Fred Van Valkenburg vs. Justice

by: Bob Brigham

Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:30:59 AM MST

One thing that hasn't gotten much attention are the actions that allowed the problem to grow into a major crisis, the grown-ups who let male players keep harming female students.

What is the story behind Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg stonewalling the federal investigation into his role in the rape scandal? What are the motivations for Fred Van Valkenburg? For that, you need to know the political dynamics surrounding some recent history and some of the intricacies of Montana law.

Questions and Concerns about UM's Proposed Biomass Plant

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu May 05, 2011 at 08:19:50 AM MST

As interested citizens, we attended the university's biomass "poster presentation" last December, which, unfortunately, raised more serious questions than it answered. So we continued to ask questions and research the proposal. In March, we even conducted an "open records" search of UM's biomass project file, pouring over hundreds of documents and emails between UM officials and representatives of Nexterra, a Canadian biomass boiler manufacturer, and McKinstry, a Seattle energy services company. Suffice to say, our records search turned up even more troubling questions, especially related to costs, maintenance and emissions.

As the Missoulian reported in April, information in UM's air quality permit application to the Missoula City-County Health Department showed that "Contrary to previous claims by UM administrators, the university's proposed biomass boiler will not reduce emissions to levels below that of natural gas. In fact, UM's proposed state-of-the-art biomass gasification plant will produce nearly twice as much nitrogen dioxide as its existing natural gas boilers - and in some cases, will release three times as much particulate matter." The emissions are higher than what McKinstry's feasibility study predicted.

Our records search also turned up a document showing that the biomass plant would also increase emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 40 percent or more over the existing natural gas system.

Obviously, Missoula is prone to severe inversions and air stagnation, especially during winter, when the greatest load would be on the biomass system. We found a UM biomass grant application that stated, "The Missoula Valley's constrained topography presents ideal research conditions for long term analysis of environmental impacts of efficient woody biomass boiler combustion." Do we really want to risk Missoula's air quality for the sake of research?

It's also been difficult to get an accurate assessment from UM of the biomass plant's up-front and long-term costs, something all Montana taxpayers deserve.  For starters, we noticed in the project file that in April 2010 the cost of the biomass plant was $10 million. By July, the cost went to $14 million. Now it sits at $16 million. What will the final cost be? UM's financial pro forma also shows that during the first 20 years the biomass plant would need nearly $10 million for additional operation and maintenance expenses over the existing natural gas system, and another $17 million for the 20 year period after that.

The pro forma is also troubling in other aspects. It over-estimates the cost of natural gas, while under-estimating the cost of biomass fuel trucked to campus, especially given rising diesel costs. The pro forma also completely zeros out all natural gas expenses and maintenance costs, even though UM now admits that a natural gas boiler would be used during cold winter days to augment the biomass system, and also used from May to September, when the biomass system is too powerful to use.

Further complicating the picture, UM realized during the permitted process that its existing natural gas boilers are in violation of air pollution limits.  The fix will cost around $500,000. And UM's contract with McKinstry was amended recently, meaning that UM is already contractually committed to McKinstry for $532,000 just for project development.

Finally, a few weeks ago, the Missoulian reported that the UM workers who run the campus heating plant voiced collective opposition to the UM wood-burning biomass plant.   "We as individuals have tens of years of work history around biofuel boilers.  We do not believe management gave us much credit for our views, experience and opinions. Had they listened, they would not have gone forward with this proposal," wrote the UM workers.  Furthermore, UM heating plant supervisor, Mike Burke, had this to say, "There has been a debilitating aspect throughout this whole vetting process by certain decision-makers - to not let facts get in the way of the agenda.  I sang this proposal's virtues for a long while out of a sense of loyalty ... but if this proposal goes south, it will give the University of Montana a black eye. I wouldn't want that to happen. I owe this institution to try and forestall what I consider a calamity."

