Opinion by JENI DODD
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Folks that have followed my writing will know that I have a strong skepticism about what transpires between governments and their nongovernmental organization (NGO) “partners.” There are reasons for my skepticism, particularly in Great Falls, Montana.
For one, the conflict of interest issues that surfaced in the city with grant programs such as the HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). From 2012 to 2017, members of city NGO partner organizations were seated on a city advisory board that recommended many of those same organizations to receive that CDBG funding. HUD wasn’t happy about that.
Conflicts of interest are just one reason I keep an eagle eye out on city partnerships. The city’s willingness to bend over backwards for their NGO partners is yet another.
So when I saw the City of Great Falls was poised to sign a contract with Cushing Terrell for the Great Falls Public Library remodel design, thus creating a financial obligation for the city (and therefore city taxpayers), I sprung into action because supposedly the Library Foundation agreed to pay for the remodel design. The library levy passed in 2023 by a narrow margin was for operating expenses only, not for a remodel. So why was the city signing this contract?
All it would take is a pass by city commissioners authorizing the city manager to sign the contract and the city would be encumbered. In fact, the contract states:
City agrees to pay Consultant at the hourly rate(s) set forth in the Scope of Services, for a total not to exceed amount of EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT DOLLARS ($873,158.00) for services performed pursuant to the Scope of Services.
The City of Great Falls and the Great Falls Public Library have a complex relationship. Yes, the library building is owned by the city and that, along with the 1993 Agreement (which I opine isn’t a legal agreement per the Montana Code Annotated) was the excuse given for the city being the responsible party on this contract. But it is the Great Falls Public Library Foundation, the Library Board of Trustees and Library Director Susie McIntyre that are leading the push for a $16 million or more remodel of the library.
The narrative in the agenda packet states the following:
The Great Falls Public Library Foundation participated in the Request for Proposal committee and is committed to this project. The Library currently holds $117,000 in Library funds designated to the remodel project. As Cushing Terrell submits invoices, the Library will use existing funds and then request dedicated funds from the Foundation as needed to pay the invoices.
Everyone’s heard the common mantra from attorneys to “get it in writing?” Exactly what I was thinking when I read this agenda item and contract. A narrative in a commission meeting agenda is not a legally binding agreement. There was nothing in writing obligating the Library Foundation to ultimately pay. Great Falls voters didn’t vote to fund a library remodel, so yes, I didn’t want city taxpayer on the hook for any part of it.
At the April 16 city commission meeting, I insisted that to protect Great Falls taxpayers from assuming this liability, the city get a signed agreement with the Library Foundation for payment of the contract.
Great Falls Development Alliance Vice President Jolene Schalper, speaking as a city resident, followed me in the public comments and stated, “I’m just concerned that too often all we hear are naysayers and you don’t often hear supporters saying we’re in favor of this…I believe there’s a lot of us that vocalized our support of this entire process when we voted yes for the mill levy but we’re kind of quiet in the background because we voted yes, our voice was heard and now we just expect it to move forward.”
When I confronted her later, she claims she wasn’t calling me a naysayer — yeah, whatever. But I think Schalper also needs a reminder that the mill levy that passed was not for a library remodel, but for library operations. So far, the taxpayers have not voted to remodel the library and the Library Director has stated the library doesn’t intend to seek a bond levy for the remodel.
Regardless, it was an interesting comment from Schalper considering I and another member of the public simply expressed concerns about this contract’s implementation and although I’m not in favor of this remodel proposal, neither one of us had expressed opposition to this remodel at this meeting.
In fact, the other speaker specifically stated he wasn’t expressing support or opposition to the project. Instead, he stated that in his 30+ years experience in construction, it was his experience that the money for a remodel was usually secured before any contracting. That made sense to me. I was merely looking for a legally binding agreement that the Library Foundation would be fiscally responsibility to the city for this contract.
The City of Great Falls holds two library funds, one funded by city mills and the other funded by the Library Foundation. We also learned that although the Library Foundation currently possesses funds to pay the entire remodel design contract, they instead want to keep the bulk of that money in their own investment account so they can earn more money on it and only dole out their funds for the remodel design contract as invoiced.
Commissioner Tryon had questions and some concerns about it as well and asked what could be done. City Attorney David Dennis seemed to infer that a written agreement between the city and the Library Foundation wasn’t necessary because the Library Foundation possesses the money to pay the whole contract. In my opinion, that's an indication that the city attorney favored the Library Foundation over the financial interests of city and the taxpayers of Great Falls, which was very disappointing.
Eventually, city staff and the city commission settled on a memorandum of understanding with the Library Foundation regarding payment of the contract. Is an MOU the ideal solution? No, not in my opinion. An actual contract to pay would be better. But at least this might provide some modicum of protection for city taxpayers where originally there was no protection proposed.
