Trego's Mountain Ear

By: AmberLi Emery

Government review commissions aren’t created to check a box.

They’re created so citizens can thoughtfully examine how their government works, identify problems, educate the public, and recommend improvements after careful study.

The people of Libby were promised exactly that.

Instead, after more than a year of meetings, revisions, legal concerns, public criticism, and last-minute changes, many residents are left asking a simple question:

How did we spend more than a year studying government only to arrive at the finish line with legal questions that still aren’t answered?

A Year Should Have Produced Clarity

No one expected perfection.

People understand volunteers make mistakes.

But time matters.

Over the course of this process, there was ample opportunity to:

• Receive legal guidance.
• Correct questionable language.
• Remove provisions outside the commission’s authority.
• Hold additional public workshops.
• Explain significant changes to residents.
• Address concerns as they arose.

Instead, many of those concerns appear to have remained unresolved until the very end.

That isn’t a criticism of making mistakes.

It’s a question about why they weren’t addressed sooner.

The Timeline Raises More Questions Than It Answers

Residents watched:

• Drafts continue changing.
• Legal concerns emerge.
• The County Attorney raise objections.
• Questions over committee authority.
• Debate over whether portions exceeded Montana law.
• Discussion about allowing voters to decide first and the courts to sort out legality later.

If those questions existed near the end of the process…

Why weren’t they resolved months ago?

What Was the Priority?

Government review isn’t supposed to be a race against an election deadline.

Yet much of the discussion appeared to focus on getting the proposal submitted before the deadline rather than ensuring every legal concern had been resolved.

Deadlines matter.

But so does public confidence.

They had ample time, it was wasted on self interest pontificating.

Were Warnings Taken Seriously?

One of the questions voters deserve answered is this:

When legal concerns were identified, what happened?

Were recommendations adopted?

Were they rejected?

If they were rejected, why?

Who made those decisions?

Those answers matter because they speak directly to transparency.

Why Ask the Courts to Finish the Job?

One of the more striking discussions centered around the idea that legal questions could simply be addressed after voter approval through litigation.

That approach deserves scrutiny.

Should citizens be asked to vote first and let judges determine later whether portions of the charter are lawful?

Or should elected officials insist those questions be answered before asking voters to amend the city’s governing document?

This Isn’t About Personalities

This isn’t about attacking individuals.

The official Government Study Commission members are:

• John Bebee
• Vince Backen
• DC Orr

Serving alongside the commission in advisory capacities were:

• Former Councilman Hugh Taylor
• Current Councilman Ethan Kolp

Each volunteered time to the process.

That service deserves recognition.

But public service also carries public accountability.

The questions being asked aren’t personal.

They’re procedural.

The Public Deserves Answers

After more than a year of work, residents shouldn’t be left wondering:

• Why legal concerns remained unresolved.
• Why recommendations from legal counsel weren’t fully addressed.
• Why substantial revisions continued so late in the process.
• Why voters are being asked to sort out issues that arguably should have been settled before an election.

Those aren’t partisan questions.

They’re questions about process.

And process matters because public trust depends on it.

The Bigger Question

Perhaps the most important question isn’t whether this charter passes or fails.

It’s this:

If a government review process lasting more than a year still ends with unresolved legal concerns, what does that say about the process itself?

Because rewriting a city’s charter is one of the most significant actions a community can take.

It deserves more than urgency.

It deserves confidence.

It deserves transparency.

And it deserves answers before, not after, the voters cast their ballots.