The County is Covering Rea Grulkowski’s Legal Fees?

by Ken Toole | Oct 25, 2024 | Elections

If you’ve been following the Grulkowski scandal in the discrimination case Rina Moore filed, you already know that the county has paid more than $50,000 for Moore’s claim. In addition, the county provided an attorney to represent Grulkowski in the matter. That is above and beyond the private attorney the county hired.

State Law Provides “Indemnification” for Government Employees

This happened because state law requires it. 2305 (2) MCA states, “In any noncriminal action brought against any employee of a state, county, city, town, or other governmental entity for a negligent act, error, or omission, including alleged violations of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, or other actionable conduct of the employee committed while acting within the course and scope of the employee’s office or employment, the governmental entity employer, except as provided in subsection (6), shall defend the action on behalf of the employee and indemnify the employee.” 

But Not For Actions Beyond The Scope of Their Duties

At the very end of that section providing for the defense and indemnification of an employee, there is an exception. It reads, “In a noncriminal action in which a governmental entity employee is a party defendant, the employee may not be defended or indemnified by the employer for any money judgments or legal expenses, including attorney fees, to which the employee may be subject as a result of the suit if a judicial determination is made that:

(a) the conduct upon which the claim is based constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice or for any other reason does not arise out of the course and scope of the employee’s employment;

Grulkowski’s Action Was Clearly Beyond The Scope of Her Duties

If the county allowed the case to be litigated, it would not be responsible to provide a lawyer for Grulkowski, because her participation in the hiring decision which resulted in the discrimination claim did not, “arise out of the course and scope of the employee’s employment.” That’s because the commission adopted a resolution which moved the elections office from the clerk and recorder’s office to the county commission. The county included the following language:

“WHEREAS, appointing an Election Administrator to serve at the direction of the Board of Cascade County Commissioners will eliminate the appearance of impropriety as any single Commissioner whose seat appears on the ballot in a given calendar years shall be required to abstain from all decisions concerning the operation and management of the election office during that calendar year until such time as the election for said office is finalized;”

This language clearly prohibited Rae Grulkowski from participating in all decisions concerning the elections office. Grulkowski ignored the resolution and  county officials failed to make her comply.  Read our blog post here, https://wtf406.com/?s=Resolution

We Are Paying Because The County Failed To Enforce It’s Own Rules

Here we are eight months later providing a personal attorney for Grulkowski for illegal acts which were clearly beyond the scope of her employment. The fact of the matter is that our elected county officials failed us in this matter and now the final insult is that we all pay for independent counsel for Grulkowski. Anyone who thinks Republicans are fiscal conservatives hasn’t been watching Cascade County.

Pro and Con Arguments for CI-126 and CI-127

by WTF 406 Staff | Oct 21, 2024 | Elections

Two voting initiatives are on Montanans’ ballots this November. WTF406 is providing two sides to help our readers decide. Check out the links below to learn more:

For: https://wtf406.com/2024/10/vote-yes-on-ci-126-and-ci-127/

Against: https://wtf406.com/2024/10/vote-no-on-ci-126-and-ci-127/

Vote Yes on CI-126 and CI-127

by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections

WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election. 

What is Citizens’ Initiative 126 (CI-126)?

CI-126 will change primary elections so that all qualified candidates of all parties would appear on one single ballot in June and all voters will have the freedom to choose between them. The top four candidates would then move on to the November election, where voters would choose between them. 

Voters in Montana are currently forced to choose one party’s ballot to vote in primary elections – even though they might prefer candidates from different parties for different offices. CI-126 changes that so you can vote for the candidate you like best, regardless of party.

CI-126 gives Montana voters:

• Better choices on the ballot
• More freedom to vote for the person, not the party
• More voice in every tax-payer funded election
• Greater accountability over elected officials

CI-126 is endorsed by:

• Wild Montana
• Forward Montana
• Montana Federation of Public Employees
• Montana Trial Lawyers Association
• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana
• Montana Women Vote
• MontPIRG
• Montana AFL-CIO
• Western Native Voice Action Fund
• Northern Plains Resource Council
• Montana Alliance for Retired Americans
• SEIU 775
• Veterans for Montana Voters
• Former Governor Steve Bullock
• Former Secretary of State Mike Cooney
• Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau
• Former Attorney General Tim Fox
• Former Lieutenant Governor Mike Cooney
• And many more

CI-126 is a simple, common-sense change that protects our democracy and gives us more responsive and representative government. We encourage every Montana voter to vote YES on CI-126 so we have better choices, more voice, and greater accountability in our elections.

