Montana Standard, Dec. 5, on a thorough Superfund cleanup:
After the Restore Our Creek Coalition and The Montana Standard co-sponsored a well-attended rally two weeks ago at the Covellite Theatre, many of the participants received excellent feedback and support from community members, who say they appreciate what the coalition is trying to accomplish - quite simply, to push the parties to Butte’s long-running Superfund cleanup to remove the tailings, get it done, restore Silver Bow and Blacktail creeks.
But it would be disingenuous not to point out that there is another narrative out there.
“Raising a ruckus about the cleanup is reinforcing Butte’s negative image,” we’ve heard. “You should be putting out a positive message about how much has been done, not focusing on what hasn’t been done. It’s just going to make it that much harder for Butte to overcome the perception that the town is a toxic dump.”
While we understand the genesis of such thinking, we must respectfully disagree.
Yes, much has been done. We should be grateful for the remediation and restoration of many areas in town. But asking for the job to be completed correctly is not negative. It’s positive.
Without a true cleanup, Butte economic development efforts will not succeed. And without grassroots involvement - loud involvement - decision-makers can be counted on to opt for the easiest, most expedient conclusion.
We won’t improve our external image or our internal fortunes by ignoring the problems and challenges that are set before us with the cleanup, or by glossing over the truth.
With the new determination on the part of the EPA to get to consensus, the window is closing fast. We need to make our feelings known, clearly and emphatically.
Turning the center of our town from a problem into an attraction will go a long way to assuring Butte’s future. And it’s not something we can simply not do and say we did.
We believe that the men and women who made Butte - who came here, worked the mines, created families, created wealth and created community, at great personal risk and sacrifice - would insist that corners not be cut, that bureaucrats and politicians not look the other way and take the easy way out. They would insist on a cleanup that is truly protective of human health and the environment.
We have a responsibility to them - and to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren - to see this through.
Editorial: http://bit.ly/2AyRWjx
___
Billings Gazette, Dec. 5, on Congress withholding Montana kids’ health funds:
While House and Senate Republicans have agreed to finance the corporate tax cut by ballooning the national debt, they have insisted the cost of health care for low-income children be paid for with cuts in other federal health care spending.
Time is running out for 9 million American children covered by the Children’s Health Insurance Program, including 24,000 Montana children. CHIP expired at the end of September and Congress has failed to reauthorize it. Most states had enough money to continue children’s care through this fall, but money will run out this month for some.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle profess to be in favor of CHIP. Early in November, House Republicans passed a five-year CHIP bill that would also extend community health center funding for two years. The bill would cut preventive care spending and charge some higher-income Medicare enrollees a new fee to cover the costs of CHIP and the community health centers.
As of Monday, the Senate hasn’t passed a CHIP bill. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who helped write the corporate income tax bill, said last Thursday that there isn’t money to continue the children’s health program.
“We’re going to do CHIP, there’s no question about it in my mind. It has to be done the right way,” Hatch said Thursday on the U.S. Senate floor. “But we - the reason CHIP is having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore.”
Unless Congress acts, the entire federal government runs out of money on Friday. President Donald Trump and Congress haven’t yet agreed on a budget for the fiscal year that began two months ago. CHIP is likely to be included in a massive budget bill, possibly later this week.
But keep your eyes open. What trade-off will be demanded to keep kids covered? Will CHIP be funded for a or less? Why are corporate tax cuts a higher priority for the GOP than children’s health?
As Holly Michels reported for The Gazette last week, without a federal funding renewal by the middle of this month, the Montana Department Public Health and Human Services will send letters to the families of 24,000 Montana kids, letting them know CHIP will run out of funding at the end of January.
Funding CHIP is a top priority for most Americans, according to a Kaiser poll conducted in mid-November. In the poll, 62 percent of respondents rated reauthorizing CHIP funding as a top priority, making the kids’ program slightly more popular than funding for places in the U.S. affected by hurricanes, which 61 percent listed as a top priority.
“Reforming the tax code, which may cut taxes for some” was a top priority for only 28 percent of those polled.
Most Americans recognize the tremendous importance of caring for the health of our children. It’s also a great investment — preventing lifelong problems that cause disability, suffering and higher medical costs.
Congress needs to get that message. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, has been a staunch supporter of CHIP, advocating its reauthorization with no strings attached. Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte should buck their party’s line. Put children’s health ahead of partisan politics. Pay for kid’s health care first, then figure out how much corporate taxes can be reduced.
States are running out of money, the National Governor’s Association said in calling on Congress again last week to reauthorize CHIP. Colorado was the first state to notify families that their kids are at risk for losing CHIP coverage, according to National Public Radio. Virginia officials are drafting a similar letter.
NPR reported that Texas is running out of CHIP funds faster than expected because many children were enrolled for the first time after Hurricane Harvey hit, leaving families homeless and children traumatized. Like CHIP families in Montana, those Texas families may be getting letters just before Christmas telling them that the children soon won’t have health insurance.
Editorial: http://bit.ly/2jZHkQW
___
Independent Record, Dec. 4, on war on state government secrecy being far from over:
After a legal back-and-forth that lasted several weeks, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has finally disclosed the terms of its six-figure settlement with ousted Montana State Parks Administrator Chas Van Genderen.
This little ray of sunshine is a win for all Montanans interested in learning more about the decisions their state leaders are making behind closed doors. However, FWP’s unsettling stance on this issue affirms that the war on secrecy is far from over within the ranks of Montana’s state government.
Earlier this year, the agency confirmed the existence of a settlement for an undisclosed amount of money but refused to disclose any of the details, even though Montana law requires public access to “all terms, conditions, and details of the government portion of a compromise or settlement agreement.” An attorney and former law professor, FWP Director Martha Williams initially said she would not release the settlement to the public unless a judge ordered her to do so.
In our view, this information must be open to the public because the public is ultimately responsible for the way their government operates, and people can’t make good decisions if they are continually left out of the loop.
Predictably, FWP cited the go-to excuse used at all levels of government to justify withholding public information. The state allows records to be concealed if someone’s right to privacy is deemed more important than the public’s right to know, and FWP concluded there were enough privacy issues involved in the settlement agreement to “weigh in the balance in favor of privacy.”
However, as a high-ranking government employee who was pervasively involved in public affairs, Van Genderen is legally considered a public figure with a lower expectation of privacy than private citizens. And when a public body uses public money to pay out a public figure who held a public position, it’s laughable to call the situation anything but a public matter.
FWP officials also claimed they couldn’t release the settlement agreement because they agreed to a confidentiality clause they were obligated to uphold. We would argue that a public agency has no right to bargain away the public’s right to know, and state officials shouldn’t have put themselves in that position in the first place.
To FWP’s credit, the agency took the initiative to ask Van Genderen to waive the confidentiality agreement, which led to the release of the settlement agreement. The agency was not required to take this extra step, which demonstrated a certain level of interest in the public’s right to know.
But this didn’t happen until after our attorney threatened to sue the agency for withholding public information. And Williams said the settlement would still be treated as confidential employee information if Van Genderen had not waived his supposed right to keep the payout private.
Williams promised more transparency before she was hired as FWP’s director earlier this year, so it was unfortunate to see the department take this less-than-transparent stance.
But we are glad FWP complied with our records request in the end, and we will continue to fight for transparency within state agencies so Montanans can effectively evaluate the government leaders who work for them.
Editorial: http://bit.ly/2B6fhue
Please read our comment policy before commenting.