|
Montana Policy Review
Creating a Culture of Ethics and Integrity In Montana’s Law Enforcement Community
Vol. 11 No. 1 Summer 2004
Toward A Code of Ethics for the
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
Jim Smith
Montana P.O.S.T. Decertifications
Allen Horsfall
Montana’s Freedom of Information Act: Balancing
the Right to Know With the Right to Privacy
Staff of the Montana Attorney General’s Office
The Reciprocal Cross Deputization
Agreement: Four Years Later
John Q. Grainger
Instilling A Culture of
Ethics and Integrity in Law Enforcement Agencies
Kevin Olson
Ethical Considerations in the
Treatment of Mental Illness in the 21st Century:
A Changing Perspective
Paul Meyer
Cooperative Relationships With
Local Health Departments in a Post-9-11 World
Stephanie Nelson
REGULAR FEATURES
Reflections on Local Governance
by Jane Jelinski
Trends in Montana Local
Government
by Judy Mathre
Local Government Center Publications
Local Government Calendar
The Montana Policy Review is a biannual analysis of public policy issues
confronting Montana’s communities and those who serve them.
This publication was funded by a grant to the Montana Sheriffs and
Peace Officers Association
from the National Department of Justice
Local Government Center Staff
Jane Jelinski, MPA
Director
E-mail: janejelinski@montana.edu
Phone: 406 / 994-7756
Judy Mathre, MS
Associate Director
E-mail: upojm@montana.edu
Phone: 406 / 994-6680
Kenneth L. Weaver, PhD
Senior Research Scientist
E-mail: upokw@montana.edu
Phone: 406 / 994-5163
Staci Beecher
Graduate Research Assistant
Jack Gilchrist, PhD
Senior Research Associate
E-mail: gilchrist@montana.edu
Local Government Center
Department of Political Science
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
Phone: 406 / 994-6694
Fax: 406 / 994-1905
Website: http://www.montana.edu/wwwlgc
The viewpoints expressed in the articles published in the Montana Policy
Review are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Local Government Center of Montana State University.
The Local Government Center neither endorses nor advocates the adoption
of any public policy.
Reflections on Local Governance
By Jane Jelinski, MPA, Director
Local Government Center
Montana State University-Bozeman
As I was digging through an old file looking for an article
for a class I will be teaching in the fall, I came upon an old Governing
article titled, “Is Government Full of Crooks, or Are We Just Better at Finding
Them?” The article reports that, “Ten times as many state, city, county
and other local officials are convicted on federal corruption charges today
as were 20 years ago.”
The question asked in the title of that article
is as valid today as it was when it was written fifteen years ago.
And it frames the policy issues of ethics and integrity that were the focus
of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association training during the
past year. This issue of the Montana Policy Review is the culmination
of that year of study, training and action by the Association’s members
and the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council.
The bad news is that there have been 59 decertifications
/ revocations / suspensions of law enforcement officials in Montana since
1995. The good news is that this comprises a very small—.32 percent—
of the state’s total law enforcement work force.
Since we at the Local Government Center were first
asked to participate in providing some of the workshops on Instilling a
Culture of Ethics and Integrity, we have been impressed with the intensity
of commitment of Montana’s law enforcement professionals to do their own
housekeeping, to police their own, and to actively reject that “Code of
Silence” the television cop shows continually present to us as the norm
in American law enforcement agencies.
While this issue reports the decertifications,
it also chronicles the numerous success stories of Montana’s law enforcement
personnel in building effective working relationships with other agencies,
and of continual efforts to improve the performance of serving, protecting
and defending our citizens, especially our most vulnerable citizens.
We report, too, the work of the Attorney General’s Office to clarify the
requirement to provide for the public’s right to know without compromising
citizens’ right to privacy as guaranteed by our state Constitution.
The commitment to training and to excellence is
a ubiquitous characteristic of our local law enforcement community.
Decertifications have occurred because of vigilance, because of professional
pride, and because Montana’s law enforcement officers are committed to
maintaining the highest standards of behavior and honor in their profession.
They serve us well.
Toward A Code of Ethics for the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
By Jim Smith, Co-Executive Director
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
A Montana sheriff quietly resigns and is quietly replaced. Rumors
run rampant, but there is no press coverage or explanation from the courthouse.
Another sheriff is alleged to have submitted phony claims to the federal
government, and in a very public fashion, is taken to a nearby county jail
for a weekend stay before being placed on administrative leave pending
the outcome of the investigation. This is news across the entire
state for the better part of a week. An undersheriff is alleged to
have been involved in the cover-up of an inappropriate relationship between
a detention officer and an inmate. The undersheriff is placed on administrative
leave, and remains on that status, first paid and later unpaid, for over
eighteen months while awaiting trial. Over half the sheriffs in Montana
are taken to task in the print media for failing to give the media information—initial
arrest reports and jail census data - that is clearly public in nature.
Sheriffs generally are criticized by a gubernatorial candidate during a televised
debate for failing to enforce Montana’s stream access law. A lone
deputy in a rural Montana county responds to a domestic disturbance call,
failing to follow standard policy and wear his protective vest. He
is shot and killed in a wheat field. The Montana Peace Officers
Standards and Training Council (POST) is experiencing an increase in the
number of decertification requests, and many of these involve allegations
of ethical violations on the part of sworn officers.
It is not the purpose of this article to review or comment on any of
the cases or incidents mentioned above. These incidents merely underscore
the fact that ethics and integrity are part and parcel of every decision
made and every action taken by a sheriff, undersheriff, deputy, detention
officer or dispatcher in Montana in the course of their everyday duties.
These events reinforce the fact that sworn officers, like everyone else,
make poor ethical decisions from time to time, and from situation to situation.
There are examples of other events that indicate that sworn officers also
make good, sound ethical decisions and judgments in the field.
For the past year the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
(MSPOA), with funds granted by the U.S. Department of Justice/Community
Oriented Policing Office, has organized a dialogue on the subject of ethics
and integrity for local law enforcement officers. Starting in June
of 2003 at the annual association meeting and Sheriff’s Institute for newly
elected sheriffs, MSPOA has provided considerable education and training
on the subject of ethics and integrity. From the beginning of this project
the goal was to craft a workable Code of Ethics for the members of the Montana
Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
From the beginning this was a delicate topic. It was also a hotly
debated topic. Sheriffs are local elected officials, voted into and out
of office by citizens of their respective counties. They are first
and foremost responsible to those citizens. Questions emerged.
Do those citizens have the right to be wrong? Is local law enforcement
holding itself to a high ethical standard? Or is that high standard
imposed upon local law enforcement by the voters, by state or federal authorities
and agencies? Is a Code of Ethics designed in order that law enforcement
personnel can hold one another accountable, or is it designed in order for
local law enforcement personnel to hold themselves accountable to the standards
set by themselves for themselves? To whom is the ‘untarnished badge’
most valuable? The law enforcement officer who wears it? The
citizen who respects it? The criminal who fears it? The jury
who listens to testimony? The judge who passes sentence, or some combination
of the above? All of the above?