What is Citizens’ Initiative 127 (CI-127)?

CI-127 requires candidates to receive a majority vote to win a General election instead of electing candidates who simply win the largest number of votes, as is current law. This measure would ensure that candidates have to appeal to a majority of their constituents by earning the support of over 50% of voters.

Majority-winner elections lead to more responsive leaders who are more representative of the majority of Montanans. There are two mechanisms for deciding a majority winner if one candidate does not receive more than 50% of the vote: a traditional runoff election or an instant runoff election.

Majority-winner elections empower voters to hold politicians accountable and force our elected officials to focus on finding solutions that benefit a majority of citizens. We encourage voters to choose majority-winner elections and vote YES on CI-127.

-Kendra Miller and Lauren Caldwell

Vote No on CI-126 and CI-127

by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections

WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election. 

This year’s election is fast approaching. The air waves are full of ads from candidates, drowning out news about the initiatives that are on our ballot. Voters will receive a voter information pamphlet before the election, and I encourage you to read the pros and cons of these initiatives. Two of the constitutional initiatives would drastically change our election process: CI 126 and CI 127.

CI 126 changes Montana’s long-established primary election by creating a jungle primary. Instead of the voter choosing which primary ballot they want, there will be one ballot with candidates from all eligible parties including Independents. The Top 4 vote getters will move on to the general election. The initiative leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide the process for how candidates get on the primary ballot. The initiative also leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide how to break a tie.  

CI 127 changes Montana’s long-established general election rules by requiring the winning candidate to get the majority of votes. If no candidate gets the majority of the votes, the Legislature and governor will decide a process for choosing the winner.  

I would be less concerned if these undefined processes weren’t left to representatives often concerned with party politics to iron out. Voters should know what we’re really getting. 

In addition to the confusing processes, both initiatives deserve a clearly defined, transparent process.  They are concerning for several other reasons and won’t adequately address today’s political divisiveness, which is the intended goal.  

Already over the last couple of Legislative Sessions, several bills that changed our election process were passed. However, most of these bills were challenged on the basis that they were not allowed by our Constitution, and the Supreme Court agreed, by overturning the bills. It is alarming to think that, if these initiatives pass, a Legislature that tried to create unconstitutional election processes would design the outcome of our election process.

These initiatives also create several other problems.  If 126 passes and 127 doesn’t we could have an election where only 26% of the voters select our leader.  It also provides lots of opportunities for shenanigans.  The GOP party has been notorious for getting someone to file as a Green party candidate to steal votes from the Democrat candidate.  If 126 passes they will recruit 1 or 2 of their own to run as a Democrat to steal votes from the legitimate Democrat candidate.  Yes, I know the Democratic could do the same thing.  If 127 passes, how will we decide the winner if one candidate doesn’t get more than 50% of the vote?  We don’t know because the legislature and governor get to decide.  Will it be rank choice, or will it be an expensive, time-consuming runoff election or will the legislature/governor decide the winner?  Either way will most likely have less voters choose the winner than the current system.  Runoff elections generally have lower turnouts so less voters could decide the winner.  After election day who really wants to have more days of campaign ads, calls and fundraising besides the loser.  Please vote no on 126 and 127.

Some have tried to suggest that this new election process would alleviate the divisiveness we are experiencing in politics today. This process doesn’t get to the root of the problem.  A major cause of this divisiveness is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan.  The Fairness Doctrine required news outlets to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Soon after it was repealed, Fox Entertainment changed its name to FOX News and began misleading listeners with sensationalized, one-sided false narratives. Many other networks started “news” programs to compete for airtime, and the term “fake news” became part of our lives. About the same time, Texas Congressman Tom Delay started a nationwide movement to gerrymander districts. He eventually went to jail, but we still suffer the consequences today.

Following the Delay playbook, the 1990 redistricting committee in Montana redrew our legislative districts. The result created numerous “safe” districts for both Democrats and Republicans. These safe districts almost guarantee that one party (or the other) wins that district. Today, we still have several safe districts for both parties. This has allowed extreme candidates from each party to win an election. Once elected, they don’t have to govern because they know they will be reelected by their party in their “safe” district. In the last few elections, the Tea Party has successfully primaried moderate Republicans. The Tea Party’s antigovernment philosophy has created havoc and gridlock.  The moderate Republicans have viewed the jungle primary and majority vote as a solution to this problem.

The solution to divisiveness would be better if it focused at the root of the problems. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine requiring the “news” to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts by recreating swing districts that will require candidates to appeal to all voters and not just their party.

-Walter Schweitzer