Billings Gazette, April 11, on Montana’s secretive public foundations:
The Montana Constitution guarantees citizens’ right to know about their government. Integral to that open government guarantee is the right to attend meetings of public bodies, the right to inspect public records and the right to participate in government.
Community newspapers, such as The Billings Gazette, take seriously our responsibility as government watchdogs and defenders of the public’s right to know. For that reason, The Gazette editorial board joins the Missoulian board in protesting a recent change in the agreement between the University of Montana and its fundraising foundation.
The new agreement says that if UM receives a public records request for any information it received from the UM Foundation, the university will give the foundation 20 days to seek a court order allowing it to keep the information secret.
The university is a public governmental body. As the exclusive fundraising affiliate of UM and recipient of $500,000 in public funding last year, the foundation is a public body, too.
“This is an inexcusable violation of the Montana Constitution, which explicitly protects the public’s right to review public documents, and to do so in a timely manner,” the Missoulian opined Sunday. We agree.
But our concern is broader than the UM agreement. As reported in March by the Missoula Independent, the Board of Regents has approved a similar new provision in the Montana State University agreement with its foundation. (The Missoula Independent, the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette are owned by Lee Enterprises.)
When The Gazette contacted the MSU Billings Foundation Monday, President Bill Kennedy and a staff member promptly furnished The Gazette with a copy of its updated operating agreement, which the regents approved as part of the consent agenda at their January meeting.
The office of Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian evidently requested the addition of the delayed/blocked disclosure language to these contracts, although other provisions of the UM and MSU Billings contracts vary. We suspect other university units’ foundation agreement have similar new language or will soon.
It’s not every day or even every month a Montana public university foundation makes news. But transparency is essential for the entities that are using the public university’s name and brand to solicit support for the same. Private donations have become crucial for public universities as state funding has decreased relative to the cost of higher education.
The foundations do important work, and they must be held accountable for the funds they raise, the money they are paid by the universities and the funds they disburse.
Suppose a university foundation sells an asset for $1 million below its appraised value?
What if a foundation accepts a gift on the condition that the university does something in return?
These aren’t just hypothetical questions. Both scenarios occurred with the UM foundation. The Missoulian requested records in both cases, and received only the records the UM foundation decided to release.
The Board of Regents ought to have a public discussion of what the law requires. We call on the regents to direct their attorney to analyze the open government law as it applies to the foundations. That analysis should be presented at an open meeting at which the regents also hear presentations from independent attorneys who are well-versed in Montana open government law - experts such as Mike Meloy, who works with the Montana Freedom of Information Hotline.
The university agreements clearly regard their foundations as private entities that can keep what they wish secret. That view disregards Montana’s constitution.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2GT3yOZ
___
Bozeman Daily Chronicle, April 8, on slaughtering Yellowstone National Park bison:
It’s been almost 30 years since a bloody winter of killing Yellowstone Park bison gave Montana a black eye in the national news media. Many of the animals were infected with brucellosis, a disease that can be devastating to domestic livestock and their owners. As the animals migrated out of the park in search of winter range, news crews videotaped government officials hazing, shooting and capturing bison to be shipped to slaughter.
Clips were shown on national television and the outrage was palpable. Calls were issued to boycott the state as a vacation destination. The uproar was the impetus for an intergovernmental efforts to find a better way to manage the bison. Wolves - the bison’s natural predators - were reintroduced; bison were tolerated in limited areas outside the park, and efforts were initiated to quarantine and identify disease-free animals that could be relocated to Indian reservations and other public lands.
But the success of those efforts has been limited. Fast forward to 2018 and not a lot has changed. Wildlife managers just wrapped up a winter during which more than 1,100 animals were culled from the park herd - mostly through capture and shipment to slaughter. And still the number of specimens predicted to populate the park after calving season is about 4,300 - far in excess of the 3,000 administrators think the park can sustain.
The anger of national news media audiences still simmers. Bison advocates still demonstrate and disrupt management efforts. It’s likely just a matter of time before the next uproar erupts and Montana will bear the brunt of it.
To be sure, there are no easy solutions to the problem. We do not have unlimited range where bison can be tolerated outside the park. But there are steps that can be taken to minimize the merciless slaughter.
Wyoming could end the practice of feeding elk in winter on feedgrounds that promote the spread of brucellosis. In time, the threat of the disease could be eliminated or minimized and more bison could be tolerated on public lands outside the park. Significant numbers of disease-free bison could be relocated to the Missouri Breaks and Indian reservation where they would thrive. And fair-chase sport hunting opportunities could be expanded to where they would draw hunters from around the nation.
In short, why can’t bison be treated, at least in some fashion, like all Montana big game?
One thing is certain: The continued trapping and slaughter of animals by the thousands is not the answer.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2qqY5sg
Please read our comment policy before commenting.