MH: Commissioner Brad Molnar, welcome to Montana Headlines -- thanks for taking the time to do this interview.
First, we've got to ask this question: are you related to Thomas Molnar…
Brad Molnar: Yes. First cousin.
MH: Hold on, wait for the rest of the question. Thomas Molnar, the famous Hungarian conservative philosopher and historian/political theorist?
Brad Molnar: No. Wrong Hungarian, sorry. Cousin Tom runs a septic pumping service in South Bend, Ind. I don't think that he is very philosophical about it. Don't suppose he thinks it's a political statement either. I could be wrong about that though.
MH: Well, we’re off to quite a start, aren’t we? So let's start with a simple but crucial question: what exactly does a PSC Commissioner do?
Brad Molnar: All fifty states have some form of Commission. Fed regulators (FCC and FERC) share responsibilities with us. If state or federal legislation grants monopoly power we act as a brake to make sure the customer get the value as if there were competition. I'm pretty sure the brake is broke.
MH: Correct us if we're wrong, but you seem to enjoy your job as a PSC Commissioner immensely.
Brad Molnar: Yup.
MH: Put differently, a lot of public office holders enjoy the attention, the power, or the potential for future political ambitions that go with their jobs (yes, that was a little side-swipe at your opponent) -- but don't necessarily seem to enjoy the day to day grind of their lives in public service. You seem, more than most, to just plain enjoy doing what you do. Do we have that right, and is this typical for PSC Commissioners?
Brad Molnar: I truly enjoy the job. Like most before me I am amazed at how different it is from how it is perceived. I would say that all five of us are very dedicated to doing the job as best we can. Even Toole, which surprises me. But he is so political and infecting the Commission that he overshadows the good he can do. Raney and Jergeson have become far more political since Toole got elected.
MH: What is it that you find so enjoyable or satisfying about this job?
Brad Molnar: The total and ongoing exposure to new problems and various solutions in a room filled with very intelligent people and very different ideas. The fight for individual liberty and against runaway liberalism is fought here every day. But it’s not like in the legislature -- you can't go back to your caucus at the mid-day break or go home. You are in for four years. I've actually had to develop people skills...
OK "try" to develop people skills.
MH: We've heard it said that PSC Commissioners have a more direct impact on the daily lives of Montanans than do many state-wide positions that are higher profile. Is that true, and if so, could you explain?
Brad Molnar: We make the Appropriations Committee look like a bunch of panty-waists. Schweitzer talks (and talks and talks,) about energy but we analyze myriad proposals constantly. We recently implemented an additional 50 MW of QF wind (never mind the jargon just catch the drift.) If history holds that will cost consumers over a billion dollars more than the electricity is worth.
And we have zero capacity for ancillary services to firm it. NWE was against it. Montana Consumer Council was against it. I was the only no vote. The press never reported it (Who would write the story and who would understand it?). Only lobbyists and special interest liked it. By the time it kicks in no one will remember it and those that voted for it will be retiring from their new jobs as lobbyists for the same special interests. (Least ways that's my humble opinion)
On a 3-2 vote we OK'd sending 2,000,000 of NWE ratepayer dollars to Portland and Seattle to help spread the word about energy efficiency in the wood pulp industry. I'm sure that most of that money will find its way back to Montana via liberal PACS. Not one word in the daily press. TRY THAT in the legislature.
A rate increase of $15M got big press but the $60M "tracker" we passed several weeks later never got a mention. I was the only no vote and will soon show the world why. But the "why" is a twenty year deal. Legislative actions are only good for two years. Our mistakes can't be undone, are under analyzed, and in the billions of dollars. That is why we have more impact.
And the obvious. You get an energy bill every month. All business and government entities get a utility bill every month -- so you actually pay all three.
MH: Readers of Montana Headlines know that we find your opponent, Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, to be... well, let's not go there.
From a public-interest perspective, we were definitely rooting for Curry in the Democratic primary, but as we wrote in an earlier post, "From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match."
You don't seem like someone to back down from a fight, and you're certainly in one. We haven't seen a lot of fireworks yet -- when will it start, and what shape will it take?
Brad Molnar: It's definitely started. The state Demo party has filed grievances against me with the Office of Political Practices about the Billings Brownout. They were thrown out because Noonan tried twice to get the form right but couldn't quite grasp the concept. Mary Jo Fox (formerly with Raciciot then Martz -- now Tussing's campaign manager) has filed and amended several, also on the Billings Brownout, and of course the D's on the Commission have asked for a ruling from the AG also stemming from the Billings Brownout.
