Montana Editorial Roundup

The Montana Standard, Sept. 25, on cleaning up mining waste in Butte:

In the Butte Superfund cleanup, the longest-running Kabuki production this side of the Pacific, what appears to be rational is routinely dismissed as fantasy, and what appears to be real is frequently revealed to be chimera.

Onto this well-trodden stage about this same time last year came Gov. Steve Bullock, who decided to cut through the drama and take simple action. The state would not wait for EPA and ARCO to hem and haw and trade favors in secret negotiations even as they held their masks and recited their tired lines onstage. He would not wait to see if they ultimately reconsidered their scientifically indefensible position that the Parrot tailings pose no threat to groundwater or to Silver Bow Creek. The tailings, he said, should come out, and he instructed the Natural Resource Damage Program to “get dirt moving” by summer 2016.

Necessary? Absolutely. Refreshing? Certainly.

But anybody who thought that was the end of the Parrot tailings controversy seriously underestimated the actors behind the masks, who prefer to do their real work well outside the sightlines of the suckers in the seats, also known as Butte’s citizens.

After letting Bullock simmer for months in the bureaucratic soup of county-shop location issues, and realizing he had election-related time constraints as well as cash constraints posed by the relative peanuts left to Butte after so much more has been spent elsewhere, ARCO finally saw its opportunity: Its approval was needed to forward the state’s plan to dump the contaminated tailings near the Berkeley Pit. Every other option had been exhausted. The governor needed ARCO’s help to accomplish what the company had long insisted did not need to be done.

The result, so far, has been predictable. The approval has not been forthcoming. We should make no mistake about who is responsible for that. And we applaud Bullock for sticking to his guns and refusing to negotiate a Butte Priority Soils consent decree until ARCO relents.

Meanwhile, EPA has released its 5-year review of the area-wide cleanup. It’s a year late, but its contents are depressingly familiar.

Once again, the EPA concludes, there is no evidence to indicate the waste-in-place remedy is not the right solution for the upper Silver Bow Creek watershed. That assertion, given the research that has been done by various agencies over the past five years and what it shows, is stunning.

A draft summary of the review does note, however, that “there is a fair amount of concern in the community regarding remedy” at Butte Priority Soils.

You could say that.

As The Montana Standard has surveyed this landscape over the past year and a half, we have repeatedly raised the issue of transparency. How, exactly, are the actions of local, state and federal government representatives to determine a plan for Butte’s future not the people’s business?

Some of the consent-decree negotiators have promised to take various steps toward transparency. Certainly, some of those promises have been well-intentioned. But none of them have assuaged that “concern in the community” that EPA so correctly identifies.

The EPA has given us dire warnings of what may transpire if The Montana Standard and the Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition are successful in our legal effort, launched last week, to open up those negotiations to the public.

“Most or all” of the parties would refuse to negotiate if “confidentiality . could not be assured,” the agency told us. But both Bullock and Butte-Silver Bow Chief Executive Matt Vincent have said that while they will abide by a judge’s decision, they would welcome true transparency in the negotiations.

Around the country, the EPA routinely seeks confidentiality for such negotiations, although there is no law or federal regulation demanding it. But whatever is done elsewhere, we believe Butte to be a special circumstance. We all know this is the largest Superfund site in the nation. We all know this Superfund litigation spans nearly two decades.

And we all know what should be done. It’s no secret, even if the talks are secret.

Butte deserves a cleanup and a restoration second to none. It deserves a clean waterway flowing through a restored environment, and a storm water solution that won’t unfairly burden local taxpayers. And it deserves a real, practicable, and paid-for remedy to the Berkeley Pit.

For fourteen years, secret talks have not produced what Butte deserves. Let’s try bringing the citizens into the room, and holding both those responsible for the pollution and our public agencies accountable in real time.

We’ve been hearing the lines recited behind the masks for too long.

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2dqE3KN

___

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Sept. 23, on health insurance rate hikes:

When Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana recently pared back its planned health insurance premium increases from 65.4 percent to 58.4 percent after a state analysis found them to be too high, it begged an important question: If the company can get by with lower rate increases now, why was it demanding so much in the first place? And how much less could it get by with and remain profitable?

