. Oh, and by the way, they dont always play fair.
On Tuesday January 16th, 2023, the house judiciary committee will hear HB 216 (Mercer- R- HD 46). Some of the things in the bill are redundant and have already been secured at the federal level with the Janus decision, and at the state level with last sessions HB 289 (generally revise labor laws relating to employee associations- passed), others are just reintroductions of parts and pieces of bills that failed in the last session. Let’s start with the redundancies and a little back story. Section 2(2) states “A public employee may not be required to become or remain a member of, or financially support, a labor organization as a condition of obtaining or retaining public employment.” Prior to the Janus v AFSME decision issued by the US Supreme Court in 2018, unions were able to collect an agency fee from non members, which was essentially a small fee the union could charge non-members to help cover the costs of the work that they are still required to do whether the individual working in the respective collective bargaining unit chose to be a member or not. These were not dues, and the fee payer was not a member or required to be, the individual was simply paying a fair share fee for the services rendered. The Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional (it’s not, but that’s for another day) and ordered all public service unions still charging this agency fee to stop. The TL;DR here is that Montana’s public employees were never required to join. Post Janus, they can also get a free ride on the backs of their coworkers. This was further codified last session in HB 289.
Lets now go to Section 2(3) which states “A public employee may cancel the public employee’s membership and cease financial support of a labor organization at any time”. With a superficial glance, this seems like a non-issue to some, but let’s dive into this line from a purely financial and budgetary point of view and remove the union of it all momentarily. We all have a budget to which we adhere to. We know roughly how much income we have coming in per month, and roughly how much goes out to pay for our shelter, food, etc. You rely on the income to pay your bills. If you lost a portion of your income at random intervals throughout the year, that would throw a major wrench in your short term and long term plans, goals, or simply what you need to keep your head above the proverbial water. Now let’s put this back into a union frame. Any person, business, organization, etc cannot effectively function with that amount of budgetary uncertainty. This is why unions have designated drop periods, usually based on the calendar year, but sometimes based on other things like the date you joined, etc. It’s not shady, it’s common sense.
Now on to Section 2(4), as well as several line items in Section 3:
‘A public employer may not collect dues from compensation paid to a public employee on behalf of a labor organization without the annual affirmative consent of the public employee”. I think it’s obvious by now how the process works, but for the sake of information, let’s be very clear. An employee is hired, they are given the choice to become a member, and if for whatever reason they chose to drop, they typically have a window each year in which to do so. This line and basically ALL of section 3 aim to cripple union membership by imposing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the freedom to choose to associate. In the most simplistic terms, this would require an individual to OPT IN every year, rather than ongoing membership with a yearly OPT OUT period. Essentially, each collective bargaining unit in every public employees union would need to recertify and defend their right to exist every year. It also inserts the employer in questionable and potentially federally illegal positions by requiring them by law to insert themselves in the union-membership business and relationship.
PLAYING FAIR
HB 216 is scheduled to be heard by the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday January 17th. If there is any confusion on why the Judiciary Committee is hearing a labor bill, let me break that down. First, per page 37 of the House Rules, this bill is undoubtedly in the wrong committee. Page 37 states, in part, the following:
…legislation dealing with an enumerated subject must be referred to a standing committee as follows:
Business and Labor: Alcohol regulation other than taxation… labor unions; … workers’ compensation.
State Administration: Administrative rules; … state employees; state employee benefits; … voting.
So why is it being heard in the wrong committee? Well, because it’s more likely to pass in Judiciary than either of the appropriate committees. Slick, right?
TAKE ACTION
So what can we do to hold our legislators accountable to follow the rules and take the proper channels to do their legislating? Tomorrow, Monday January 16th, 2023 during the 1 PM house floor session, there will be a motion to refer HB 216 to the appropriate committee. Make your voice heard by contacting your legislator and asking them to support the motion to refer BEFORE 1 PM on Monday January 16th.
It’s too bad the Great Falls Tribune doesn’t print guest editorials. It means here in Great Falls we miss editorials like this one written by a local resident and WTF406 occasional contributor published by the Billings Gazette, the Helena Independent Record and the Missoula Current dealing with important issues in MT.
“If the government would just get out of the way and free the power of the competitive market, we would have a much better economy.” It’s good political rhetoric. The current Republican administration and their pals in the Republican legislature are repeating it over and over as a part of Governor Gianforte’s “Red Tape Reduction Initiative.” The problem is, what Republicans get when they push to eliminate regulations is often not what anybody wants.
The last time we heard this kind of rhetoric was during the 1997 Legislature and passage of the bill that deregulated the Montana Power Company. The result was the bankruptcy of the state’s largest utility and years of chaos and steadily increasing power rates in Montana. The dams on Montana rivers were sold, the natural gas reserves, which had been dedicated to Montana citizens, were sold, and businesses were closed across the state. Our power rates went from some of the lowest in the country to the highest in the Pacific Northwest. It was the biggest economic disaster in the history of Montana.
The effort to deregulate was driven by the greed of the Montana Power Company combined with ideological blinders worn by the Racicot administration and the Republican legislature. No one in the rooms at the Capitol had any idea what the bill to deregulate Montana Power would do. They voted for it because it was presented as promoting competition and, therefore, would lead to lower prices. For the politicians involved it was as simple as, free markets are good and regulation is bad. We are still paying for their simplistic view of how the world (and the economy) work.
So here we are, almost 30 years later with a conservative Republican in the governor’s office and a Legislature composed of some of the most extreme right wing legislators we have seen in decades. Once again we are being treated to a lot of rhetoric about the power of the free market being hampered by regulations.
But the irony in all of this is that a “free market” cannot work without regulation by the government. Private enterprise needs a level playing field for competition to occur. Bad actors need to be policed (yes folks, there are greedy people out there who are willing to cheat to get ahead). If you go to an architect or a CPA, you want to know that person has the qualifications to do what he or she promises.
Someone needs to be sure that businesses are following the rules, or bad actors will have a huge advantage in the marketplace.
The Republicans apparently think businesses should be free to pursue their self interest without regard for the public. They forget that big business, left to its own devices, has a long history of abusing the public trust and the community at large. From the Copper Kings, to Enron, to Martha Stewart’s insider trading, to the subprime mortgage collapse, the examples of greed over ethics in the world of private enterprise are many and consistent.
Most of us realize that our economy is far more complex than simple free-market capitalism. It is baffling that big business is now viewed as more virtuous than our public institutions. Economist John Maynard Keynes said it best: “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.” The Republicans in Helena would do well to heed these words before they set about dismantling regulations which protect the public.”
See the editorial here: https://billingsgazette.com/opinion/columnists/ken-toole-beware-republican-deregulation/article_0beb2c38-905c-11ed-a2f9-033f13bf82bf.html
