In a move that can be described by a number of adjectives (bizarre? vengeful? shrewd?) Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked western Montana officials to show support for the state Land Board’s decision to lease Otter Creek coal tracts before receiving state grants funded by stimulus money. The ultimatum infuriated liberals and came just weeks after the governor made Republican lawmakers lose their respective minds.
Schweitzer has since had a change of heart and said he will now release the funds without preconditions, citing an improved budget picture. But the immediate backlash highlighted a major misstep by an otherwise savvy politician.
Both rifts revolved around $3.5 million in state grants, a relatively small portion of state expenditures Schweitzer put on hold in response to a deteriorating budget. At the time, Republicans accused the governor of targeting several of their districts’ projects to withhold funds for political reasons. The administration denied this, and pointed out that the cuts would affect Democratic strongholds like Missoula and Great Falls.
But no area stood to lose more, if the hold on funds was made permanent, than the Flathead. Work was already mostly completed on two projects; improvements to Mennonite Church Road in Creston and Third Avenue East in Columbia Falls, under the assumption that the state would be reimbursing their total costs of more than $500,000. When the Schweitzer administration said the money was frozen, local officials were understandably outraged.
Flathead County Administrator Mike Pence called it “about the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my 34 years of government service.”
For Schweitzer’s part, he said the local municipalities were among the last in the state to submit paperwork on the grants. He was also eager to play the hypocrisy card, emphasizing that Flathead Republican legislators had voted against using stimulus dollars in the last session.
Then, later in March, the Land Board approved leasing the Otter Creek coal tracts in southeastern Montana to mining giant Arch Coal Inc. for $86 million. The vote, which was interrupted by environmental protesters, split the five Democrats on the board, passing 3-2 with the governor in favor.
Immediately following, Schweitzer said the coal money could free up the $3.5 million in state grants that everyone is carping about. But the governor then doubled down on his critics, using the same political tactic against his base and opposition, telling them that they must show their support for his decisions before reaping any of their benefits. In Missoula, Schweitzer asked Democratic local officials for letters specifying that they support using coal money before he would release a grant to pay for a $300,000-road project there.
Jim Jensen, the executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, called it an attempt to “blackmail communities’ support for coal.”
The editorial pages of the state’s largest newspapers agreed, stating that the governor, “is putting federal stimulus dollars up for sale;” “holding some communities’ share of the money hostage;” and his “actions may be both illegal and unconstitutional.”
Schweitzer’s defense: “If any community specifically doesn’t want funds that are traced to coal money, they need to be aware that these funds are traced to coal money.” And instead of relenting, Schweitzer extended the mandate to include Republicans. He wanted a letter from them, too, saying that they now support spending stimulus money if they want those funds for local projects. Members of both parties have balked at the letter-writing requirement and, perhaps knowing that he had overplayed his hand, the governor backpedaled – a rarity in his tenure as Montana’s chief executive.
Schweitzer has always been an outspoken governor, but these latest feuds appeared especially vindictive, even sinister and somehow misguided. The governor, who is term-limited in 2012, apparently has no intention of cruising to the finish line and instead appears hell-bent on spending whatever political capital he earned from the last election, when he trounced his Republican opponent with 65 percent of the vote. The problem is, that account may now be almost drained.