SIGH....HB 695 (charge a fee to comment on state policy)

[SAJ-99]

SERIOUSLY WTF!!!! You'll never guess which political party has gotten so bold with a super majority

HB695 would allow the state to charge a fee for commenting on environmental policy. Blatant violation of the First Amendment. Bill's sponsor stated that it would discourage the use of form letters as comments for EIS reviews

Montana HB695 | 2021 | Regular Session

Summary (2021-04-29) Generally revise environmental laws [(S) Died in Process]

legiscan.com

Bill would allow fees for commenting on state environmental reviews

The bill does not specify what an appropriate fee would be, but does allow an agency to reduce or waive a fee should a commenter show that the charge presented

missoulian.com

This bill is one of the dumber ones I have seen this session, and that is saying something. There is no way to enforce it. The state would spend more in creating a payment portal than they would ever receive. They can't charge me for sending an opinion via email just because it is about a specific topic - in this case environmental review. The enforcement mechanism is stated in the bill says that "comments provided without the required fee are not accepted." OH NO! Sounds like they are going to ignore my comment if I don't pay the same way they ignore my comments now. So I'm sure if I paid they will still ignore me. I think I will save my money and just keep sending emails and phone messages. They say they will be ignored, but we all know that legislators are good at measuring sentiment.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Hi All,

Is everyone aware of the "amended" (on 4/6) bill yet (attached)?

I got a response from my email to Rep Steve Gist who said
"the amendment stripped everything out of this bill"

Looking through it, seems like basically the whole thing is crossed out. Sorry for my ignorance, but if this is not dead, aside from political masterbation some people love so much, why waste a minute of legislative time on something with no substance after being gutted?

Cheers,

Steve

 

[OntarioHunter]

Hi All,

Is everyone aware of the "amended" bill yet (attached)?

I got a response from my email to Rep Steve Gist who said
"the amendment stripped everything out of this bill"

Looking through it, seems like basically the whole thing is crossed out. Sorry for my ignorance, but if this is not dead, aside from political masterbation some people love so much, why waste a minute of legislative time on something with no substance after being gutted?

Cheers,

Steve

Har, har. Cowards in action. "We can't concede the bill this fellow Republican introduced is absurdly stupid and unworkable. Instead of voting it down, let's save face by just amending it to say nothing of substance." Somehow that's supposed to be less embarrassing? Pffft.

 

[MThuntr]

Looks like they struck out all of the public comment mentions and changes the bill completely.

In the video the sponsors says...Instead it deals with water and sewer systems it allows for arbitration versus a court battle first and charges each side of the dispute $50.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hi All,

Is everyone aware of the "amended" (on 4/6) bill yet (attached)?

I got a response from my email to Rep Steve Gist who said
"the amendment stripped everything out of this bill"

Looking through it, seems like basically the whole thing is crossed out. Sorry for my ignorance, but if this is not dead, aside from political masterbation some people love so much, why waste a minute of legislative time on something with no substance after being gutted?

Cheers,

Steve

The sponsor brought the amendment, which tells me that he listened to the criticisms and understood their merit. That's something we should be encouraging in legislators. I've known Denley his whole legislative career and think very highly of him as an individual, so I'm glad to see him amend his bill down to just the water issue.

Process wise, he could have done three things: Stand up on the floor and just go for it as is, recognizing it was a supremely flawed bill and hope for the best, 2) ask for the body to kill it, 3) Amend it to try and fix the issue.

I would imagine he has constituents who want the bill to pass, especially the relevant portions that remain and while the idea that commenters should have some "skin in the game" is not entirely unfounded, the approach was wrong, as recognized by the sponsor.

Quality move from a good man.

 

[OntarioHunter]

The sponsor brought the amendment, which tells me that he listened to the criticisms and understood their merit. That's something we should be encouraging in legislators. I've known Denley his whole legislative career and think very highly of him as an individual, so I'm glad to see him amend his bill down to just the water issue.

Process wise, he could have done three things: Stand up on the floor and just go for it as is, recognizing it was a supremely flawed bill and hope for the best, 2) ask for the body to kill it, 3) Amend it to try and fix the issue.

I would imagine he has constituents who want the bill to pass, especially the relevant portions that remain and while the idea that commenters should have some "skin in the game" is not entirely unfounded, the approach was wrong, as recognized by the sponsor.

Quality move from a good man.

Interesting. I can't open the attachment on my phone for whatever reason. The amended version sounds like a sensible direction. Arbitration and charging a nominal fee for it is better than just jumping into court. Arbitrators don't work for free and I doubt the state can find one to hear a matter for a hundred bucks, but it's fair enough to expect the litigants to shoulder some of the cost. I am wondering if the arbitration is without prejudice? I could never see the point in that. If a party shows up at the table in no mood to negotiate, it should be reflected at trial, at very least when considering costs in a judgement against him/her. Punitive damages.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Looks like they struck out all of the public comment mentions and changes the bill completely.

