Political controversies abound in 2023

The Havre Daily News has covered a number of impactful political events in 2023, from controversies and internal division on the local level, to a chaotic legislative session on the state level, along with the tension between local and state government that has risen in this year as well.

Here are some of the stories the Havre Daily News has been able to cover in 2023:

Commission and state spar over property taxes

One political issue at the forefront of practically everyone's mind is property taxes, which most people saw go up this year, often dramatically, partially as a result of inaction from the state.

Valuations for properties around Montana went up significantly, for many people, which the Legislature, controlled by a Republican supermajority, was warned about, but despite the protestations of many Democrats, little was done to address the coming rise in property taxes.

This situation was followed by a direction from Gov. Greg Gianforte's Department of Revenue to counties that they must collect 95 mills worth of property taxes for the state's school equalization fund, which the majority of counties refused on the grounds that it was unsustainably high for their constituents, illegally so based on the counties' interpretation of state law.

A total of 49 of Montana's 56 counties, including Blaine, Chouteau, Hill and Liberty, refused the order and instead attempted to collect 77.9 mills, which they argued was more sustainable and more in line with state law which limits the amount taxes can rise in a short period of time.

Counties would lose the ensuing legal battle in the Montana Supreme Court which said the counties had to follow the order of the state, which means a lot of local people could see a second tax bill this year to make up the difference.

This fight created a great deal of tension between the county and state, as well as, to a lesser degree, counties and education advocates.

The fund these tax dollars go into is meant to address the difference in resources between schools in high and low income areas and increase educational opportunities and schools, as well as education advocates broadly expressed worry that the county's actions would hurt school equalization.

Counties argued that budgets for schools had already been set, and state's general fund had more than enough to make up the difference.

School associations argued that the money was needed, and lowering the mills assessed would shortchange schools.

On the local level, the public conflict between the county and schools was very civil, with both sides expressing support and sympathy for the uncomfortable position the state had put each other in, even as they disagreed about the merits of the county's fight against the state.

In the aftermath, Hill County Commission Chair Mark Peterson said he stands by his decision to fight the state on this matter, and even though they lost in court they at least know where things stand.

However, Peterson said, a lot of Gianforte's rhetoric, characterizing the rise in taxes as the fault of local government, was completely false.

He said the taxes in question go to the state and the county took an active role in trying to make sure they didn't get out of control.

Senate Bill 442

This is not the first high-profile conflict between Gianforte and counties in 2023, as, earlier in the year, Gianforte vetoed the almost universally popular Senate Bill 442, introduced by Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, which would would have divided tax revenues levied on recreational marijuana sales between the state's general fund; county road construction and maintenance; conservation and recreation programs; addiction treatment, and veterans services.

In a session rife with partisan division, this bill drew support from practically every segment of the political spectrum, and when Gianforte vetoed the bill, it caused outcry from practically everyone, including the counties and local legislators.

After passing its last legislative hurdle in a 48-1 vote, the Senate adjourned before it was notified the bill was vetoed but the House was still in session when word came down which meant the Legislature couldn't override the veto, which would have been likely given its support.

Gianforte said the bill, by allocating funds to projects normally under the jurisdiction of local government, creates a dangerous "slippery slope" with the state paying for local government projects. He also has said he wants the money to primarily to go to law enforcement.

He also expressed concern that county governments would use the increased breathing room in their budgets to redirect taxpayer dollars to "capricious, unnecessary projects," which he said would add to Montanans' tax burden.

This drew the ire of local legislators from both parties, as well as the Hill County Commission, which objected not just to the veto but Gianforte's justification.

One of the bill's biggest local supporters was Hill County Commissioner Jake Strissel, who said he and his colleagues don't want to place an undue burden on taxpayers, but the bill could have been incredibly helpful for the county, especially with improving county roads.

Local legislators, regardless of party, agreed and some accused the governor of deliberately timing his veto to avoid the possibility of override.

Conflict between commission and health department

While tension between the state and county certainly rose this year, tensions within Hill County itself sparked more than once as well, probably the most high profile instance being a conflict between the commission and health department over wages, one that saw tears shed and tempers rise.

Hill County Health Department employees had been asking for years to have their wages raised, not just because they were well below the state average for their positions, but because the educational requirements of their jobs are higher than most other county employees.

Hill County Public Health Director Kim Berg, also the county's health officer, requested raises that would cost the county around $30,000 in total, and the department suggested a number of ways the county could go about freeing up that money, all of which were, for various reasons, rejected or not addressed.

Eventually Berg proposed a second solution, to restructure the health department, eliminating some currently unfilled positions to free up funds to pay remaining positions the amount she said they deserve, something that would require no additional funding from the county, but this plan got pushback from the commission as well.

Members of the department, including Berg, had said they think county employees in general are long-overdue for an increase in compensation, but given the costs of the department employees' required degrees as well as ongoing training and certifications makes their need especially great.

