It’s difficult to understand the actions of the Flathead County commissioners in regard to the Agency on Aging, which also makes it easy to speculate. And that speculation has run rampant following two recent tense commission meetings.
At the first, Commissioners Pam Holmquist and Gary Krueger voted to halt a grant process for a new AOA building with no reasonable explanation. Commissioner Cal Scott dissented. The county had already paid for an architectural review, so refusing to move forward on the application at once raised questions from, and drew the ire of, seniors who want a new facility. That reaction was warranted.
The grant wouldn’t cost the county any money. The architectural review found the current AOA has “mounting safety and health code issues that can no longer be ignored.” It also suggested the fairgrounds as the best site for a new building “to improve operations and improve quality service to the senior community.”
But Holmquist and Krueger balked, explaining that now is not a good time to pursue the grant, which isn’t much of an explanation at all. “Since the proposal was introduced to the commission last October,” Holmquist said, “there has been a concerted effort to influence how the commission would move forward with AOA.” True, but the public who elected the commissioners are expected to lobby their representatives on the decisions they make.
What’s missing from this explanation is a viable alterative to pursuing the grant, especially since the already-paid-for review recommended a new building. Moving fast when the opportunity arises is a better alternative than doing nothing at all.
At a second meeting, in which the commission considered whether to retain AOA Director Lisa Sheppard, who was at the end of her probationary period, Krueger presented a motion to terminate her. Despite her apparent popularity among seniors at AOA, Krueger said she had not demonstrated “the ability to manage the operations.”
That motion, and another to extend Sheppard’s probation, both failed after neither Holmquist nor Scott seconded them. Following his motions, Krueger said, “I respect the board and I respect the decision of this board. And I will work very hard to make everything work.” And that’s admirable.
He then added, “I will not enter into any discussions in the paper about it.” But he should. If not the paper, then the television or radio or somebody. Questioning someone’s ability in sweeping terms begs for further explanation.
Perhaps Holmquist and Krueger have better reasons for opposing the AOA grant than they have provided so far. If they do, the commissioners should share them. It’s easy to assume the worst when you don’t know what drives a decision. In this case, the worst is accusations of cronyism.
Mickey Lapp, who worked on both Holmquist’s and Krueger’s campaigns, co-owns with her husband and others the building that the county rents to house the AOA. The commissioners have denied any conflict of interest has influenced them. And Lapp, who pointed out the rent has only increased twice in 10 years, called the suggestion “absurd” and said the building is leased to the county at an “under-market rate.”
But this issue is not going away. Scott has continued to hammer his colleagues’ actions. He called the decision not to pursue the AOA grant “irresponsible and ludicrous” and the questions surrounding Sheppard’s tenure a “kamikaze act.” Former Commissioner Dale Lauman, who retired earlier this year and was replaced by Krueger, argued, “We’ve always had the funds to do this. I would strongly encourage you to move on, do it, build it.”
That won’t happen anytime soon. And the commissioners who voted against the grant should clarify what happened. Seniors reliably vote and many of them feel slighted.