The correct answer is ‘all of the above.’ However, after a great
deal of formal and informal discussion, the general consensus within MSPOA
is this: local law enforcement holds itself to a high ethical standard.
It is not primarily external forces—the public, the state, the feds, etc.,
holding law enforcement to a high standard. It is the men and women
in local law enforcement themselves who most value the ‘untarnished badge’
and who hold one another accountable for their actions and behaviors.
The slang expressions used by officers in the briefing room, or at the
POST Council are perhaps the best evidence of this: “You lie you die.”
“One strike and you’re out.”
The leadership of MSPOA came to the belief that the internal standards
of its members would be positively reinforced by a Code of Ethics, which
could be sent to each sheriff’s office in Montana, displayed at meetings
and conventions, printed in the newsletter and featured prominently wherever
and whenever possible. Toward that end, several examples were reviewed
and discussed. The one selected, and modified slightly, for
MSPOA was originally composed by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police.
This Code of Ethics was endorsed by the MSPOA Board of Directors at
their regular meeting May 12, 2004 in Beaverhead County, Montana.
The original was signed by every member of the MSPOA Board of Directors.
It is reprinted below:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
The essence of professional ethics is rooted at the core of the law
enforcement spirit. The virtue of professional ethics must be manifested
within the leadership of the office of the sheriff and the individual
deputy as well as the fraternal order. It is an ideal that requires
iron discipline and courage. It is an ideal that remains the business
and responsibility of everybody within law enforcement. Unconditional
ethical backup is an expectation, and a responsibility that is incumbent
on every officer from the time they recite the oath to the time they retire.
It is the very foundation of the law enforcement tradition.
Therefore, the Board of Directors of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace
Officers Association are endorsing the “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics”
as a statement of policy. More than that, it is an important characteristic
of our profession and of our responsibility to the public we serve.
As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community;
to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception,
the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence
or disorder, and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty,
equality and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will
behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or my office.
I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule,
develop self-restraint, and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others.
I will be honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official
life, and I will be exemplary in obeying the laws and regulations of my
department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that
is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept forever secret unless
revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices,
political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence
my decisions. With no compromise regarding crime and with relentless
prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately
without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force
or violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and
I accept it as a public trust to be held as long as I am true to the ethics
of law enforcement service. I will never engage in acts of corruption
or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other law enforcement officers.
I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives
in the pursuit of justice.
I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional
performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and
improve my level of knowledge and competence.
I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals,
dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession—law enforcement.
End
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Montana P.O.S.T. Decertifications
By Allen Horsfall, P.O.S.T. Executive Director
Montana Board of Crime Control
The Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Council was created
by Administrative Rule in Montana and by Executive Order of the Governor.
It serves as an advisory council to the Montana Board of Crime Control
(MBCC) to provide training, curriculum review and approval, certification,
levels of certification, instructor certifications, decertification (revocation),
and maintains training records for all law enforcement, probation and
parole, juvenile parole, detention/corrections officers, coroners, public
safety communications officers, juvenile probation officers, and commercial
vehicle inspectors. P.O.S.T. also provides technical assistance to
law enforcement agencies, training academies, local governments, and various
state agencies.
The P.O.S.T. Council is given the final authority by MBCC to decide
if an officer should have his/her certificate revoked, suspended or to find
them “uncertifiable” if they have no certificate based on the following
grounds:
- The commission of a felony, an offense which would be a felony
if committed in this state, or an offense involving dishonesty, unlawful
sexual conduct or physical violence;
- Conduct unbecoming an officer;
- Willful violation of the law enforcement code of ethics set
forth in the rules;
- Other conduct or a pattern of conduct which tends to significantly
undermine public confidence in the law enforcement profession;
- Willful falsification of material information in conjunction
with official duties;
- A physical or mental condition that substantially limits the
person’s ability to perform the essential duties of a public safety officer,
or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the public or fellow
officers, and that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation;
- Addiction to or the unlawful use of controlled substances
or other drugs;
- Unauthorized use of or being under the influence of alcoholic
beverages while on duty, or the use of alcoholic beverages in a manner which
tends to discredit the law enforcement profession.
Montana Peace Officer and Standards (P.O.S.T.)
Council
Integrity Report February 2004
Case #1—A detention/corrections officer violates internal
policy by communicating with an inmate in an inappropriate manner and
initially lies to the investigators about correspondence with said inmate.
This officer had prior law enforcement (LE) certificates and was a graduate
of the Corrections/Detention Officer Basic training course, (CDOB), but
had no detention/corrections certificate.
POST Action: The officer had all of his LE Certificates revoked
and was found “uncertifiable” for detention/corrections officer duty.
He is therefore permanently revoked and would be committing a misdemeanor
offense to serve in a law enforcement capacity or a detention/correction
officer capacity per MCA 7-32-303(8).
Case #2— A detention/corrections officer was charged and terminated
for having multiple counts of sex with an inmate and falsifying information
regarding the matter. The officer had graduated from CDOB but did
not possess a certificate. He pled guilty in court proceedings.
POST Action: The officer was found to be “uncertifiable” and
permanently barred from serving in this capacity.
Case #3— A City LE officer was terminated by his agency for
having a sexual encounter with a female who was on probation for felony
offenses. This activity occurred on duty and adjacent to a marked
patrol car. He initially lied about the event. This officer
had several LE Certificates through POST and an impressive number of training
hours for his time in service.
POST Action: The Officer’s certificates were revoked and he
is permanently barred from serving as a LE officer in Montana per the
above mentioned statute.
Case #4— A State LE officer was charged and resigned for illegally
obtaining drugs and drug paraphernalia and personally using them.
The officer was also initially untruthful during the investigation.
POST Action: Certificates were revoked.
Case #5—A City LE officer was involved in a family member
assault, admitted the offense, was arrested, jailed and the charge was
later dismissed. Officer had completed Basic Training, but had not
received the Certificate.
POST Action: Certificate was suspended for 90 days and the
officer must reapply for a certificate.
Case #6—A City LE officer was the victim of a family member
assault and was not charged for that event. The officer lied to the
investigators and attempted to get a witness to lie regarding the incident.
POST Action: All Certificates were suspended for 6 months.
Case #7—A detention/corrections officer was terminated for
having an inappropriate relationship with an inmate.
POST Action: Tabled because information has been hard to gather
due to an arbitration agreement that no further information could be released.
This will be heard at a later date.
Case #8—A County LE officer was charged and terminated for
driving while intoxicated, pointing a loaded pistol at another off duty
officer, family member assault, and initially being untruthful. There
were no official charges in the case, but a deferred prosecution agreement
was entered into where the officer admitted that probable cause existed to
bring the charges.
POST Action: All LE Certificates were revoked.
Case #9—A County LE officer was terminated for firing a shotgun
at a vehicle at close range and allegedly being untruthful.
POST Action: Case was dismissed due to findings by POST during
the hearing.