It is our belief that all of these significant issues need to be fully analyzed and rechecked, not just by the biomass project's supporters, but also by the Board of Regents, independent of McKinstry and UM. Guarantees of performance by McKinstry need to be carefully scrutinized, as other colleges have paid the price for poorly written contracts or poorly vetted companies.

At the end of the day, Montana taxpayers deserve to see accurate, updated financial information from UM concerning all aspects of the biomass plant, including the initial $16 million price tag and up to $27 million needed for additional operation and maintenance expenses over forty years. And Missoula's citizens have a right to expect that the University of Montana would not risk Missoula's fragile air quality by needlessly increasing emissions over present levels.

Matthew Koehler is executive director of the WildWest Institute; Ian M. Lange is a professor emeritus, Department of Geosciences at the University of Montana; and Dr. John Snively is a retired dentist.  All three live in Missoula.

Tom Power on source of state gov't budget difficulties across US

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:26:59 AM MST

The latest political fad is to blame the budget difficulties at both the federal and state levels on government employees, in particular on their wages, benefits, and right to bargain collectively.  There is something massively disorienting about this picture because it involves a distorted rewriting our recent economic history and the basic facts about government employment.

Federal, state, and local government budgets are under stress right now because of the financial collapse that triggered the Great Recession. As financial markets melted down and housing values plummeted, financial and construction workers were laid off wholesale, households stopped spending as much money and started saving so that they had some financial cushion if their family got caught up in the cascading layoffs. Faced with a drop in consumer spending and tight credit markets, businesses shelved expansion plans and did the opposite, laying off workers throughout the economy. Business profits tumbled, wage payments shrank, capital gains disappeared and were replaced with capital losses. The flow of tax revenues to federal, state, and local governments declined dramatically.

But governments still had to meet their usual obligations to put police on the streets, firefighters in fire stations, and teachers in schools. The federal government continued to face the cost of two wars and the world's mightiest military force spread across the globe. Local governments still had to plow the snow and repair the roads.

UM Economics Expert: A Political Dead End?

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 13:58:14 PM MST

A Political Dead End?
By Dr. Thomas Michael Power

I wonder sometimes what the rest of the world thinks about the volatility of American politics. Four years, as well as two years ago, President Bush and his Republican allies had incredibly low approval ratings and Americans sent more Democrats to Congress, statehouses, and legislatures, and, ultimately, a Democrat to the White House. Republicans were repudiated. Commentators wondered if the Republican Party had a future as it began fighting within itself over the source of voter disaffection.

Just two years later voters have returned a majority of Republicans to the House of Representatives as well as to many state legislatures and statehouses. It certainly might cross some people's minds that we just cannot make up our minds or that we are a bit crazy, politically speaking.

But interestingly, polls of those independents who voted Republican in last week's election indicate that support for Republicans and their core policies remains low. Voters were voicing dissatisfaction with the continuing pain and destruction associated with the Great Recession and the failure of those in power to effectively do something about it. So incumbents were turned out of office and Democrats, being in the majority, made up many of those incumbents.

This result is not likely to be very productive for the American people and economy nor bring any "change" to Washington DC. The surging Republicans did not receive a mandate to pursue their more extreme agenda items such as dismantling Social Security and Medicare, weakening environmental regulation, turning Wall Street loose again to inflate another destructive bubble, or getting the government more involved in trying to dictate the most intimate aspects of our personal lives.

Nor can the Republicans deliver on their proposals to cut the federal deficit. They want to keep all of the Bush tax cuts in place and continue to aggressively prosecute the two wars that Bush started. Those were the sources of the Bush deficits even before the Great Recession hit. It is very unclear what it is the Republican will set out to cut in order to trim the deficit: Expenditures on highways and other vital infrastructure? Support for the military? Expenditures on helping us educate our kids? Support for the millions of unemployed? Food Stamps for families? Medical care for low income families? It seems unlikely that the aggressive pursuit of any of these will improve the Republicans' standing with the majority of American voters.

The Republican congressional leadership seems to recognize the fact that there is little they can do about the issues that so many Americans are worried about: namely jobs and the federal deficit.

