Montana Editorial Roundup

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, June 3, on a proposed mining ballot initiative:

Montana voters are encouraged to sign a petition to get an initiative on the fall ballot that will help restrict mining pollution. If it earns a place on the ballot and is approved by voters in November, Initiative 186 would require “clear and convincing evidence” that any proposed mine will not require “perpetual treatment” of water contaminated by mining pollutants.

It only makes sense that no mining projects should be permitted by the state if it is going to saddle taxpayers with future cleanup costs. And there is ample reason to fear that could happen. One need only look at history for evidence. Montana is peppered with abandoned mines the state is either monitoring for pollution or actively cleaning up at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

In one of the most notorious cases, Pegasus Gold Corp. went bankrupt in 1998 and abandoned three heavily polluted sites. The bonding required to cover cleanup costs in the event of company failure fell far short of what was needed. Since then the state has spent some $100 million cleaning up the sites.

Think about that. That’s about $100 apiece for every man, woman and child in the state - money that should have been paid by the mining industry. In the absence of serious action, we can only expect more of this in the future.

I-186 could go a long way toward ensuring that does not happen. It’s only reasonable to demand that rock-solid evidence be provided that the state will not have to shoulder water treatment costs indefinitely after a mine has played out and the company is long gone.

Mining industry representatives obviously oppose this measure and have challenged its validity in court because it will require the Legislature or state regulators to come up with definitions of terms in the initiative before it can be implemented. The fate of that lawsuit will play out in the coming months.

Initiative supporters said last week they are nearing the 25,000-plus signatures required to qualify the measure for the ballot. But they are facing a June 22 deadline and are hoping to get far more than the minimum number of signatures required in case some are found to be invalid.

This proposal has the backing of venerable organizations like Trout Unlimited and American Rivers. And Montanans deserve a chance to vote on it in the fall.

Signing the petition will help make sure that happens.

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

___

Billings Gazette, June 1, on the Montana Legislature’s sexual harassment policy:

Montana Senate President Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, gave what may have been the clearest, most precise reason the state’s Legislature needs to move swiftly to adopt an anti-sexual harassment policy.

At a legislative council meeting last week he told his fellow lawmakers, “I guess I don’t understand why we’re going to treat this differently than other bad conduct we have.”

If in the day of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, Sales still doesn’t understand, then maybe he should look up the names John Conyers, Eric Schneiderman or Blake Farenthold.

All three of those politicians have resigned in the wake of sexual harassment. And in the cases of all three, victims worried about stepping forward because of the power each man had as a politician.

It’s troubling that Sales would seem to wonder why a new policy was needed. Wouldn’t he want to make sure that anyone - male or female - had adequate protection from being harassed? The Senate’s leader should know that legislators hold power and because of that, it can be abused.

His comments represent an all-too-common misunderstanding about sexual harassment by men in power, who cannot imagine that someone would be targeted. There seems to be a simple reason for that. White men with power are rarely vulnerable to harassment. They are in a position - they have the power - to make it stop or report it with credibility.

But just because someone doesn’t seem to believe it doesn’t happen doesn’t make it so.

Sexual harassment isn’t about sex. Instead, it’s about power and how those who have it use it to coerce others. Oftentimes, its victims are targeted because of their vulnerability.

It’s easy to see in a Legislature of mostly older men how women could be vulnerable to harassment. Couple that with the inherent scandal of anything sexual, and the ostracizing that comes with it, and you have a culture that would seem resistant and reluctant to not only report harassment, but to deal with it.

Frankly, the problem is that Sales and possibly other leaders view sexual harassment as equal to any other bad behavior. But cussing or showing up late for a meeting isn’t the same as grabbing someone on the buttocks or pressuring someone for a date. They’re different.

One is bad behavior. The other is bad behavior based solely on gender or attraction by a person in power. It’s coercive not just rude.

Not understanding the difference may speak to the culture that exists in Helena and may be a reason why other lawmakers must push leadership to adopt new policies to protect other members and staff from potential abuse by legislators who believe their elected positions entitle them to something more than floor privileges.