Case # 10— A City LE officer was charged for falsifying a
report. In this case the city in question instigated the investigation
but later refused to cooperate with POST because the officer entered into
a resignation agreement.
POST Action: Case was dismissed due to findings of POST during
the hearing.
Montana’s Freedom of Information Act: Balancing the Right to Know With the
Right to Privacy
By The Staff of the Montana Attorney General’s Office
In the fall of 2003, Montana media organizations did an audit of local
government agencies and the degree to which they complied, or failed to
comply, with the state’s guidelines for public access to information.
In the weeks and months since then, the review has received a great deal
of media attention and generated a great deal of discussion.
The difficulties of balancing the right to know and the right to privacy
are nothing new, however. More than 30 years ago, during the 1972
Constitutional Convention, the framers of the state’s constitution recognized
the challenges ahead.
"The Committee intends by this provision that the right to
know not be absolute. The right of individual privacy is to be fully
respected in any statutory embellishment of the provision as well as court
decisions that will interpret it. To this extent that a violation of
individual privacy outweighs the public right to know, the right to know
does not apply."
Bill of Rights Committee comments.
Ultimately, it is notable that these two important provisions ended
up alongside one another in the Montana Constitution, with Montanans’ right
to know outlined in Article II, Section 9 and citizens’ right to privacy
protected in Article II, Section 10. They are linked, and the relationship
between the two continues to evolve.
Although there is no simple “rule book,” there are a handful of existing
laws, opinions and rules to help guide agencies charged with managing
criminal justice information. Here is a brief look at a few them,
including a couple of the most recent developments:
Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of
1979
By statute, the purpose of the Criminal Justice Information Act is
to “require the photographing and fingerprinting of persons . . . to ensure
the accuracy and completeness of criminal history information” and to “establish
effective protection of individual privacy” in the collection, storage and
dissemination of confidential and non-confidential information.
The Act divides criminal justice information into two categories,
public and confidential.
Public information includes:
- Court records and proceedings,
- Information on convictions, sentences and deferred prosecutions,
- Information originated by a criminal justice agency, including
initial offense reports, initial arrest records and bail records, and
Confidential information includes:
- Criminal investigative information, including information compiled
by a criminal justice agency in the course of an investigation,
- Personal identifying information (social security number, driver
license number, prints, photos),
- Criminal intelligence information,
- Fingerprints and photographs,
- Some information on victims and witnesses.
The Act has specific protections for victims of sex assault.
Agencies may not disseminate information that might directly or
indirectly identify victims of sexual assault, sexual intercourse without
consent, incest or indecent exposure. To review the entire Criminal
Justice Information Act, go to the links following this article.
Administrative Rules
The Criminal Justice Information Act refers to “initial offense reports”
and “initial arrest records,” but it does not clearly define either one.
The definition of what does or does not fall into these two categories
may be complicated by the fact that each police department or sheriff’s
office manages its records a little differently.
In an effort to clarify these terms, the Department of Justice has proposed
changes to the Administrative Rules of Montana. The proposed
changes specify what the reports should contain. Here is an excerpt
from the list:
- General nature of the charges,
- Location of the crime scene,
- Name, age and residence of the accused,
- Name of the victim, unless the alleged offense is a sex crime,
- Identity of a witness unless that identity is otherwise protected
by Montana law.
Under the proposed rules, the initial reports should not contain
sensitive information like a driver license number, social security number
or medical records.
The proposed rules also list specific juvenile records – petitions,
motions, pleadings, findings and some others – that may be available for
public inspection.
An administrative hearing on the proposed rules was held on May 13,
2004 and the deadline to submit comments on the rules was May 20.
For the complete text of the proposed rules and their status, go to the
link following this article.
Attorney General’s Opinion
In early April, 2004, the attorney general’s office released a formal
opinion that when a crime victim requests confidentiality, a law enforcement
agency may withhold some information related to the victim.
Havre City Attorney Mary Van Buskirk had requested the opinion, asking if
a policy of complete confidentiality for victims violated procedures found
in Montana law. The opinion – which carries the weight of law unless
it is overturned by the courts or the legislature modifies the laws involved
– held that an the agency may withhold information including the
address, telephone number or place of employment of the victim or a member
of his or her family, when the victim requests confidentiality .
Similarly, the agency may withhold information that directly or indirectly
identifies victims of certain sex crimes.
Van Buskirk also inquired if a law enforcement agency may withhold
crime scene address information. On that question, Attorney General Mike
McGrath held that even if a crime victim does request confidentiality,
a law enforcement agency may release a crime scene location. The
opinion held that the agency may do so even if the release of the location
suggests the identity of the victim.
Havre Daily News Lawsuit
In mid-March of this year, the Havre Daily News and a number of other
newspapers, The Associated Press and other press and broadcasters’ organizations
sued the city of Havre, its former chief of police and two other police
supervisors. At the center of the suit was a police report about a
party at which six minors were charged for alcohol possession. Initially,
police gave a reporter access to a complete report with no information blacked
out. The police department charges a fee for copies of reports, however,
and at that time, the reporter did not have enough money to pay for a copy
of the report. He left and returned later and at that time received
a report in which some information – birth dates and addresses of teens charged
and the names of witnesses, including the daughter of the then-police chief
– had been redacted.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the Havre Police Department
to develop and follow a policy that ensures uncensored “incident reports”
are available during regular hours. It also asks the court to rule
on whether the police department’s copying fee of $3.00 per report is excessive.
As of late May, the case was still pending.
Still a Delicate Balance
If the issues and cases referenced above - and all the ones that preceded
last fall’s review and all the ones that might follow it demonstrate
anything, it is that the balance between the right to know and the right
to privacy is a delicate one. And although there may be tension between
these important Constitutional provisions, there need not be tension between
those seeking criminal justice information and those charged with maintaining
and disseminating it. By using existing resources as a guide, taking
advantage of training opportunities and communicating more effectively,
the press, the public and criminal justice agencies can respect Montanans’
constitutional right to know and their right to privacy.
Helpful Links:
Montana Department of Justice home page
www.doj.state.mt.us
Department Of Justice (DOJ)
opinion page:
http://www.doj.state.mt.us/resources/opinions.asp
DOJ
privacy/right to know page:
http://www.doj.state.mt.us/resources/righttoknow.asp
DOJ Administrative Rules page:
http://www.doj.state.mt.us/resources/administrativerules.asp
Table of contents page for the Montana Criminal Justice Information
Act of 1979
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mcatoc/44_5_1.htm
The Reciprocal Cross Deputization Agreement: Four Years Later
By John Q. Grainger, Roosevelt County Sheriff
The Reciprocal Cross Deputization Agreement (RCDA), which is in place
on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in the northeast corner of Montana,
is a cooperative agreement that benefits all of the citizens who reside on
the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Four years after it was signed,
the RCDA between the Fort Peck Tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
and four state law enforcement agencies has proven to be one of the most
recent success stories in Indian Country law enforcement.