Plainly they feel the Billings Brownout is a good thing in need of attack to try to drown out Tussing's enormous negatives by creating some for me. Pretty stupid. EVERYbody I have talked to about it sees right through it. Does anybody think Tussing could even win Mayor again? The last three days of his campaign for Mayor were a gathering of some of the slimiest people in Montana politics. How they escaped prosecution I have no idea. I expect I'll get some on me as all the old ones are back plus a few new faces.
Because they are issueless they have really tied me up with all the work I have to do on their inane complaints. It is very consuming of emotional capital, money and time. IS this really the best way to form a new government every two years? The Tussing campaign (Led by Mary Jo Fox and Joe Gunthals) is the spiritless fate we must now suffer for failing to rein in crap-mongers during so many campaign cycles. Especially the last mayoral campaign in Billings and the Fox v Cooney for Senate. I fully expect a repeat of the final days of the mayor’s race with enough crap slung by "independent expenditures" to make me vote for Tussing. Tussing’s name is so negative that they can't raise him up. They need to try to bring me down.
MH: One war that you are definitely winning, from what our eastern Montana readers tell us, is the Burma-Shave sign war. Do you expect to maintain your commanding Burma-Shave lead over Tussing -- and so our readers who don’t make it onto the roads of PSC District 2 can know what on earth we're talking about, could you share a couple of your favorite Burma-Shave campaign sign sequences?
Brad Molnar: Displaying all the creativity and originality that Tussing can muster on energy and telecom issues ("I want to explore options and "look for"...never mind) -- Ron Tussing has copied my signs.
MH: Mayor Tussing really is shameless, isn’t he? But in all fairness, he did manage to compose a puerile ditty about the city administrator he was in a fight with -- readers can look that monumental act of creativity up in the MH archives (search for "The House that Ron Tussing Built") -- or in the court records from when the City of Billings was being taken to the cleaners for millions in no small part because of Tussing.
We digress shamelessly -- go on...
Brad Molnar: Of course I copied them from the Burma Shave idea but let’s admit that I took them to a new level in Montana politics. The people that have mentioned Tussing's signs, regardless of party leanings, all use the word "copy cat".
What else did he think people would feel? That he was clever? The rest of us learned in fourth grade that "copycats" were to be shunned on the playground. He has a right to do it but it's dumb and again raises all of his other myriad ethics issues.
But for the unenlightened they are signs with jingles on them rather like the old Burma Shave signs. Some are silly but all fit my theme.
Those Liberal Fellas / Sound Real Clever / Do their ideas work / Never Ever / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This is the only sign to be stolen so far; last cycle it was the only one to be driven over.)
Mine it now / Drill it now / Don't need Arabs / To show us how / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This one is very popular. Got me labled a racist. Sheesh.)
When near a school / Drive real slow / Let those little / Voters grow / Molnar for Public Service Commission -- ( This is also a carryover from last cycle. Actually from an original.)
Can't make him run / Can't make him cry / Molnar is / A stand up guy / Molnar for PSC Molnar for PSC -- (In case they were wondering.)
MH: These are, of course, 5 separate signs in a row, and you have to wait a bit for the next line -- very effective. As noted before, you are crushing the opposition in the Burma-Shave wars. Turning to more serious topics on the campaign front, where is this election going to be fought and won?
Brad Molnar: I think that I have to play a heads up game but it is already decided. In redistricting my area was designed to be Republican and Jergeson’s was designed to be Dem. The others are plus or minus 6%.
But 140,000 of my 200,000 voters all live in Yellowstone County. Obama people are really registering a lot of people here but we don't know how many of those will actually vote. That and the Baucus money thing are the only two unknowns.
Other than that the Gazette is the paper of record for the district and everywhere I go people are well aware of Ron's reneging on the $160,000 pay to leave, shoving the reporter and claiming self defense, the law suits, the multiple ethics violations, voting money for his wife’s projects, subordination violations, lying under oath, being already bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.
Getting yard or Burma sign locations is easy. I just have to say that Tussing is my opponent. I think that the majority of people have already made up their minds about us. If he is the kind of guy (with the kind of followers he has) they want on the PSC they can have him. But plainly even those that supported him for Mayor have come to see that the City Manager was right and Tussing had to go to protect the people of Billings and now they have buyer’s remorse.