Berg and others had said that the low wages are making recruitment and retention at the department incredibly difficult, and, with the departure of then-WIC Coordinator Nicole Hungerford, its staff was under 50 percent.

Hungerford said her departure was due to the low wages and a lack of respect for her and her work by the Hill County commissioners, with her resignation letter saying she cannot work for elected officials who do not treat her profession with any respect.

Hungerford's resignation seemingly brought the long-standing issue to a head and prompted a months-long series of meetings between the commission and the department, many of them tense, with members of the department becoming increasingly frustrated with the commission's handling of the matter and its lack of action.

Department employees and other county officials criticized the commission's handling of the issue, including their setting up meeting after meeting to discuss matters that had already been discussed at length and asking questions that had been repeatedly answered by the department.

A sticking point was grant funding, which commissioners Peterson and Sheri Williams, the latter of whom was elected at the end of last year, defeating incumbent Republican Diane McLean, repeatedly brought up as a method to raise wages despite Berg and other county officials telling them that that isn't how these grants work.

In every public meeting on the issue, Berg said that she cannot pay for wage increases through grants, something that Hill County Clerk and Recorder Lexis Dockter had also said.

Meetings became increasingly tense as the months went on as Berg and others kept asking for action and the commission continued to retread issues that had already been addressed, and criticizing Berg for her conduct.

Peterson claimed that Berg had been uncooperative and refused to answer questions.

Berg said she had answered every question sent to her by the commission, often more than once, and had provided every bit of documentation and information they asked for.

Williams criticized Berg for not coming to the commission with information about the grants they get and for the proposed raise to her own wages.

Berg's proposed wage increase for herself, unlike that of the other employees, was lower than the state average for her position, which she said she was willing to take given the economic conditions at the time and the county generally being stretched thin.

After this became another sticking point she made a last ditch effort to convince the commission by proposing a wage for everyone in the department to the state average and no increase for herself.

After a great deal of argument the commission eventually voted to raise the wages of the department to the state average.

Controversy over public comment procedures

The Hill County Commission also drew criticism earlier this year over changes it made to its public comment procedures, changes many argued were an undue infringement on people's ability to engage with the commission during meetings.

In February, Hill County Commission Chair Mark Peterson announced that from that point on, the public and county officials would no longer be permitted to speak during discussion of agenda items unless called to by the commissioners.

Peterson said people can still comment on issues at the very beginning of the meeting, but after that only the commissioners may speak on the agenda items.

Before this, members of the public were allowed to make comment and ask questions on individual items when they were discussed in the meetings, a system that critics of the change said was working perfectly well.

Peterson said this decision was made in order to prevent people from going off on tangents and slowing down meetings, but the move drew widespread criticism from county residents, county officials and fellow Commissioner Sheri Williams who said she was not involved in the conversation about that change until just before it was announced.

Over the next few meetings the commission fielded complaints from a number of members of the public who felt like their voices weren't being heard, and many criticized the fact that Williams had apparently been completely excluded from the decision.

Many critics said that because the agendas for the commission's meetings tend to be somewhat vague many don't know exactly what is being discussed until the item is reached on the agenda, so restricting public comment means people will not have a chance to express informed opinions.

Despite requests to go back to the previous method of public comment, the commission has remained with this new method, and the commission wasn't the last county entity to have controversy like this.

The Hill County Park Board, which the commissioners also sit on, voted to impose limits on public comments a few months later.

Board Chair Jeff Jensen said he wanted to establish a time limit of one minute on public comments on specific agenda items, with three minutes available at the end of the meeting to discuss matters not on the agenda.

Jensen said he hoped this change would speed up their meetings, but the change drew criticism from board member Lou Hagener who has argued repeatedly that the board needs to do more to improve their relationship and transparency with the public.

Hagener and others said they were concerned with the lack of clarity on the agenda, similar to the criticism made of the commission's agenda, but these concerns were largely brushed off and the change still stands.

Grazing committee faces continued criticism

The Park Board and its Grazing Committee have faced a fair amount of criticism in general this year, particularly regarding grazing allocations and the makeup of the committee.

During a meeting earlier this year the board voted to adopt using the three-year average as their gauge for grazing allocations this coming year, a number recommended to them by their Grazing Committee.

Many said this vote was improper because the two board members who made and seconded that motion, Tony Reum and Larry Kinsella, and voted in favor of it, run cattle on the park, which is a major conflict of interest.

Members of the board clarified that Reum doesn't run cattle on the park, just his family, but board member and Hill County Commissioner Mark Peterson suggested they redo that vote with them abstaining, which was done later in the year with the motion passing.

Conflict over this vote came in the wake of ongoing criticism of the committee, which many have argued is compromised by conflicts of interest due to having too many active grazers on it.

Earlier this year Hill County had to pay Ray and Debra Kallenberger $18,750 as part of a settlement after the couple alleged that the makeup of the committee and board are a conflict of interest and said they had been excluded and mistreated by both, though neither party admitted to liability.