The RCDA, which may be the first of its kind in Indian Country, was
signed into existence on April 26, 2000 between the Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes and the State of Montana, Roosevelt County and the cities of Poplar
and Wolf Point. Valley County signed on to the RCDA on March 24th
of this year.
This historic agreement between state, local and tribal law officials
allows them all to be fully deputized within their own jurisdictions on
the Reservation. The RCDA allows tribal officers to respond to non-Indian
calls and arrest non-Indian violators. The same goes for each participating
county, city and the Montana Highway Patrol officers on the reservation
responding to tribal calls and arresting Indian violators. Several
tribes and their surrounding jurisdictions have inquired about the agreement
over the past few years.
Prior to April 26, 2000 the agencies worked as best they could.
The Tribes, from time to time, would authorize agencies and or individuals
to enforce their laws. Roosevelt County attorneys operated on the
premise that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or Tribal Officers
were citizens of the state and they would file cases as such. This
was very cumbersome and inefficient. That is why the issue needed
to be formally addressed. Thus, the RCDA was born.
When the agreement was signed four years ago, former Montana Governor
Marc Racicot and former Fort Peck Tribal Chairman Arlyn Headdress predicted
that the historic agreement would improve law enforcement services on
the reservation. And they were right. Response times are quicker
throughout the jurisdictions and law officers are working more closely
to serve the people.
But the road to the signing ceremony was not a smooth one. The relationship
between Tribal, State and Federal agencies has at best been strained over
the course of history.
From my experience as a sheriff and a police officer in Indian Country
over the past twenty years, I am convinced that the only way to work productively
together today, and this is the best for all people, is to acknowledge
historical differences, be open to and willing to understand the positions
of each and be honest in relation to the shortcomings and strengths of us
all.
Those thoughts are more aptly expressed in an address of Kevin Gover,
the former Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs
at a September 8, 2000 ceremony acknowledging the 175th Anniversary of
the establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs [1]. He addressed
Americans on behalf of the BIA and apologized for the BIA’s involvement
in the mistreatment of Indian peoples over their history.
Some of his remarks speak volumes with regard to what non-Indian agencies
need to ponder before entering into cross-deputization negotiations.
“… [This is] a time when our leaders are reflecting on what
lies ahead and preparing for those challenges. Before looking ahead,
though, this institution must first look back and reflect on what it has
wrought and, by doing so, come to know that this is no occasion for celebration;
rather it is time for reflection and contemplation, a time for sorrowful
truths to be spoken, a time for contrition.”
He made other remarks, which express a method and means in which the
historical issues of Indian and Non-Indian relations may be mended.
“We cannot yet ask your forgiveness, not while the burdens
of this agency’s history weigh so heavily on tribal communities. What
we do ask is that, together, we allow the healing to begin. As you return
to your homes, and as you talk with your people, please tell them that
the time of dying is at its end. Tell your children that the time
of shame and fear is over. Tell your young men and women to replace
their anger with hope and love for their people.
Together, we must wipe the tears of seven generations.
Together, we must allow our broken hearts to mend. Together, we
will face a challenging world with confidence and trust. Together,
let us resolve that when our future leaders gather to discuss the history
of this institution, it will be time to celebrate the rebirth of joy, freedom,
and progress for the Indian Nations.”
Along with the BIA, the Roman Catholic Church has issued apologies
to Indian people for its handling of responsibilities entrusted to them
during the boarding school era, in which thousands of Indian children were
forced into religious schools to assimilate them into the mainstream White
American way of life. Kevin Gover addressed the BIA’s approach much
like that of the Church’s
"This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages,
prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outlawed traditional
government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all.
the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted
to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physcially,
and spiritually....this agency set out to destroy all things Indian."
The United States Congress is currently considering passage of a “Resolution
of Apology” [2] which, if passed, will acknowledge “a long history of
official depredations and ill-conceived policies” on the part of the United
States Government.
You might be asking yourself what all this has to do with RCDA.
I will tell you this, first and foremost there must be trust. Trust
that such an agreement will not hurt the people it is meant to serve.
There have been many hurts committed throughout the history of U.S.- Indian
relations, on both sides. The hurts during war are to be expected,
but the hurts committed by the governments not honoring treaties or fulfilling
their trust responsibilities are not, and these hurts are not easily overcome.
The apologies are the beginning and are a starting point for the healing
of nations.
This agreement has brought agencies together to provide better service
to the individuals we are entrusted to serve and protect. We have
put aside the differences that have divided the governments and we forged
an agreement that has for four years been a model in law enforcement in
Indian Country. The insignia [3] worn by the officers as part of
the RCDA is a visible sign of their commitment to and belief in the agreement.
I encourage others in Montana and across the nation to seriously consider
dialog within Indian Country to come together and work cooperatively.
The BIA has taken the position of support of these types of agreements
across the nation in and near Indian Country [4].
Of all the comments expressed during public hearings on the RCDA, one
stands out among the rest: “When a victim needs an officer they do not care
what color of uniform the individual is wearing as long as they are there
to help.”
Endnotes
1. http://www.doi.gov/bia/as-ia/175gover.htm
2. 108th CONGRESS, 2d Session, S.J. RES. 37
3. Cross Deputization Insignia “Curley Youpee 2000”
4. Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday,
February 10, 2004 / Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History
Fort Peck Indian Reservation was established on May 1, 1888.
Prior to this there were many treaties that had an effect on the Tribes
in the area. Prior to the European discovery, the Tribes co-existed
in North America for centuries.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in May, 1824 under the
Department of War and was called the Office of Indian Affairs, and was later
moved into the Department of the Interior where it is today.
Montana, part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, was established as
the Missouri Territory in 1812; Indian Country in 1821; Nebraska Territory
in 1854; Dakota Territory in 1861; Idaho Territory in 1863 and finally the
Montana Territory was established on May 26, 1864 and statehood followed
on November 8, 1889, eighteen months after the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
was created.
Roosevelt County, formed in 1919, was to be called Gateway County,
but the name was changed to honor President Teddy Roosevelt who died on
January 6, 1919.
Roosevelt County is one of very few counties with approximately 80%
of its land base, its county seat and three of its six incorporated towns,
within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation.
Instilling a Culture of Ethics and Integrity in Law Enforcement Agencies
By Kevin Olson, Director, Montana Law Enforcement Academy
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines ethics as a discipline dealing
with good and evil and with moral duty, moral principals or practice.
It further defines ethical as conforming to accepted and professional standards
of conduct. Integrity is defined as an adherence to a code of values,
utter sincerity, honesty, and candor.
Law enforcement has long boasted of the fact that ethics and integrity
are the very cornerstones that make up the personality characteristics of
the people we let wear our badges. Law enforcement administrators
of the 21st Century have come to realize the importance that ethical decision-making
has on the day-to-day operations of law enforcement. Integrity is
an essential component of ethical decision-making. In order for people
in the law enforcement profession to act and conduct their affairs in
an ethical manner, they must truly believe that what they do is correct
and appropriate for any given situation.