I think the primary numbers show that. Curry's campaign was nonexistent (I saw just two yard signs). The Curry votes were not Pro Curry. They were anti-Tussing. No idea what that means in the general. People should wonder why the Dems and liberals are so willing to debase themselves to get Tussing on the PSC when they already have a majority and the odds of Repubs sweeping all three open seats are long.
MH: You mentioned the Gazette as the paper of record in your PSC district. Do you believe that the Montana press in general and the Billings Gazette in particular has given you fair and balanced coverage during your tenure as commissioner and during this campaign?
Brad Molnar: In general "no." But, in truth, I think it is improving. Dennison and I have a respect for each other and trade barbs without ongoing animosity. Actually a healthy reporter/reportee relationship.
I miss talking with Chuck Johnson. He was very unfair to Judy Martz but always fair with me. I think, and hope, that my chagrin with LEE lies with the editors. I know it is with AP. Gouras is OK. Hergenrider in Billings tries to be fair but Lutey is nothing but a partisan hack. The new Capitol Correspondent for the GF Tribune has definite Democrat leanings. Sometimes he overrides them sometimes not. The jury is still out on him.
What's her name, the old GF Capital correspondent, was great. Very unbiased writing but she went to work for Lee in Missoula. Lucky Missoula. AP should have picked her up for Helena. Assume I will have between 45 days and 4 years to regret these comments.
MH: How about being a little more specific and forthright in answering the rest of these questions!
Anyway, while we're on the press, tell us about your working relationship with the Billings Outpost and its editor, David Crisp. Crisp at Billings Blog and Montana Headlines are the totality of the political blogging scene here in this part of the state, so we take a keen interest in the success of the Outpost.
Brad Molnar: I have total respect for David as a person, for his intellect, his ethics, and his journalistic capacities.
MH: While he often describes himself as a conservative, it would seem that you and he would probably have slightly different conceptions of what that word exactly means.
Brad Molnar: I think that David is more like a European style "liberal/conservative" and I am perhaps "right" of that sniveling, teary eyed, limp wristed, panty-waist that wrote Genghis Khan’s prisoner policy.
Dave's and my differences are probably more specific – for example, where we might both agree that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state, I would argue that it should not because of the 10th Amendment but he would challenge my conservative credentials for making such an interpretative argument after standing on fundamentalist interpretation ideals for so long. Hope that is not too obtuse; and that Dave concurs.
MH: I imagine that we’ll find out, since Billings Blog and MH regularly engage in good-natured, yet substantive disputes.
Anyway, in spite of your differences, your column was a staple at the Outpost for some time.
Brad Molnar: It was very popular. Even in Wyoming. But the #1 comment I got was from Dem's telling me how surprised they were that they actually agreed with me. Dave paid me $30 per column and never tried to censor me. People still tell me they miss it; but alas.
And I miss writing it. Actually the column appeared in several papers off and on.
MH: Let's touch on a few specifics, starting with your public comments condemning the "right to work" plank inserted into the platform at the recent GOP convention. For the record, MH opposes such laws, too. What on earth happened up in Missoula that this plank got shoved into the party platform?
Brad Molnar: That is what happens when people do not pay attention. I was not on the floor when it took place and it is so cloaked that...well, it happened. True conservatives cannot accept government intervening in private sector contracts. Period.
MH: Agreed. How do PSC Commissioners affect the interests of labor union members, and what specifically have you done to look out for them while on the PSC?
Brad Molnar: As you know I was the first Republican in the history of Montana to represent Laurel in the legislature. Some said that the union influence made it impossible. I figured that railroaders did not have enough money to be liberal so talked about what we had in common (which is most things) and they kept me in till term limits.
I actually enjoy working with union guys. They are long on doing and short on pussy footing. But more directly, when the Judith Gap wind farm was being started they wanted to use out of state, non-union contractors. There are no in-state non-union contractors that could have built the project.
At the PSC level I made a motion to place in our docket that "Little Davis Bacon" would apply. Still not sure if it would have applied but I tried. Only got one vote, Raney's. The other D's took a powder.
MH: "Little Davis Bacon?"
Brad Molnar: State version of Federal "prevailing wage."