In 2022 the Kallenbergers argued that their treatment by the committee is the result of a "good ol' boys club" attitude that ignores present conflicts of interests and keeps most from having a fair chance to use the park for grazing.

They said they had turned their lease over to a family member after they sold off their cattle, but when they had tried to get back to grazing on the park, after they had built their herd back up, they were put on a waiting list. When a lease was relinquished, they tried to get back on the park but were denied.

The Kallenbergers have argued that the handling of this issue was done in violation of board and committee policy, an accusation that has been denied by the committee.

Throughout the year, the board and committee have been criticized for this state of affairs and urged to consider taking steps to eliminate conflicts of interest.

Legislature passes laws restricting queer rights

This year's legislative session was a chaotic one, with the Republican supermajority and governor pushing through a number of bills drawing the ire of Democrats and divisions rising over social and economic issues between the parties.

While the session was unusual throughout, some of the biggest profile conflicts had to do with the rights of transgender Montanans.

The biggest of these bills was Senate Bill 99, which effectively bans gender affirming care to minors, despite the objection of nearly every relevant medical organization in the state.

Proponents claim the bill is intended to protect children from unnecessary medical procedures, but the medical community, as well as civil rights advocates, have said that it is a restriction on medical freedom and will restrict access to care that saves lives.

During debate over the bill House Republicans banned Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, from the floor for the remainder of the session for saying those who support a ban on gender-affirming care would "have blood on their hands," which Republicans said broke house decorum rules.

The banning of Zephyr, the first openly transgender woman ever elected to Montana's Legislature, became a national story, criticized by many for being completely unnecessary and an attempt to silence criticism.

The bill has been temporarily blocked by a state judge in Missoula as proceedings continue, finding that the law seems to have "no rational relationship to protecting children."

The bill was voted for by Sen. Russ Tempel, R-Chester, Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, Rep. Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, and Rep. Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, and against by Rep. Paul Tuss, D-Havre, Sen. Mike Fox, D-Hays, and Rep. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder.

Tempel criticized the bill, saying he thinks it goes too far, but when asked why he still voted for it said it does more good than harm.

House Bill 234, which allows public school employees to be criminally charged for disseminating "obscene" materials, was signed into law with Tempel, Lang and Kassmier voting in favor and Tuss, Fox, Windy Boy and Knudsen voting against.

The initial version of the bill also included museums and libraries, prompting reactions from local officials, but it was eventually changed to only include schools.

This bill was criticized broadly as a thinly-veiled attempt to limit the availability of queer literature in school, and an attempt to further marginalize LGBTQ people.

House Bill 359 sought to ban drag performers from reading to children public schools and libraries, but was blocked in court on the grounds that the law is too vague and that there is no evidence that drag performers reading to children is dangerous.

The bill also prohibits minors from attending "sexual oriented or obscene performances on public property," which critics say is an attempt to prevent any drag, or gender-non-conforming performances in public.

The bill was voted for by Lang and Kassmier, and against by Tempel, Fox, Knudsen, Tuss and Windy Boy.

Charter school bill passes

Among the bills that passed this year was House Bill 562, which creates a framework for charter schools that would operate largely outside the traditional public school system.

"Community choice" schools would be exempted from a number or requirements that traditional public schools follow like teacher certification and be operated by governing boards eventually elected by parents and guardians of attending students with a commission under the Montana Board of Public Education to oversee them.

While this bill was largely opposed by public school advocates and Democrats, it did draw support from many Native American education advocates, who say it could make the process of setting up immersion schools easier.

Under the Cultural Integrity Commitment Act, schools can receive money from the state for language immersion programs as long as they provide instruction in their chosen Native language for at least 50 percent of the the day, and that it is done under the purview of a language instructor who is proficient in the language and holds a Class 7 teaching license.

HB 562 is being challenged in court, but Windy Boy has intervened in the case, adding his support to the bill as it faces ongoing litigation.

It was voted for by Lang, Knudsen, Kassmier and Windy Boy, and against by Tempel, Fox and Tuss.

However, this wasn't the only charter school-related bill to pass, and questions remain about apparent conflicts between these laws.

House Bill 549 authorizes the establishment of charter schools under local school boards, keeping the creation and administration of them within the current system and requiring them to follow similar rules as traditional public schools, which are essentially the rules the state had for charter schools for decades.

This bill was more palatable to public education advocates and schools, many of which supported the bill in opposition to HB 562, but now that both have passed, many wonder which model will win out. Education advocates say they cannot both be implemented.

The bill was voted for by Tuss, Windy Boy, Kassmier and Knudsen, and against by Tempel, Fox and Lang.

Earlier this year a state judge blocked portions of HB 562, specifically the establishment of a commission overseeing the "community choice" schools.

Members of the commission had already been appointed and will be allowed to adopt bylaws and hire staff, but they cannot consider applications for new schools as litigation continues.