Ethics and integrity are just some of the glow words of law enforcement
today. We use the words almost as freely as a car salesman would describe
the attributes of the latest compact car. We let all know that we
are professionals and as such we have integrity and are ethical.
Sometimes I almost expect someone to reach in their pocket and pull their
ethics and integrity out and say, “See, we still have it, right here; here
are our ethics and integrity.”
We are all too aware that these values are the required and necessary
personality traits of our recruits and our veteran officers. But
what about these traits as they pertain to our operations? Are there
such things as ethical operations? How about training? I have
attended Neal Trautman’s National Institute of Ethics class entitled, “Integrity
and Leadership” as have others. What about ethics training? Is
it something you can teach, or is it something much deeper, something that
is rooted deep in the soul? Rather that teaching ethics, are we really
just finding it within them, dusting it off, and telling them to start wearing
it.
As the Administrator for the Montana Law Enforcement Academy (MLEA)
it is my responsibility to oversee the day-to-day operations of the institution
responsible for providing the basic fundamental education and training
of entry-level law enforcement officers, corrections and detention officers,
public safety communicators and many others who serve in the criminal
justice system.
Another agency, the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council (POST)
is responsible to review and approve or deny the curriculum and course
content of the courses taught at MLEA. A good analogy of the relationship
between MLEA and POST would be the University System and Board of Regents.
To obtain a high ethical standard, education and training must conform
to accepted and professional standards of conduct. The question
that must be answered is just who is it that decides what is the standard
of acceptable and professional conduct, and what must we do to ensure that
each and every student who completes our courses will return to their respective
agencies and conduct themselves in an ethical manner, in both their professional
and personal lives.
A recent article by Steve Duin, in the Oregonian Newspaper speaks of
a tragic event that transpired recently in Portland whereas a police officer
shot and killed an unarmed man while the man sat behind the steering wheel
of his vehicle. Duin recounts the testimony presented by the officer
during the inquest. Though no weapon was ever found or even observed,
the man failed to comply with the heavy command orders yelled by the officer.
The officer stated, “That’s when I made the decision to shoot. We’re
trained very extensively. We’re trained in action-reaction.
Everything told me this was wrong and there was a gun.”
Duin continues, in what I believe is a well balanced article, that
every aspect of their training is meant to ensure their security and cement
that impression, even at the cost of a few unarmed civilians. This
is where I disagree. I believe that law enforcement overall does
not profess this belief.
Yet how is it that one officer can truly believe that his training provided
him a basis for the course of action that transpired here? And if
one officer walked away from some type of training believing that a course
of action that would include the use of deadly force was acceptable for
the circumstances that occurred in Portland, how many others misconceived
the topic matter or the objectives presented at this training? Was
this training ethical? Did the officer conform to accepted and professional
standards of conduct based upon his participation and ultimate completion
of this training?
Does the officer possess integrity? Did he adhere to a code of
values? Was he sincere, honest, and did he exercise a reasonable amount
of candor in his presentation of the events that transpired that evening?
Can a person have integrity yet act in an unethical manner?
I don’t know the answer to these questions. I don’t know the
officer involved. I don’t know the circumstances that confronted
him that unforgettable night. I don’t know the training he
attended, the instructor, the course syllabus, or the performance objectives
that were in place. But I do know that if this officer is correct,
the training failed, the instructor failed, the agency failed, and the institution
that hosted or sponsored the training failed. I know that if this
officer walked away with the beliefs he conveyed during this inquest, then
ethics were not an intrinsic consideration during the creation of
this course of education or training.
Law enforcement administrators and those of us responsible for educating
and training the officers of the future must not forget nor minimize the
importance of the ideals of such people as Sir Robert Peel when it comes
to building the principles upon which policing was established. We
must counteract the influence of hardened attitudes and overly aggressive
force tactics.
We will do this by teaching tolerance and balance as it applies to
the options officers will have at their disposal when confronted with
the easy and difficult situations they are sure to face. We will do this
by instilling a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty,
moral principals or practice. And we have to do this in a way that
officers will not put their lives at risk, or the lives of the people they
are called upon to protect.
We must remember at all times that the education and training of law
enforcement personnel and all persons in the criminal justice system must
always be reasonable, not by our perceptions, but rather from the perceptions
of those people that we are called upon to serve and protect.
Ethical Considerations in the Treatment of Mental Illness in the 21st
Century: A Changing Perspective
By Paul Meyer, Executive Director
Western Montana Community Mental Health Center
The mental health industry is frequently charged with intervening too
late in a crisis situation and is just as often charged with over-reaching
in its attempt to stabilize an individual or to prevent a predictable deterioration
in a client’s mental health status. In all too many cases the individual
becomes involved with the criminal justice system, creating an ethical
and legal dilemma for both systems. In Montana we increasingly are
forming partnerships between the mental health community and the law enforcement
community. The partnerships include a broad expansion of education
about mental illness, working together on prevention and early intervention
strategies, and collaborating on training for law enforcement officers who
inevitably will find themselves in the position of intervening with persons
with mental illness. This article primarily will focus on education,
the first step in solving some of the ethical problems that local governments
face on a daily basis.
Coercive attempts to detain, evaluate and treat a patient when that
patient is capable of making a voluntary decision regarding his or her treatment
needs are most generally counter-productive. Patients who can make responsible
decisions regarding their own health care needs should be encouraged to
do so. After all, it is their life and they are responsible for managing
it. Likewise, unresponsive systems that seem to ignore patient risk
factors, and leave the individual and society-at-large unprotected are equal
misapplications of what we know works and does not work. This paper will
review current trends as outlined by the President’s New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health “Transforming Mental Health Care in America”. It will also
address the importance of the appropriate use of emergency commitment statutes,
generally invoking the power of the state to detain and force treatment only
when an individual presents a serious health or safety risk to himself or
others.
Let us begin with a little background about what we know about the
treatment of mental illnesses in today’s public health environment. Mental
illnesses rank first among illnesses that cause disability in the United
States, Canada and Western Europe. Mental illness of all types has an overall
prevalence of 22.1% in the United States. Research has consistently demonstrated
that the human and economic costs of mental illness are concentrated in
a small percentage of persons, those who are diagnosed with the more chronic,
disabling mental illnesses of major depressive disorder (5%), schizophrenia
(1.1%), and bipolar disorder (1.2%). These three disorders are among the
top 10 leading causes of disability in the U.S. and in other developed
countries. Together they account for more than 80% of U.S. expenditures
on mental illness. In addition, individuals in this population are more
likely to suffer from multiple chronic conditions, including co-occurring
substance abuse disorders. A distinct feature in the group is the existence
of one or more chronic health conditions. In addition, one of the most distressing
and preventable consequences of undiagnosed, untreated or under-treated mental
illness is suicide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently reported
that suicide worldwide causes more deaths every year than homicide or war.