State Auditor and Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen says the planned hike in premiums is still too large, and BCBS is challenging that. So be it. But the financial data the commissioner’s office used in its analysis needs to be scrutinized carefully - by all of us. The only other two providers on the Montana Health Insurance Exchange are raising their rates by 30.7 percent and 27.6 percent respectively - roughly half the increases that BCBS is planning.

Health insurers must suffer from some kind of memory deficit disorder. It was just a half dozen years ago that lawmakers in Washington debated cutting private companies out of the health insurance business altogether by establishing a single-payer system - essentially Medicare for everyone. Through compromise, the private companies are still providing the coverage under the Affordable Care Act, although they are required to meet certain coverage minimums.

Exorbitant premiums are going to reignite that debate. And the single-payer option is going to win more and more supporters as conservatives and liberals alike wake up to the fact that private health insurance in its current form is a millstone around our economic neck.

Yes, a single-payer system would mean more federal withholding from our paychecks. But it would lift the onus of $10,000-plus in annual premiums we pay for health insurance now - whether individually or through our employers.

Lindeen’s office needs to make her analysis public along with explanations the layman can understand for why any rate increases are justified.

Health insurance is no longer an option under the Affordable Care Act. It really never was for responsible individuals. So we have a right to maximum transparency in the process by which the premiums we pay are set.

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2dspBlc

___

The Billings Gazette, Sept. 26, on counting enrollment at the University of Montana:

A new way of reporting enrollment numbers for the Montana University system seems like a good idea. The way of presenting the new plan needed improvement.

To understand why the state’s Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education changed the way it reports enrollment numbers, it’s important to do a little bit of homework.

Not all Montana universities and colleges start at the same time. For example, Montana Tech starts in the middle of August, while Montana State University Billings doesn’t begin until after Labor Day. That’s an important distinction, because comparing any two campuses on a particular day could mean some are weeks ahead of a sister institution.

Although it would seem like a census count could be done on the first day of class and voila enrollment numbers are complete, it’s not that simple. In the Montana University System, students have until the 15th day to drop a class. Moreover, tuition isn’t due until the 15th day of classes. It’s not until a student pays and stays, so to speak, that the numbers start to clarify. In addition, dual enrollment figures aren’t figured until around the 15th day.

And numbers can fluctuate dramatically day to day early in the semester. For example, the OCHE office reported that last week - when the new enrollment approach was presented to the Board of Regents - Montana State University in Bozeman had 1,200 students who hadn’t paid for classes - meaning that theoretically many students could disappear from enrollment numbers in the coming weeks, even if unlikely. A week later, that MSU number sat at 87.

And there’s the heart of the catch-22. If the central Montana University System office - or any campus - releases numbers on the first day, they could be off significantly. When truer, accurate numbers come later, the difference raises questions and makes many campuses look as if droves of students left.

Critics argue that large drops between those who register and those students who stick with the class could indicate a university that isn’t doing enough to retain students. But, we can also believe that many students face uncertain finances and life situations which may cause them to drop a class early in the semester. Those students shouldn’t be counted.

Enrollment figures on any particular day, especially very early in a semester, may be like looking at a checking account balance - it gives a snapshot of a number at particular point in time. But it doesn’t indicate how much money was there yesterday or how much will be there tomorrow. So too with enrollment until that key 15th day.

We can’t fault the system for wanting better, more reliable statistics before releasing them to a public that will take them at face value. By switching to a new system, the university will be able to make more apples-to-apples comparisons with other institutions at the same point in the school year, and eventually, to where the same campus was a year ago. We believe that data will help Montanans get a better handle on the direction of their university system.

We can’t criticize the university for not releasing numbers and then get upset when the early numbers prove to have been far off the mark.

Some have criticized the new enrollment plan as a way to stonewall the numbers, covering for campuses, for example in Billings and Missoula, which continue to see enrollment declines. However, Kevin McRae, deputy commissioner for communication for the Montana University System, said better numbers mean those universities that experience declines have more accurate data to assess any trouble areas.

The serious problems that exist in Missoula and Billings can only be helped by solid data, we agree.