MH: Got it. So is it possible that Republicans, if they don't insist on blowing it, have the opportunity to win the support of traditional unions in Montana and elsewhere?
Brad Molnar: Of course. Under Jerry Driscoll the AFL-CIO dropped their participation in slime ball politics and focused on jobs for their people. Republicans tend to like that concept so it was symbiotic.
I have encountered a strong union sentiment to that in my PSC campaign. The trade unions pulled Tussing's endorsement to fight for me. (No resolution of that yet. Railroaders in Forsyth recognized me at a cafe, and walked up to offer their support).
Union workers are just individuals. Approach them as such and all things are possible. Don't attack their union. After all it is their union. Let them change its policies if they so desire. They vote on this stuff and their leaders. If you don't like it then join and vote.
How tough is this? It's called freedom. Not every fight requires war. I have noticed that Republicans that complain about union money and "bus loads" of volunteers have not donated a dime to local candidates or even a few afternoons stumping for a candidate.
If we are being out-organized, out-donated, and out-volunteered by a minority, why do we have the right to be critical of others for digging out their pocketbooks and getting off the couch?
MH: You’re preaching to the choir. No whining about unions allowed around here.
Next up is energy deregulation.
Brad Molnar: OH BOY!!!
MH: Well, you knew it was coming. Listening to your opposition, the evil state legislator Brad Molnar was single-handily responsible for deregulation, ensuing high energy prices, and general chaos, mayhem, and destruction. Did we leave anything out?
Brad Molnar: And I did it at the request of my corporate masters....
I was such a powerful legislator that Bob Gannon handpicked me. I didn't even have to show up at the hearings. If you have nothing to say, but an election to win...make it up.
Considering Tussing's history why would this surprise anyone?
MH: You’ve got a point there. But leaving aside the fact that this argument is so… so 1990, are we correct in suspecting that this is, just maybe, a bit of over-wrought election year shrillness?
Brad Molnar: Actually since they have decided that conservation efforts are the root of all evil they have pretty much left this cut and paste argument alone. But I'm sure we will see more of it.
It's really a stupid argument to raise. I'm the one that took my own time and money trying to sue to get it overturned. The D's on the Commission actually took a public vote to try and block the suit to keep the facts from coming to court.
The facts are clear. The PSC acted in collusion with MPC and PPL, and lied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to facilitate the sale of MPC generation assets as quickly as possible. They had to ignore a dozen brakes put on them by the legislature. The document they did this with is the first one under my pic on the PSC website.
Notice that they clearly state that the federal government does not allow states to deregulate –rather, only a Commission can request the state's generation be granted (EWG status.)
MH: Is there a "rest of the story?"
Brad Molnar: I was absolutely shocked when the Repub party did not even ask if they could help. I was shocked when the Demo party refused to even discuss how to reregulate and I was shocked when my fellow Commissioners ordered our legal staff to stand with the PPL attorney (He has donated to Tussing) and defend our deregulated status.
I never asked them to help or give money. Just stay out of the way. When Raney switched to oppose the reregulation effort he publicly stated it was for "partisan political considerations" from the bench. (last entry below my pic on the PSC website).
Not a word in the press. An unbiased study of the causations, the issue, the process are a gold mine on how to have a better future and not make the same mistakes again (state and federal) but alas, the issue is better political fodder. Geez, it even happened before Tussing moved to Montana to claim the title Most Failed Chief of Police/Mayor Billings Has Ever Known...but it seems to be the only thing he knows anything about.
MH: Let’s turn to some more dirty stuff. We've had an annoying commenter who periodically shows up on MH threads that deal either with you or Ron Tussing, saying that you were convicted of felony assault and battery.
Knowing how devoted Mayor Tussing's fawning admirers are, this sort of anonymous charge will probably continue to appear on various blogs and in the comments section of the Gazette during this campaign. Would you like to enlighten MH readers regarding your past felonious activities?
Brad Molnar: I would rather talk about my future felonious activities but my compatriots would prefer that I not. Such stories will probably continue to surface in the blogosphere but not on the editorial page because they would be actionable and could not muster a defense onnaconna taint true.
Actually a felony would preclude me from serving would it not?
MH: We tried making that logical point, along with pointing out the absence of anything in the press about it in the last election cycle, but some people are logically challenged.