In any given year about 5% to 7% of adults have a serious mental illness
and a similar percentage of children - about 5% to 9% - have a serious
emotional disturbance. These figures mean that in Montana thousands of
adults and children are disabled by mental illnesses every year. Within
the mental health industry, it is recognized that persons with chronic mental
illnesses who experience multiple acute episodes account for a disproportionate
share of spending, with few positive outcomes. In response, efforts have
been made to find more cost efficient and effective treatment approaches
for managing the care of this population.
The ineffectiveness of the current systems of care is not due to lack
of clinical knowledge of effective treatments. Treatment effectiveness is
60-80% for the three major mental disorders listed above, a success rate
that exceeds most of physical medicine treatments. The scientific knowledge
base has increased enormously over the years, however application of those
many advances in research, technology and our understanding of how to treat
mental illnesses is severely lagging.
The “recommended” treatment model for the 21st Century is a collaborative
approach to healthcare delivery that proactively identifies populations
with chronic conditions and that emphasizes prevention of acute relapse
and complications, using evidence-based practice guidelines and patient
empowerment strategies, such as patient education and self management. Consumers
and families need to have access to timely and accurate information that
promotes learning, self-monitoring and accountability. This approach means
that the patient chooses who, what and how appropriate care will be provided
by:
- choosing which mental health professionals are on their
team
- sharing in decision making, and
- exercising the option to agree or disagree with the
treatment plan.
Research on the treatment of patients with chronic mental diseases
or disabilities demonstrates that this proactive partnership with consumers
and families produces improved outcomes for patients and reduces the economic
impact of disease for both patients and taxpayers. A long-term focus on improving
overall functioning and health as well as intervention prior to acute relapse
results in long-term benefits due to reduction in acute hospitalizations
and costly negative outcomes such as homelessness, criminal justice involvement
and crisis poverty. The system is challenged to become both consumer and
family centered and recovery-oriented in its care and services. The goals
for both the consumer and the system become:
- Prevent or reduce acute episodes,
- Decrease residual symptoms of the illness,
- Increase productivity (improve role functioning) and
- Reduce health care costs.
The railroad as proposed above won’t always run on schedule. Not all
clients will fit the mold of the accountable and self-monitoring model
of patient cooperation discussed above. But clients will readily acknowledge
that returning as much control and decision making to them as they can
manage is highly important. Control over their future, and often over their
daily routines, is what traditional coercive mental health systems and legal
interventions have taken away from them over the years. They can easily
recognize that the system goals listed above match their personal ideals
for independence and leading as normal a lifestyle as their disability allows.
This is the direction we need to take for the foreseeable future. It
requires changes in attitudes, less coercive approaches to treatment, fewer
courts that treat patients like criminals, more supportive housing models
rather than rule-laden group homes, more job and volunteer training opportunities,
physicians who discuss and negotiate medication options with clients, self
directed crisis management plans prepared in advance with client participation,
letting clients stipulate to voluntary treatment early on during an involuntary
commitment process, and restricting the use of involuntary commitment procedures
as a last resort.
These shifts involve the major funding sources (i.e. the State of Montana
and Medicaid) accepting the premise that funding cannot be tied to managing
acute crisis episodes with the higher financial rewards dedicated to crisis
care. Dollars must be directed to maintaining stability and working on
recovery issues. This is an ambitious agenda for the future but it is finally
a vision beyond “deinstitutionalization” and the revolving door of multiple
short-term hospitalizations that only further stigmatized and devalued
persons with mental illnesses.
Cooperative Relationships With Local Health Departments in a Post-9-11
World
By Stephanie Nelson, Public Health Officer
Gallatin City-County Health Department
Since September 11, 2001, there has been a renewed commitment to ensure
the ability of government to protect the public health and safety. The response
to the attack on the World Trade Center followed by the anthrax-contaminated
letters involved multiple systems such as fire, law enforcement, public
works, and public health. Those events reinforced the need for a multidisciplinary
approach in emergency preparedness planning and response. Across
the nation public health and safety agencies have been working to improve
their working relationships through joint emergency planning, exercises
and training.
Bioterrorism or emerging communicable diseases, such as SARS, West
Nile, and “Bird” (Avian) Flu, have placed public health at the forefront
of the emergency response. The mandated core responsibilities of
public health and safety are very similar i.e., to identify, contain, and
mitigate threats that pose a risk to the community. In this regard, public
health is a critical and valuable contributor to law enforcement.
Public health officials’ ability to perform these important activities
in a large event would require assistance from the larger emergency management
system and a Unified Command approach.
Over the last two years, there have been a number of activities that
have brought public health, law enforcement and fire agencies to the same
table. Tabletop drills and exercises on mass immunization clinics,
the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) or implementation of isolation and
quarantine have demonstrated the important role of law enforcement in a
public health emergency and the value public health departments would bring
to the Unified Command. The investigations of “suspicious” substances
and packages have provided public health and law enforcement an opportunity
to jointly create procedures that ensure forensic and epidemiological (public
health) investigations are coordinated. All of these activities have
provided public health and safety officials an opportunity to learn each
other’s language and ways of conducting business.
Local Health Departments are statutorily responsible for monitoring,
tracking and responding to situations that may put the public’s health
at risk. Through surveillance activities, risks to the public’s health
are identified and communicated, subsequently triggering activities to reduce
the risk and/or prevent the transmission of disease. Historically,
only certain reportable communicable diseases have been tracked.
Improvements to the public health surveillance system are being made to
make it more responsive to new and emerging threats. The Montana Department
of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) has been working with local jurisdictions
to develop a system to track non-traditional sources of data, such as hospital
admissions and over the counter drug purchases. These data could be
useful in identifying unusual illness patterns or early signs of a communicable
disease outbreak in our community. In this new age of terrorism, such
information could trigger not only a public health investigation but a criminal
investigation as well.
In Gallatin County the key entities that make up the health care system
have also embraced the Unified Command model. Formal relationships have
been created with Gallatin County Emergency Management, Montana State University
Student Health, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Gallatin Community Clinic (Community
Health Center) and Gallatin City-County Health Department. These entities
comprise the Unified Health Command (UHC) which convenes regularly to
discuss relevant public health issues and to ensure coordinated planning
and exercises. A recent and welcomed addition to this group has been a
representative from law enforcement. Representatives from the UHC
also sit on the Gallatin County All Hazards Planning Committee, which is
working on the County Emergency Operations Plan. This multiple systems
approach has been most successful in Gallatin County.
Local leadership is driving this collaborative planning and training
process. Although we have accomplished much since September 11th,
there is still a tremendous amount of work yet to be done in emergency
preparedness. The UHC is committed to working closely with the larger
emergency management system in order to ensure a coordinated, timely and
effective local response. Only by working with this larger system
can we meet our common goal, ”to protect and promote public health, welfare
and safety.”
Trends in Montana Local Government
By Judy Mathre, Associate Director
Local Government Center
During 2003-04 the Local Government Center gathered information from
127 municipal governments, 54 county governments and 2 city/county consolidated
governments. Averages were then calculated by classification for
a number of different characteristics describing local government in Montana.