We also urge leaders to adopt a practice where victims are protected and complaints are dealt with in a neutral way.

By that, we mean there’s been some discussion that those who come forward to accuse legislators should have their names revealed. Yet, we know that part of the reason many victims of sexual harassment don’t come forward is that they worry they may be re-victimized.

We hope that if accusers have the courage to step forward and report bad behavior, the lawmakers will afford them the same treatment that they have afforded to other citizens who have stepped forward in court cases. Remember, crime victims are often anonymous. They remain anonymous so that they do not fear retribution for merely seeking justice.

Lawmakers would be wise to adopt a similar policy.

Finally, we urge lawmakers to consider a complaint process that would empower a separate group or entity with reviewing charges and making reports or recommendations.

We understand that legislative leadership wants to be involved when it comes to disciplinary matters of members. And, we agree, there needs to be oversight. However, we hope that lawmakers have enough wisdom to understand that just placing a bunch of lawmakers to sit in judgment of their friends or buddies could be seen as stacking the deck against the victims. We hope there’s a way to commission a review procedure that affords due process to the accused and protects the victim.

“We need to be cognizant of those power dynamics and do what we can to mitigate them,” said Rep. Jenny Eck, D-Helena. “And part of that is protecting confidentiality in the process.”

In the past year, there has been a change in understanding about sexual harassment. Now, that change needs to be reflected in Helena.

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2HpeR0M

___

Missoulian, May 31, on Montana needing to change its tax structure:

No one is happy with the state budget.

Folks are worried about critical safety-net programs disappearing for those residents who need it most. Schools continue to struggle to keep classrooms to a manageable size and keep buildings in good working order. Jails are crowding. Drugs, from methamphetamine to opioids, present public safety challenges.

And here we are in the middle of an election cycle.

Yet, that’s why it’s the right time to start talking about 2019 and the legislative session. When you speak to people who want to represent you in Helena, it’s going to be important that you discuss what their plans are to make sure state priorities like taking care of the elderly, protecting the social safety nets and providing excellent schools and roads happen.

There is one common thing among all of those items - they all take money.

While no one likes the thought of taxes, especially more taxes, it’s also essential that we consider the two problems of Montana’s taxation.

In Montana we already have income tax and property tax. Most states have a third tax, sales tax, that rounds out the budget and provides other amenities or budget items.

The Treasure State has historically recoiled at any hint of a sales tax or even a local-option sales tax which would be implemented in a particular community, not throughout the state.

Yet most folks agree that the state funding model isn’t really sustainable. Cuts to essential services risk doing damage to our communities, and this is a big state with a lot of needs.

We have to do better.

The two ideas that have been floated to solve our perennial budget problem are a sales tax or fixing other tax issues.

While we continue to support a sales tax or at least a local-option tax for Billings, we also believe reconsidering other tax code changes could restore a modicum of reason to the funding structure.

We support a sales tax because even though some argue it’s the most regressive, meaning it hurts poorer families and individuals disproportionately, we also believe there are examples of how to reduce these effects that have been tried successfully in other states. Moreover, we believe that such a tax will help capture dollars naturally flowing through our state via our second largest industry, tourism. When Montanans go to other states and pay sales taxes, so too should we be working at capturing the revenue coming through Montana to help support the local economies.

But if a sales tax or local-option tax is still not possible, then we believe the Legislature must again look to changes it made in 2003 which helped create this problem. We must look at restoring some of the changes made to help ensure more revenue.

For example, when the Legislature made the change in 2003, minimum-wage workers pay the same tax rate as someone with income more than $1 million.

According to the Montana Budget and Police Center, Montana is one of the few states that provides a lower tax rate on capital gains, meaning those who cash out stock pay less than income earned on wages. This benefit would only be significant to those considered “super wealthy” and results in a loss of $30 million to the state.

Changing those two things alone would add nearly $50 million a year. That wouldn’t close the projected two-year $227 million shortfall, but it would cut it in half.

No one likes the idea of having a long talk with a politician about taxes, but then again, who really loves the idea of talking about where those with disabilities are going to live just because the state could no longer afford the care?

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2LqmV3A