I apologize to Commissioner Cal Scott. Before he was elected, I wrote letters in opposition of him to the media. At that time I did not believe he would make a good commissioner. However, after attending a commission meeting, my opinion of Scott has changed. My initial judgment of you was wrong.
I was at the meeting in support of a new building for the Agency on Aging and the application for a Community Development Block Grant. A meeting to discuss the grant and location of a new building was planned for April 30, but it was instead hastily added to the agenda before that. The grant writer and AOA director were unavailable to attend the meeting to respond to any questions. The room was full of people in support of a new building, The commissioners allowed a 15-minute window for public comment. Everyone spoke in support of a new building on county-owned property near the fairgrounds. Seventy-five minutes later it was on the agenda for the commissioners.
Commissioner Pam Holmquist began by reading a letter she had composed. She then made a motion to cease the effort to apply for the grant. Commissioner Gary Krueger seconded the motion. Scott opposed it.
But Holmquist did not ask for discussion between the commissioners. It is protocol to discuss a motion. In an open forum the audience has the opportunity to hear the other commissioners’ opinions on the subject. It also give the commissioners on opportunity to sway their vote.
When did the commissioners, all three, have the opportunity to debate this? Why was money spent on a study to select the best site for a new building? Why all the focus groups? Questions that deserve answers.
Mary Meister
Kalispell