Trends over the five year period (fiscal years 1999-2003) were measured
by averaging data according to city or county class. Classification
for municipalities is based upon population, but for counties it is based
upon county taxable value.
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Table 1
Municipal Government Classification and Population
CLASS POPULATIONLIMITS OF CLASS
NUMBER AVERAGEPOPULATION 2002 %
CHANGEPOP.1998-2002
1 More than 10,000
7
41,809
-3.6%
2 5,000—10,000
3
7,081
-5.3
3 1,000—5,000
40
2,598
-5.0
TOWN Less than 1,000
77
481
-4.7
AVERAGE*
3,668
-4.7
*Overall average is determined by dividing total municipal population
by 127.
Comment: Populations for 1998 and 2002 are based upon estimates from
the Census Bureau. Average municipal populations appear to have decreased
statewide between 1998-2002 in all municipal classes. There was
modest growth in Missoula (2.6%) and Billings (1.9%) and growth in a few
Class 3 cities, notably Belgrade (33.4%), but most municipalities registered
a loss during this five year period.
Table 2
Average Municipal Taxable Valuation
CLASS MILL VALUE
2003 % CHANGE1999—2003
1
$55,336.17
0.5%
2
6,725.85
-11.2
3
4,451.61
-10.8
TOWN
506.82
-10.8
AVERAGE*
4,918.27
-10.7
*Overall average calculated by dividing total by 127.
Comment: During the five year period 1999—2003 property tax valuations
decreased in all classes of cities, except for Class 1, which increased
slightly. Considering the fact that inflation increased an average
of about 2.4% per year during this time, the decline in taxable valuation
of 2.1% per year caused municipalities to increase mill levies to keep up
with the rate of inflation.
Loss in taxable value resulted primarily from changes
in tax laws enacted by the Montana Legislature. The 1997 Legislature
passed Senate Bill 195 which mitigated the 1996 reappraisal values by
phasing in those values at the rate of 2% per year and by reducing the
tax rate by .022% per year. The SB 195 phase-in values were used
for tax years 1997 and 1998. The 1999 Legislature once again addressed
the impacts of the 1997 reappraisal with Senate Bill 184. SB 184
phases in the changes in assessed values of classes 3, 4 and 10 property
over a four year period beginning in tax year 1999. The bill also
reduced the taxable valuation rates for property classes 3, 4, and 10.
SB 184 established a residential homestead exemption and also a similar
exemption for commercial properties. The exemption excludes a specified
percentage of the market value of a homestead property from taxation.
(See Biennial Report of the Montana Department of Revenue—July 1, 2000 to
June 30, 2002, p. 52).
Table 3
Average Municipal Mill Levies
CLASS GEN FUND MILLS '03
% CNG GEN FUND MILLS '99-'03 TOT MILLS '03
% CNG TOT MILLS '99-'03
1
90.34
13.2%
139.39
27.7%
2
139.17
20.5
167.71
37.8
3
111.06
31.8
137.93
36.4
TOWN 103.97
38.8
120.88
37.8
AVERAGE* 106.32
33.8
128.50
36.5
*Overall average determined by dividing total by 127
Comment: The decline of taxable value from 1999—2003 resulted in increases
in general fund mill levies of an average of 6.8% per year and increases
in total mill levies averaging 7.3% per year. The least increase
in total mills levied occurred in Class 1 cities (27.7%) which did not
lose taxable value during 1999—2003.
Table 4
Average Municipal General Fund Appropriation,
Total Funds Appropriation
And Per Capita Appropriation
CLASS GEN FUNDAPPROP '03
% CHANGE1999-2003 TOTAL **APPROP '03
% CHANGE1999-2003 TOTAL APPROP.PER CAP2003
1
$14,582,933 18.2
$19,828,201
28.8
$463.57
2
2,796,816
23.2
4,038,814
50.8
552.40
3
990.478
22.2
1,139,191
23.5
436.68
TOWN 185,863
27.2
207,484
28.9
391.22
AVERAGE* 1,305,801
25.0
1,688,889
27.7
413.33
** Does not include enterprise fund activities.
*Overall average determined by dividing total by 127.
Comment: Municipal total funds appropriation grew at about 5.5% per
year on average.
HB 124, passed by the 2001 Legislature significantly
restructured the funding relationship between state and local governments.
Among other things it provided that revenues from personal property tax
reimbursements under SB 184 such as motor vehicle and boat taxes and fees,
video gambling, certain district court fees, and other fees will no longer
be split between state and local governments, but will flow entirely to the
state general fund. The state assumed certain district court costs and
public assistance costs paid previously by county government. Local
governments now receive a single “entitlement share payment” reflecting the
loss of revenue sources in addition to any cost savings resulting from the
state assumption of district court and welfare expenses. The entitlement
share will grow with the state’s economy. HB 124 also removed mill
levy caps on various funds. The overall property tax cap allows local
property tax revenues to grow by half the rate of inflation, and provides
local governments with added flexibility in levying the maximum number of
mills. (See Biennial Report of the Montana Department of Revenue—July 1,
2000 to June 30, 2002, p. 56).
Per capita appropriations for all funds averaged
$413.33, and ranged from $391.22 for towns to $552.40 for Class 2 cities.
This statewide average increased from the FY 99 average of $316.81.
Per capita calculations are derived by dividing the total tax supported
funds appropriated for each municipality by the population of that city
or town. Census Bureau estimates for 1998 and 2002 were used to determine
the per capita appropriations for FY 1999 and FY 2003.
Table 5
Average Municipal Fund Balances
CLASS GENERAL FUND BALANCE
2003 % CHANGE1999—2003
1
$3,264,468
12%
2
585,480
50
3
412,533
49
TOWN
85,165
71
AVERAGE*
379,708
60
*Overall average determined by dividing the total by 127.
Comment: General fund balances increased over the five year period
for all classes suggesting that municipalities are, in general, maintaining
their fiscal stability. The average increase for all municipalities
in FY 2003 was 60%, which was less than the 105% increase for the five
year period 1998-2002. In FY 2003, 25 municipalities had general
fund balances of 25% or less of their general fund appropriations while
99 had fund balances greater than 25% of their general fund appropriation.
Table 6
Average Municipal Full Time Employees (FTE)
CLASS
AVERAGE 1999 FTE
AVERAGE 2003
FTE
1
324
351
2
77
75
3
19
20
TOWN
3
4
AVERAGE*
27
30
*Overall average determined by dividing the total by 127.
Comment: There was an increase of 3 in the average number of municipal
full-time employees from FY 1999 to FY 2003. Most of the increase
occurred in class 1 cities.
County Government
Table 7
County Classification and Population
CLASS TAXABLE VAL # OF
COUNTIES AVG POP '02 % CHANGE
POP.'98-'02
1
Over $50 million
14
45,711
1.6%
2
$30—50 million
11
11,456
-2.2
3
$20—30 million
6
9,173
4.2
4
$15—20 million
4
8,248
-1.2
5
$10—15 million
10
3,736
-4.3
6 $5—10
million
9
1,972
-1.2
7 Less than $5 million
2
632
-7.7
AVERAGE
16,257
-0.9
*Overall average determined by dividing total by 56.