Speaking candidly before their handlers told them to tone it down, that leadership made clear that their objective over the next two years is not to fix any of the nation's economic problems but, rather, to embarrass the President and Democrats in Congress so that Republicans can claim the Whitehouse and both Houses of Congress in the 2012 elections. That is, the next two years will be used for unrelenting partisan attacks that represent an early opening of the 2012 presidential election campaign.
That will produce nothing but more paralysis, gridlock, and negative partisan bickering. It certainly does not represent responsible governing, but it is, unfortunately, all that we are likely to get.

Despite the official proclamation that the recession ended early this year and the economy is now growing, we certainly are not out of the economic woods yet. There are more jobs losses coming in state and local government as stimulus money runs out and state and local budgets have to be balanced. The foreclosure avalanche is still growing and is likely to spread from residential homes to commercial real estate. Even those who do not risk losing their homes have seen the value of their assets, the most important of which for most people is their home, decline drastically. This makes them substantially poorer than they were two years ago and is likely to suppress household spending for some time to come. The ongoing housing mortgage crisis will also keep the construction industry from bouncing back. The stagnation and high unemployment rates will continue.

That will force deficits higher. As an International Monetary Fund report recently pointed out, most of the increases in government deficits here in the US as well as in other developed countries are tied to declines in tax revenues due to workers earning less, household buy less, and firms producing less. The deficits are not due to the explosive growth in new discretionary spending that can be quickly cut. If we cannot get households buying again and firms hiring so that that can produce more to meet the rising demand, we are not going to do anything significant about either jobs or the deficit.

That is why the bumper sticker political dialogue we are having about "cutting the deficit" by "shrinking government" or magically stimulating businesses to create more jobs to produce things no is in a position to buy is just so much hot air that will get us no where.

If you thought this last political campaign was pointlessly nasty and unproductive, just watch the next two years!

UM Study Finds Logged Forests More Prone To Severe Wildfires

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:17:40 AM MST

Below is a copy of the press release sent out by the University of Montana. Click here to download the entire study.

MISSOULA - Historically logged forest sites are denser and potentially more prone to severe wildfires and insect outbreaks than unlogged, fire-excluded forests and should be considered a high priority for fuel-reduction treatments, according to a new University of Montana study.

Anna Sala and Cameron Naficy, the lead researchers in the study, published an article on these findings in the most recent issue of the journal Ecological Applications. Sala is a professor in UM's Division of Biological Sciences, and Naficy graduated with a master's degree from UM in 2008.

Sala and Naficy's study compared logged, fire-excluded sites to unlogged, fire-excluded sites in forests mainly consisting of ponderosa pines. The study covered a broad region spanning the Continental Divide of the Northern Rockies, from central Montana to central Idaho.

The findings contradict much of the conventional wisdom defining current U.S. forest policy, which assumes that increases in forest density, which in turn increase the susceptibility to severe wildfires or insect outbreaks, are primarily caused by fire suppression.

"This is an important finding because it highlights that vegetation management can result in long-lasting changes to forests that are likely to affect how large-scale disturbances, such as wildfires or insect outbreaks, play out on the landscape well into the future," Naficy said.

"Furthermore, it shows that previously harvested and unharvested forests have very different restoration needs and fire hazard potential," Sala said. "This recognition should go a long way in helping land managers to prioritize restoration and fuel-reduction efforts where they are most likely to be successful."

For more information, call Sala at 406-243-6009, e-mail sala@mso.umt.edu or e-mail Naficy at cameron.naficy@colorado.edu .