In the video the sponsors says...Instead it deals with water and sewer systems it allows for arbitration versus a court battle first and charges each side of the dispute $50.

Ok, so reading it again it looks like it says:

(6) The parties may agree to enter arbitration. Arbitration entered pursuant to this section is subject to the Uniform Arbitration Act, Title 27, chapter 5. THE PARTIES SHALL EACH PAY A $50 FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT."
Considering that it says "may agree to enter arbitration", isn't that something that they could have already agreed to before if they so chose or in that type of dispute it only went directly to court?

Regardless of the semantics of how it stands now, I'm definitely thankful it was amended to remove the other language. I agree that tons of comments from folks outside the area are a pain to deal with and can lead to a bit of "mob rule" because it seems the local legislators I've known can't help but be affected when they are bombarded by such calls, emails and public comments in session. I've seen the vast minority cause significant changes in policy and practice due to being so vocal.

At least in the areas I've been involved, strong legislators who can see above and not be so affected by the noise are needed, but that's a whole different level to try to help elect those folks.

That all said, a fee to comment was far from the answer so I'm thankful they removed that element.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Interesting. I can't open the attachment on my phone for whatever reason.

try this link from your phone:

Montana HB695 | 2021 | Regular Session

Draft Listing (2021-04-29) Generally revise environmental laws [(S) Died in Process]

legiscan.com

 

[Sytes]

Quality move from a good man.

A good enough endorsement from my perspective. Thanks for chiming in Ben.

 

[SAJ-99]

A good enough endorsement from my perspective. Thanks for chiming in Ben.

I was surprised to see Loge's name as the sponsor. If you build a reputation like @Ben Lamb says he has, he should be more protective of potentially ruining it with stupid legislation. Let's not forget what this was. This bill in its original form basically said "We don't want your opinion on environmental issues". The "you" here is the common citizen. It didn't apply to lobbyist, industry, and corporations because they give their opinion at happy hour and dinners.

I will say they have gotten my attention this year. They will be hearing a lot more from me in 2023.

 

[Eric Albus]

I recommend you sit this one out Eric....you're talking in circles.

I'd not support this, as I can see the downside, just thought I'd throw out a little dissention. I'd never support this as certain groups have lots of dark money behind them, and could financially overrun us commoners with bought and paid for email campaigns. I've heard tell of groups spending 50-100K just this legislative cycle to kill bills they did not agree with.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'd not support this, as I can see the downside, just thought I'd throw out a little dissention. I'd never support this as certain groups have lots of dark money behind them, and could financially overrun us commoners with bought and paid for email campaigns. I've heard tell of groups spending 50-100K just this legislative cycle to kill bills they did not agree with.

If you want to get rid of dark money, I'm 110% with you. The majority continues to advance anti-democratic bills though, like the one that will allow those dark money groups to coordinate directly with candidates, like how the NRA illegally coordinated with Rosendale.

$50-100K for ad campaigns is about a medium size buy. Not terribly big, but it will get people's attention.

 

[Big Shooter]

I'd not support this, as I can see the downside, just thought I'd throw out a little dissention. I'd never support this as certain groups have lots of dark money behind them, and could financially overrun us commoners with bought and paid for email campaigns. I've heard tell of groups spending 50-100K just this legislative cycle to kill bills they did not agree with.

That’s odd.....I heard the same thing Albus. It‘s crazy what some groups will do behind the scenes.

 

[WIbiggame]

I've heard tell of groups spending 50-100K just this legislative cycle to kill bills they did not agree with.

How much has MOGA spent this session on bills the majority of people don't agree with?

 

[Eric Albus]

MOGA does not have enough money to fill a coffee can. It’s a trade organization funded by members

 

[Straight Arrow]

MOGA does not have enough money to fill a coffee can. It’s a trade organization funded by members

Does Mac show the books ... or do you just buy what he sells?

 

[Eric Albus]

we have an annual audit and budget. MOGA runs on a shoe string budget.

 

[Big Shooter]

Does Mac show the books ... or do you just buy what he sells?

You should really back off on Mac a little tough guy!! Mac does what he was hired to do and does a great job at it. Let’s keep this stone throwing somewhat professional and not single people out just because you don’t agree with his/her view. And on that note......I’ll buy whatever he‘s selling because I trust him.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You should really back off on Mac a little tough guy!! Mac does what he was hired to do and does a great job at it. Let’s keep this stone throwing somewhat professional and not single people out just because you don’t agree with his/her view. And on that note......I’ll buy whatever he‘s selling because I trust him.

FYI, I'm not a tough guy ... and as you can tell, I'm not very professional at stone throwing. Your trust and loyalty is admirable and should be appreciated by Mac.

 

[Big Shooter]

I apologize. My bad. I shouldn’t have snapped off.