Comment: Population losses occurred in all classes except for Class
1 and Class 3 counties. The average rate of loss of -0.9% from 1998-2002
contrasts *Overall average determined by dividing total by 56. Figures
used for 1998 and 2002 are Census Bureau estimates which are revised each
year until the next decennial census occurs.
Table 8
Average County Taxable Valuation
CLASS MILL VALUE 2003
% CHANGEMILL VALUE1999—2003
1
$79,830.33
-10.0%
2
25,830.47
-8.1
3
17,789.24
-18.8
4
13,997.06
-15.4
5
8,733.04
-11.7
6
5,790.01
-16.7
7
2,844.15
-18.9
AVERAGE* 30,527.36
-12.6
*Overall average determined by dividing total by 56.
Comment: Taxable value decreased significantly in all county classes
during the 1999-2003 time period. See Comment under Table 2.
Table 9
Average County Mills Levied
CLASS GEN FUND MILLS '03
% CNG GEN/ FUND MILLS '99-'03 TOT
MILLS '03 % CNG TOT MILLS'99-'03
1
23.65
32.7%
109.73
42.1%
2
40.80
64.1
111.12
28.4
3
38.18
41.6
126.77
28.8
4
30.88
11.4
138.899
34.0
5
43.93
51.8
142.23
29.4
6
44.66
34.3
145.87
33.5
7
45.07
21.6
92.81
32.5
AVERAGE* 36.12
41.2
124.93
33.4
*Overall average determined by dividing by 46.
Comment: Increases in total mills levied ranged from 28.4% in Class 2
counties to 42.1% in Class 1 counties over the five year period. The
average annual increase in total mills levied for all counties was 6.7
% each year. Class 2 counties also experienced less annual decline
in taxable value (-8.1%) than any of the other county classes.
Table 10
Average County Total Appropriations (Tax Supported
Funds Only)
CLASS TOT FUNDS APPROP**2003
% CHANGE APPROP**1999—2003 PER CAP
APPROP ALL FUNDS**2003
1
$18,752,979
20.2%
$662.73
2
7,342,481
26.7
738.16
3
8,053,555
1.7
1,098.54
4
4,837,810
26.4
621.20
5
3,434,720
22.9
1,196.76
6
2,323,782
22.4
1,202.43
7
699,965
3.0
1,081.19
AVERAGE* 8,353,977
20.2
918.33
Overall average determined by dividing total by 56.
Comment: Tax supported funds appropriated increased in all classes
with a range of 1.7% in Class 3 counties to 26.7% in Class 2 counties.
The average annual increase for all counties over five years was 4.0% per
year. This compares with an annual average change in inflation of 2.4%
per year.
Expenditures per capita were lowest in Class 4 counties, at $621.20,
and highest in Class 6 counties at $1,202.43. The average for all
counties was $918.33. This increased from the FY 99 average of $753.44.
**TAX SUPPORTED FUNDS INCLUDED IN TOTAL COUNTY APPROPRIATION
1. General Fund
13. Planning Fund
25. Soil Conservation
2. Public Safety Fund 14. Hospital
Fund
26. Cemetery
3. Road Fund
15. Bond/Interest Fund
27. Emergency Disaster
4. Poor Fund
16. Senior Citizen Fund
28. Rural Fire
5. District Court Fund 17. Comprehensive
Insurance Fund 29. Economic Development
6. Bridge Fund
18. Health Insurance Fund
30. Developmentally Disabled
7. Weed Fund
19. Mental Health Fund
31. Port Authority
8. Fair Fund
20. PERS
32. Park Fund
9. Library Fund
21. Workers Compensation Fund
33. Miscellaneous tax
10. Extension Fund 22.
Unemployment Fund
supported funds
11. Airport Fund
23. Ambulance Fund
12. Health Fund
24. Museum Fund
__________________________________________________________________
Table 11
County Full-Time Employees
CLASS
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES 1999 FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEES 2003
1
262
238
2
82
110
3
79
90
4
54
56
5
42
38
6
34
31
7
7
10
AVERAGE*
106
107
*Overall average determined by dividing total by 56.
Comment: The average number of full-time employees increased from FY
99 to FY 2003 by 1 FTE.
MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN COUNTY POPULATION
AND TAXABLE VALUE
Change in population 1998 - 2002
Greatest population gain 1998 - 2002:
Greatest loss of population:
1. Toole County
14.5%
1. Wibaux County
-12.6%
2. Gallatin County 13.8%
2. Garfield County -12.5%
3. Missoula County 10.1%
3. Liberty County
-12.3%
4. Chouteau County 8.7%
4. Prairie County -12.3%
5. Granite County
7.8%
5. Treasure County
-11.3%
6. Meagher County 7.7%
6. Carter County -10.4%
7. Flathead County 7.7%
7. Sheridan County -10.4%
8. Ravalli County
7.5%
8. Valley County
-9.9%
9. Broadwater County 6.5%
9.
Phillips County -9.1%
10. Sweet Grass County 6.4%
10. Deer Lodge County
-8.9%
Change in Taxable Value FY 1999 - 2003
Greatest increase in taxable value:
Greatest loss of taxable value:
1. Sweet Grass County 28.1%
1. Rosebud County
-48.1%
2. Gallatin County
13.4% 2. Richland
County -27.1%
3. Stillwater County 12.1%
3. Sheridan County
-27.1%
4. Ravalli County
10.5% 4.
Chouteau County -26.4%
5. Carter County
9.3%
5.Sanders County
-26.0%
6. Silver Bow County 6.2%
6. Big Horn County
-25.3%
7. Lake County
5.2%
7. Wibaux County
-24.6%
8. Park Co
1.1%
8. Judith Basin County
-23.6%
9.
Liberty County
-23.6%
10. Daniels County
-22.3%
PUBLICATIONS
The following publications are available from the Local Government
Center, Wilson Hall,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, or call (406-994-6694)
Governing Montana at the Grass Roots: Local Government
Structure, Process and Politics
June 2002, by Kenneth L. Weaver. The author examines the architecture,
politics and needed reforms of Montana's local governments in the context
of the American federal system and Montana state government. Included is
a critical analysis of the Montana political system and a detailed description
of how local politics shape the policy decisions of county and municipal
officials. Other chapters detail local taxes and finances, functions of
county and municipal governments and special districts, and self-government
powers. Includes the U.S. and Montana Constitutions. ($25.00 plus $3.00
mailing and handling.)
Montana's Local Government Review February
2001, by Kenneth L. Weaver and Judith A. Mathre.
The work documents the recommendations and electoral outcomes of every
county and municipal Voter Review study commission for all three cycles
of Montana's local government review. Included is an analysis and
comparison of local government forms, functions and powers as well as sample
charters for each type of local government. ($20.00 plus $3.00 shipping
and handling)
Coordination and Communication: A Look at Gallatin
County Criminal Justice System Planning | | | |