McRae also pointed out that nothing is stopping the public from asking for enrollment numbers at any particular time, for any campus - that’s public data. However, those numbers may be unreliable.

And that brings up how this new plan was presented. At the meeting it appeared as if the commissioner’s office was intentionally trying to stymie discussion of numbers, refusing to generate a report for regents. Moreover, reports of the system office encouraging campuses not to share numbers read more like a crackdown than thoughtful plan. It was clumsy at best.

Finally, when one of the assistant commissioners quipped that the “average person” couldn’t grasp the enrollment numbers, it was a gaffe that seemed to suggest the office had something to hide, or that Montanans aren’t good at ciphering numbers.

For our part, we’re willing to try out the new math, if you will, because it seems like OCHE has made a good-faith effort at presenting better, reliable, meaningful data to the public in the place of shaky estimates. Guessing at numbers only has the ability undermine the public’s trust in the state university system. We’d rather take the delay for accuracy’s sake than an educated but wrong guess.

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2cKmYc7

___

Great Falls Tribune, Sept. 23, on the state’s financial ranking:

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

That’s a quote popularized by Mark Twain, a master of sarcasm.

But it’s a useful quotation to remember in the final weeks of the 2016 general election campaigns.

In some ways, it’s certainly possible to dig up statistics to make one’s political opponent look bad. And it’s not hard to find figures to boost a candidate.

These days, tensions are rising among candidates and their fervent supporters. Accusations and cheap shots, especially from independent groups that often enjoy attacking candidates, won’t be unusual, especially on television and in brochures and cards sent through the mail.

We’d like to suggest people do some of their own research, rather than taking anyone’s word for it.

Here’s an interesting issue to poke into: Is Montana’s economy doing well, and is state government responsible with our money?

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, has touted the state as being the most fiscally responsible in the nation.

Then GOP challenger Greg Gianforte’s campaign issued a news release Friday stating that’s not the case. Gianforte’s camp noted the news media in 2014 cited a J.P. Morgan study, in which Montana was rated tops for bonded debt, commitments to pensions, retiree health costs and similar expenses. The Gianforte campaign said the report actually was based upon data from 2012, when Bullock wasn’t even governor.

The Gianforte camp then noted a more recent J.P. Morgan report from fiscal year 2015 showed Montana had dropped from first place to 26th place using the same criteria. Wyoming took first place in that ranking. That’s a good parry by the Republican side. We didn’t get a response from the Bullock campaign.

We decided to look at other ways to measure the health of Montana’s economy and the fiscal responsibility of state government.

One report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., ranked the states’ fiscal conditions in a June 1 report, based in part upon long-term obligations such as employee pensions and health care benefits. This report ranked Montana 10th best among the states. Six contiguous states in the upper Midwest and Rocky Mountain West made the top 10.

“Revenues exceed expenses by 8 percent, producing a surplus of $409 per capita,” the report said about Montana.

A website called Multi-State Insider listed states with looming budget shortfalls. Montana wasn’t on that list, but Wyoming was, showing how quickly these rankings can change. Wyoming has been hit even harder than Montana has by a fall in oil prices and the market’s lagging interest in coal.

A Pew Charitable Trusts analysis dated Sept. 1 looked at the 50 states and ranked Montana 16th best for its long-term obligations.

We think Gov. Bullock should stop claiming the first-place ranking for Montana as the most fiscally responsible if he is using outdated figures.

As for the health of Montana’s economy, every Montanan can judge that for himself or herself.

Incidentally, it’s hard to blame Bullock for the drop in oil prices, which has international roots. But we think it’s a good idea for candidates to address how they will deal with Montana’s shrinking rainy-day fund, once projected to reach $314 million next June 30. The state’s fund balance June 30 this year was $255 million, and the Legislative Fiscal Division estimates the ending fund balance could drop to as low as $109 million next June.

Montana’s declining coffers will affect planning for Montana’s infrastructure improvements. Bullock last year wanted to issue low-interest bonds to cover the costs of some capital projects, and Republicans instead wanted to spend down the rainy-day fund to pay for infrastructure.

Editorial: https://gftrib.com/2dsqZEv