Brad Molnar: Yes, I've had a few scrapes but never seen a judge... plainly self defense.
Sorry, but I can't match Tussing man-handling a reporter at his announcement for mayor when he dared ask why Tussing thought he could break the $160,000 settlement agreement. Apparently Tussing claimed self defense and said he was afraid the man was armed (he had a camera and is 1/3 the size of Tussing)
He has not assaulted anyone for carrying a camera before or since. Charges dropped. Had that been me I would still be in the clink. It amazes me when they know they are vulnerable yet go forward with their cowardly attacks. They don't even care if they hurt their own candidate. Very poorly thought out. Tussing should be avoiding these issues like sumac.
MH: Enough on that – if we continue, our readers will be forced to go take a shower and won’t be able to finish reading this most engaging interview.
Let’s talk some specifics of how the PSC works. How do PSC commissioners interact with the state legislature -- do you have an advisory role in the crafting of legislation?
Brad Molnar: We often craft our own. For example the PSC crafted the legislation to increase the USB (consumer tax) on natural gas by 300%. I was the only commissioner to oppose it.
MH: Do you testify before committees?
Brad Molnar: There is at least one Commissioner present for just about any piece of legislation that concerns what we do. Often just to answer technical questions. Just as often we offer pro and con positions as determined by our votes to support or oppose various pieces legislation.
For example Mood (the other R) and I have, for the past two sessions supported legislation to mandate that the PSC put together a "lowest cost possible" energy portfolio for utility customers with the option for "green power" aficionados to pay more for their chosen color of electrons.
The three Democrat commissioners have always stood with the enviro lobby and opposed same. All of us agreed that Gov. Schweitzer’s HB3 Special Session was patently illegal. Ergo none of the D's went to testify so they could not be questioned.
MH: Most interesting – we’ll have to pay attention in the next session to see who testifies and when.
Can you give examples of laws that have passed or nearly passed in the legislature in the last couple of sessions that were injurious to Montana citizens -- ones that a Republican legislature should overturn in the coming session?
Brad Molnar: Of course the aforementioned 300% increase in USB taxes (it was made far worse in committee at the request of MDU).
HB 25 has a moratorium on new coal-fired plants and created a new 3.5% tax on energy. If we repeal the Renewable Energy Portfolio (SB 415 Schweitzer/Tester) we could save about $50M immediately and millions more per year.
MH: How about any that need to be fought and kept from passing in the next legislative session?
Brad Molnar: Have been a little preoccupied with the next couple of months to worry about the next session but I assume that everyone agrees that the people of SE Mont would be represented very differently before legislative committees if Tussing should win.
MH: Fair enough, but still, is there legislation that you as a PSC Commissioner would like to see introduced and debated in the next legislative session?
Brad Molnar: Along with Rep Everett I tried to make fraud by, or before, the Commission the same as fraud anywhere (punishable up to two years after discovery) rather than you have thirty days after a ruling to file an action.
Only the three D's on the Commission and NWE opposed it in committee. It got clobbered in Committee and twice on the floor just to get a rehearing.
Listen to the tapes. Jergeson went berserk to kill it. Totally berserk. It was amazing. My jaw dropped. It would have allowed the Commission to be held responsible for the fraud and collusion they committed (and admitted to) when they asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate Montana Power and PPL.
Dems really hate the truth on this subject. I'll bet they quote Justice Nelson on this topic when they blog. Four justices refused to sign his dissent so they naturally quote him like he actually represented someone other than himself and his loathing for my conservative politics and our many years running feud over his judicial activism.
MH: Well, that spares us from having to ask for a comment or two about the role of the judiciary.
Next up, what kind of a grade would you give the current governor when it comes to the basic pocketbook issues of utility rates?
Brad Molnar: A+ for taking credit for the efforts of others.
D-minus for what he has done to consumers and the cost causers he has planted.
When I nailed him on imploring us to help low-income ratepayers with their increasing utility bills, when he promoted every cost causer in the legislature he said, "Yes, but my concern was for the jobs it creates."
Six months building wind mills and 20 years of higher rates. Make that an "F."
Same, exactly the same, answer from his transmission guy (Tuttle) at the Colstrip meeting of the interim ETIC when he was asked by Weisman (D-Great Falls) about the impact of the Montana Idaho Intertie.