Naficy, Cameron, Anna Sala, Eric G. Keeling, Jon Graham, and Thomas H. DeLuca. 2010. Interactive effects of historical logging and fire exclusion on ponderosa pine forest structure in the northern Rockies. Ecological Applications 20:1851-1864. [doi:10.1890/09-0217.1]

Increased forest density resulting from decades of fire exclusion is often perceived as the leading cause of historically aberrant, severe, contemporary wildfires and insect outbreaks documented in some fire-prone forests of the western United States. Based on this notion, current U.S. forest policy directs managers to reduce stand density and restore historical conditions in fire-excluded forests to help minimize high-severity disturbances. Historical logging, however, has also caused widespread change in forest vegetation conditions, but its long-term effects on vegetation structure and composition have never been adequately quantified. We document that fire-excluded ponderosa pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains logged prior to 1960 have much higher average stand density, greater homogeneity of stand structure, more standing dead trees and increased abundance of fire-intolerant trees than paired fire-excluded, unlogged counterparts. Notably, the magnitude of the interactive effect of fire exclusion and historical logging substantially exceeds the effects of fire exclusion alone. These differences suggest that historically logged sites are more prone to severe wildfires and insect outbreaks than unlogged, fire-excluded forests and should be considered a high priority for fuels reduction treatments. Furthermore, we propose that ponderosa pine forests with these distinct management histories likely require distinct restoration approaches. We also highlight potential long-term risks of mechanical stand manipulation in unlogged forests and emphasize the need for a long-term view of fuels management.

New Report Questions Sen Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act"

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:24:02 AM MST

Here's a snip from the report's conclusion (emphasis added):

...[T]here are significant problems to the place-based legislative approach to national forest management.  To begin with, the historical record of place-based forest law does not lend confidence to the approach in principle.  By most accounts, cases like the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Act have engendered more conflict and problems than the legislation has resolved.   This is mostly because these site-specific laws must somehow be paid for and then reconciled with the cumulative body of environmental laws that govern the national forests.  

These problems are not insurmountable, but Congress and the USFS should oppose forest-specific legislation until a number of more fundamental and systematic concerns are addressed.  Most important are the questions of how these laws would fit into the preexisting statutory/planning framework and how they would  be financed.  

If replicated more broadly, place-based legislation would disunify the National Forest System and create a number of problematic precedents.  Chief among these are legislated timber treatment mandates that would set the stage for future Congressional abuse.  If enacted into law, these mandates would also have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing fragile agreements and negotiations going on elsewhere; as some timber interests would certainly use this precedent as new leverage in their bargaining positions.  As one Congressional Staffer involved in a place-based negotiation says, if Senator Tester's timber supply mandate  gets through the gate, then he expects a similar sort of demand being made by the timber interests at his table.

Dr. Power: Two Views of the Tester Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 13:03:33 PM MST

(Dr. Thomas Michael Power is the former Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Montana, where he currently serves as a Research Professor)

The controversy over Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill is likely to get some national attention in a week or so as the bill receives its first hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in the our nation's capitol. That bill has been called both Tester's "logging bill" as well as Tester's "wilderness bill."  Critics point out that the title of the bill mentions "forest jobs" but does not mention "wilderness" at all, leaving some suspicion as to what the main purpose of the bill is.

Hey Missoulians, U of M hosting "Right-To-Die" Panel

by: CarlaAxtman

Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 14:46:17 PM MST

As the Montana Supreme Court decides whether or not physician aid in dying is a right under the Montana State Constitution, the University of Montana is educating citizens about the right to die.

From Sunday's Missoulian:

A panel will be held Nov. 9 at the University of Montana to discuss the ethical implications of Baxter v. Montana, the case in which a lower court recognized the right of terminally ill, mentally competent adult Montanans to choose aid in dying.

The Montana Supreme Court will consider whether to uphold the landmark decision made last December by First Judicial Court Judge Dorothy McCarter.

"Aid in Dying: A panel discussion on the ethical implications of Baxter v. Montana" will take place at 7 p.m. in Gallagher Business Building Room 123. The event is free and open to the public.

Panelists include Scott Crichton, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana,Mark Hanson, University of Montana liberal studies lecturer and College of Technology health professions associate professor and Con Kelly, an ethicist and a Montana native.

For more information on the event, contact The University of Montana Center for Ethics.

Just Punishment

by: Matt Singer

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM MST

This is a pretty stupid post.

