SME Trustee
Rich Liebert, a local rancher and activist, raises an interesting point: “Under what authority does Colleen Balzarini have to vote on behalf of the citizens of Great Falls when attending an SME meeting?”
You will recall that, in response to a public records request, the City of Great Falls produced to me a copy of SME’s Bylaws. According to this privilege log, the Bylaws provided to me are apparently the operative set, although there was apparently an amendment in 2007. We don’t know what the amendments say, because they now will not produce the amended version (and incredibly claim privilege for the earlier Bylaws, which are already in the public domain).
According to the Bylaws we do have, only “persons who are directors, trustees, or city managers” of SME members are eligible to serve as trustees of SME. This would mean that Electric City Power’s representative on the SME Board would either have to be a member of the Board of Directors of Electric City Power, or the Great Falls City Manager.
Interestingly, though, the Complaint filed by the Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperativestates that “Coleen Balzarini is trustee” of SME. Balzarini “has been designated by ECP to represent the interests of ECP on the Board of Directors” of SME.
Balzarini, though, is not a member of the Board of ECP, nor is she our City Manager. How, then, is she authorized to act? I cannot find any ECP or City Commission resolution authorizing her to so act.
Further, even if ECP or the City Commission tried to authorize her, it wouldn’t be up to them. This would be a matter of internal qualifications of SME, not an external decision to be made by its members (perhaps she could be given a proxy, but none have ever been produced to me). Of course, the Bylaws may have been amended in 2007 to allow her to be a trustee, but what about actions taken before that?
It will be interesting to see what effect this has on everything. Could this affect the validity of SME Board action if it was operating without appropriate trustees present? Could this render the City liable to SME (or Yellowstone Valley) if the City failed to participate as required by the Bylaws?
At best, this is a very sloppy way to handle a 7-figure investment, and smacks of ‘behind the scenes’ dealing. I guess I should be surprised.
But I’m not.
”Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.” (Sir Walter Scott)
Let us muddy the waters a little more.
Assume Ms. Balzarini is validly a Trustee. To whom does she owe her fiduciary duties? If to the members of SME as a whole, assume an issue arises which is beneficial to all members except ECP/City of Great Falls. How is she obligated to vote? Could a situation arise where a city employee holding a position solely as a result of being a city employee is required to vote against the wishes of her employer?
Further, as an employee of the city, Ms. Balzarini is necessarily an agent of the City of Great Falls. In this role, she also has fiduciary duties. In the situation described above, does she not have a conflict of interest which should result in her abstaining from voting? If she abstains, does that not result in ECP/City of Great Falls having no representation on a venture in which it is heavily invested?
By all appearances and actions, Ms. Balzarini is de facto City Manager. This is why she is the trustee.
Balzarini is a double agent with comprised loyalties. She needs to disassociate herself from all dealings with SME and ECP.
Subject: Democracy, representation and civic engagement
I would like to share the thought that Democracy is where the majority rules, but the minority must be heard and dissent allowed. Even in businesses and the military, dissent is VITAL to and a wise leader and commander encourages wise council and deliberation to avoid hasty and ill-conceived campaigns. General Colin Powell also noted that ‘disagreement is not disrespect.’
In conjunction with those reflections, I would like to suggest a cost-saving and conciliatory action for the new year. Our local courts rely upon just one uniformed deputy/bailiff in during court proceedings, so why not place a uniformed Great Falls police officer on duty at city commission meetings versus two undercover officers? One armed and uniformed officer is certainly sufficient
to establish authority and can still respond effectively, just by the uniformed presence alone.
This provides a cost-savings and the detectives can be employed to proper covert operations, rather that waiting to ‘pounce’ upon citizens deemed disruptive. A uniformed officer’s verbal warning is often sufficient to gain the cooperation of the ‘alledged’ disruptive citizen versus two detectives ‘wrestling’ with a one-armed man, which I find highly ineffective and and very disappointing. Escalation of force is is what should occur – verbal warnings, physical presentation and then actual apprehension and detention.
A can tolerate a five-minute comment period and agree with avoiding vulgar and profane language, but the presence of undercover officers is intimidating and inappropriate. Let the undercovers conduct covert surveillance and investigate and let’s instead have a uniformed officer at meetings. If the courts accept that policy of ONE armed and uniformed bailiff/deputy, (and courtrooms have far more dangerous and proven felons during trials than city meetings) then why can’t that be more effective? Going to a uniformed officer policy would help the commission’s moral authority and gain the respect of the citizenry and save money in the process.
Lt. Col (retired, USAR) Richard Liebert
PS – What I’ve addressed is basic ‘Police 101′ and and consistent with civil disturbance training and operations. It is also compatible with counter-insurgency doctrine and ‘winning the hearts and minds of the people’, which also applies to America’s domestic communities like Great Falls.