So it is definitely Schweitzer’s policy to ignore costs if he gets a good headline about jobs. He is a very bright guy so I assume he knows he is guilty. It's just that the press prefers to not ask any follow up questions. Just quote the press agent...or they might not be invited to the next wine tasting.
Same thing when Barret told legislators to resist my amendment to HB 3 (special session) that would have saved consumers $38.85M on electricity bills (That reminds me. We should try that one again.)
ZERO dems voted for it. Why doesn't Schweitzer say what he has done to lower energy bills (not counting subsidizing the poor with other people’s money)...make that F-minus.
Republicans put price caps on the renewables in SB 415 2005 in House Committee. The amendments to pull off the consumer protections were called the governor’s Amendments...mainly because they were. Hell of a floor fight. Nothing in the press.
What is lower than F-minus? Add $10,000 to the war chest against me.
MH: Let us know if there is a spike in fundraising from Helena after this interview appears.
Let’s move on to a different intra-governmental relationship. How do PSC commissioners interact with the federal government?
Brad Molnar: Constantly. Directly via meetings with FERC and FCC top personnel at NARUC meetings and teleconferences and through regional stake holder issues (BPA) and transmission issues to the east. The commissioners you must work with are "no nonsense" professionals. They Googled me before I got there and judged if I had anything to add to the issue.
If not, you will just be a placeholder and cannot represent Montana. Very judgmental and very hard working group. They wouldn't let Tussing carry the donuts.
MH: As entertaining as it is to pull a visual of Mayor Tussing fetching donuts and coffee for the big boys, let’s hope we don’t have to deal with that. How has the change to Democratic control in the U.S. Congress affected things in the last couple of years?
Brad Molnar: It appears to me that the people voted to end the war. They still have the war but got stuck with a freshman congress controlled by a bunch of enviro zealots that simply refuse to have a holistic approach to energy and the environment.
I never thought that there would be a working majority in congress that was willing to perform great violence on families in the US via their utility bills (Cap and Trade/carbon tax) (a crafty tax hidden in utility bills that we will never get rid of.). I must now concede the possibility and work to mitigate the harm.
MH: Will the outcome of the Presidential race this year affect what you do at the PSC?
Brad Molnar: Both Obama and McCain have signaled that they will sign Cap and Trade. They are both willing to sell this country down the river for a sound bite.
Maybe Sarah can get McCain to moderate but I doubt it. Before it was Warner-Lieberman it was McCain-Lieberman. Either way we are screwed and, if I am in the majority, will write rules to mitigate the damage they will do.
If not in the majority I will use the position to inform consumers....actually a pretty good weapon....which is why I am so heavily targeted.
Add another $10,000 to Tussings war chest. I'm joking -- it will be independent expenditures.
MH: We’ll look forward to getting those mailers. Let's turn back to the specifics of energy for a final question. Is it safe to assume that we are in agreement that for now, drilling for more oil, building more oil refineries, and mining and using more coal are the irreducible minimum in relieving the burdensome cost of energy?
Brad Molnar: Those that argue against more drilling are just plain goofy....but may get elected president. It's a purist environmentalist argument..."No carbon at any cost -- but confuse the issue at every turn."
MH: And would we also be in agreement that the "all of the above" approach to attacking the energy supply issue on every front is essential to meeting our energy needs in the long run?
Brad Molnar: And the short run. Look how fast Bakken turned the argument. Even Tester is taking credit for it now.
MH: Moving on from that, what alternative energy source is the most promising for Montana -- and what makes it the most promising technology?
Brad Molnar: Wind, though not as a stand-alone generation. But wind with compressed air storage (still in R&D), tied to hydro, tied to EXISTING natural gas.
As a nation we have 205,000 megawatts of natural gas baseload. We would be generations tying it to wind and the results would be astoundingly good. Building gas generation to support wind....totally political and wildly anti-consumer.
And when you say "for Montana"...the only winners are those that sell wind power. That's why people have to be forced to buy it i.e. thru renewable energy portfolios etc and that's why they are forced to pay a $16 BILLION dollar subsidy. Montana is often called the Saudi Arabia of wind (so is No Dak. So Dak. Texas etc etc...it's what people say when they think a vacuous statement will work better than facts...usually on the 6 o'clock news).