MLK and Gandhi "accepted" punishments, but not quietly. MLK, you know, wrote a pretty famous letter about the injustice of his imprisonment. I believe Big Sky Cairn just quoted it in a twisted attempt to defend his viewpoint.

King's and Gandhi's argument is that people who break the law on principle should also accept the ruling of the law -- as a way to bring attention to the injustice and also as a way of expressing fundamental appreciation of the law. It's really no different from the points that Socrates makes in Plato's Crito.

But that's not to say that people are supposed to go quietly or without trying to attract attention to their cause.

Regardless, last I checked, none of us highlighting the proposed suspension took part in the action at all. Beyond that, none of us have called for no repercussions. We're saying that we think the action doesn't merit the reaction.

As I asked someone yesterday, the question isn't whether perpetrators of civil disobedience should be punished. As far as I know, all participants in the action are ready for legal consequences and are not fleeing to Canada to evade them. The question for the rest of us is what is a just response for this violation of the rules -- a slap on the wrist? an official reprimand? community service? a one year suspension? life in prison? the death penalty?

Our question -- the one that those of us not taking part in the action must address -- is what is society's just response.

One last point -- any time you're reading MLK to defend the oppressors instead of the oppressed, you should probably rethink your reading. MLK, I think, was generally with Camus on this one: "'It is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners."

Another last thought -- in this post, I might be misread to argue that all Civil Rights leaders in history have been progressives. They haven't. There was actually just some interesting writing in The Atlantic about the conservative civil rights movement.

Sweatshop Protesters Threatened with Suspension

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 13:32:04 PM MST

Dean of Students Charles Couture sent a letter to the protesters recently outlining concerns and stating that probation was a possible sanction. A second letter sent a day later outlined the possibility of suspension.

I'm now hearing rumors of threatened penalties against students who did not actually directly participate in the sit-in, but I haven't been able to confirm that with anyone yet.

Want to know more about why students are facing these penalties? Check out United Students Against Sweatshops.

Update -- To all the folks misreading this post: please stop inserting normative judgments where none appear. I posted these letters so folks could get an update on what is happening here. I linked USAS to give context to the issue. I've re-read this post several times and nowhere do I weigh in on whether the penalties should be given, what the penalties should be, or anything else.

In short, learn to read, both my friends and adversaries.

Speech Police!

by: Matt Singer

Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:18:09 AM MST

That's pretty hilarious, since student government at UM is actually pretty lively.

So what is Will complaining about?

Candidates running for student office at UM are restricted in terms of spending. Why? Because at a lot of schools around the country, these contests devolve into rich kids throwing rock concerts to achieve votes.

By restricting spending, UM has actually increased speech. How? Because candidates can't spend a ton of money. The other way to reach people is, you know, face-to-face campaigning.

Frankly, I don't think it is a good solution nationally. Campus politics are very much their own thing. And I'd be perfectly happy to see an expanded public financing system rather than spending caps.

All that said, I think the lawsuit is pretty ridiculous. And George Will is up in arms is also pretty hilarious. It looks like he didn't do some very basic journalism leg-work. If he did, it wouldn't be tough to know this article was coming, which we didn't (V is one of the named parties in the case, so don't expect to see him comment on it here).

Anyways, funny to be noticed by the national punditry.

Janitors at The University of Montana want wage increase

by: Jamee Greer

Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:52:16 AM MST

According to 2005 Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/...), the starting wage of $17,000 a year is just $910 more than the poverty line for a family of three and $2350 less than the poverty line for a family of four.

Discussed within the collective bargaining agreement, devised between MPEA and MUS and set to expire in 2009, janitorial staff will be eligible for a 1.5% wage increase after five years,

Memo to Massholes

by: Matt Singer

Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:52:42 AM MST

On the "Smack Talk" blog on the Grizzlies' Web site, fans berated Massachusetts supporters who dared to suggest Montana fans might not turn out in force.

Griz Win!

by: Matt Singer

Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:09:52 PM MST