Do the Arabs have to mandate the use of oil? Do Arabs subsidize its sales to help hide the true costs? If wind is mandated why subsidize it? The least complicated to authorize is "cogeneration" on a case by case basis as long as it is not a Qualified Facility. We have plenty of affordable/reliable energy in Montana. Why we are convincing ourselves that greater investment in subsidized/unreliable energy is a winning argument is beyond me. We have not and cannot curtail one megawatt of electricity from Colstrip since we built Judith Gap with its 135MW capacity. Know why?
MH: I think that is pretty obvious, and can be summarized in one word: demand -- which is only going up.
Brad Molnar: And you would be wrong. Have a nice day.
MH: That's a cliffhanger of a note to end on. We'll have to find the real answer to that one another time, then.
Commissioner Brad Molnar, thank you again for taking the time to talk with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in your campaign – and while we may regret this, you can have the last word.
Brad Molnar: Luck? I'm up against a discredited cop, that became a discredited mayor, that admits he would be a know-nothing Commissioner. How tough could it be.....INCOMING!!!!
Showing posts with label Ron Tussing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Tussing. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar -- Montana Headlines interview (Part 2 of 2)
Read Part I here.
_____________________________
MH: Let's touch on a few specifics, starting with your public comments condemning the "right to work" plank inserted into the platform at the recent GOP convention. For the record, MH opposes such laws, too. What on earth happened up in Missoula that this plank got shoved into the party platform?
Brad Molnar: That is what happens when people do not pay attention. I was not on the floor when it took place and it is so cloaked that...well, it happened. True conservatives cannot accept government intervening in private sector contracts. Period.
MH: Agreed. How do PSC Commissioners affect the interests of labor union members, and what specifically have you done to look out for them while on the PSC?
Brad Molnar: As you know I was the first Republican in the history of Montana to represent Laurel in the legislature. Some said that the union influence made it impossible. I figured that railroaders did not have enough money to be liberal so talked about what we had in common (which is most things) and they kept me in till term limits.
I actually enjoy working with union guys. They are long on doing and short on pussy footing. But more directly, when the Judith Gap wind farm was being started they wanted to use out of state, non-union contractors. There are no in-state non-union contractors that could have built the project.
At the PSC level I made a motion to place in our docket that "Little Davis Bacon" would apply. Still not sure if it would have applied but I tried. Only got one vote, Raney's. The other D's took a powder.
MH: "Little Davis Bacon?"
Brad Molnar: State version of Federal "prevailing wage."
MH: Got it. So is it possible that Republicans, if they don't insist on blowing it, have the opportunity to win the support of traditional unions in Montana and elsewhere?
Brad Molnar: Of course. Under Jerry Driscoll the AFL-CIO dropped their participation in slime ball politics and focused on jobs for their people. Republicans tend to like that concept so it was symbiotic.
I have encountered a strong union sentiment to that in my PSC campaign. The trade unions pulled Tussing's endorsement to fight for me. (No resolution of that yet. Railroaders in Forsyth recognized me at a cafe, and walked up to offer their support).
Union workers are just individuals. Approach them as such and all things are possible. Don't attack their union. After all it is their union. Let them change its policies if they so desire. They vote on this stuff and their leaders. If you don't like it then join and vote.
How tough is this? It's called freedom. Not every fight requires war. I have noticed that Republicans that complain about union money and "bus loads" of volunteers have not donated a dime to local candidates or even a few afternoons stumping for a candidate.
If we are being out-organized, out-donated, and out-volunteered by a minority, why do we have the right to be critical of others for digging out their pocketbooks and getting off the couch?
MH: You’re preaching to the choir. No whining about unions allowed around here.
Next up is energy deregulation.
Brad Molnar: OH BOY!!!
MH: Well, you knew it was coming. Listening to your opposition, the evil state legislator Brad Molnar was single-handily responsible for deregulation, ensuing high energy prices, and general chaos, mayhem, and destruction. Did we leave anything out?
Brad Molnar: And I did it at the request of my corporate masters....
I was such a powerful legislator that Bob Gannon handpicked me. I didn't even have to show up at the hearings. If you have nothing to say, but an election to win...make it up.
Considering Tussing's history why would this surprise anyone?
MH: You’ve got a point there. But leaving aside the fact that this argument is so… so 1990, are we correct in suspecting that this is, just maybe, a bit of over-wrought election year shrillness?
Brad Molnar: Actually since they have decided that conservation efforts are the root of all evil they have pretty much left this cut and paste argument alone. But I'm sure we will see more of it.
It's really a stupid argument to raise. I'm the one that took my own time and money trying to sue to get it overturned. The D's on the Commission actually took a public vote to try and block the suit to keep the facts from coming to court.
The facts are clear. The PSC acted in collusion with MPC and PPL, and lied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to facilitate the sale of MPC generation assets as quickly as possible. They had to ignore a dozen brakes put on them by the legislature. The document they did this with is the first one under my pic on the PSC website.
Notice that they clearly state that the federal government does not allow states to deregulate –rather, only a Commission can request the state's generation be granted (EWG status.)
MH: Is there a "rest of the story?"
Brad Molnar: I was absolutely shocked when the Repub party did not even ask if they could help. I was shocked when the Demo party refused to even discuss how to reregulate and I was shocked when my fellow Commissioners ordered our legal staff to stand with the PPL attorney (He has donated to Tussing) and defend our deregulated status.
I never asked them to help or give money. Just stay out of the way. When Raney switched to oppose the reregulation effort he publicly stated it was for "partisan political considerations" from the bench. (last entry below my pic on the PSC website).
Not a word in the press. An unbiased study of the causations, the issue, the process are a gold mine on how to have a better future and not make the same mistakes again (state and federal) but alas, the issue is better political fodder. Geez, it even happened before Tussing moved to Montana to claim the title Most Failed Chief of Police/Mayor Billings Has Ever Known...but it seems to be the only thing he knows anything about.
MH: Let’s turn to some more dirty stuff. We've had an annoying commenter who periodically shows up on MH threads that deal either with you or Ron Tussing, saying that you were convicted of felony assault and battery.
Knowing how devoted Mayor Tussing's fawning admirers are, this sort of anonymous charge will probably continue to appear on various blogs and in the comments section of the Gazette during this campaign. Would you like to enlighten MH readers regarding your past felonious activities?
Brad Molnar: I would rather talk about my future felonious activities but my compatriots would prefer that I not. Such stories will probably continue to surface in the blogosphere but not on the editorial page because they would be actionable and could not muster a defense onnaconna taint true.
Actually a felony would preclude me from serving would it not?
MH: We tried making that logical point, along with pointing out the absence of anything in the press about it in the last election cycle, but some people are logically challenged.
Brad Molnar: Yes, I've had a few scrapes but never seen a judge... plainly self defense.
Sorry, but I can't match Tussing man-handling a reporter at his announcement for mayor when he dared ask why Tussing thought he could break the $160,000 settlement agreement. Apparently Tussing claimed self defense and said he was afraid the man was armed (he had a camera and is 1/3 the size of Tussing)
He has not assaulted anyone for carrying a camera before or since. Charges dropped. Had that been me I would still be in the clink. It amazes me when they know they are vulnerable yet go forward with their cowardly attacks. They don't even care if they hurt their own candidate. Very poorly thought out. Tussing should be avoiding these issues like sumac.
MH: Enough on that – if we continue, our readers will be forced to go take a shower and won’t be able to finish reading this most engaging interview.
Let’s talk some specifics of how the PSC works. How do PSC commissioners interact with the state legislature -- do you have an advisory role in the crafting of legislation?
Brad Molnar: We often craft our own. For example the PSC crafted the legislation to increase the USB (consumer tax) on natural gas by 300%. I was the only commissioner to oppose it.
MH: Do you testify before committees?
Brad Molnar: There is at least one Commissioner present for just about any piece of legislation that concerns what we do. Often just to answer technical questions. Just as often we offer pro and con positions as determined by our votes to support or oppose various pieces legislation.
For example Mood (the other R) and I have, for the past two sessions supported legislation to mandate that the PSC put together a "lowest cost possible" energy portfolio for utility customers with the option for "green power" aficionados to pay more for their chosen color of electrons.
The three Democrat commissioners have always stood with the enviro lobby and opposed same. All of us agreed that Gov. Schweitzer’s HB3 Special Session was patently illegal. Ergo none of the D's went to testify so they could not be questioned.
MH: Most interesting – we’ll have to pay attention in the next session to see who testifies and when.
Can you give examples of laws that have passed or nearly passed in the legislature in the last couple of sessions that were injurious to Montana citizens -- ones that a Republican legislature should overturn in the coming session?
Brad Molnar: Of course the aforementioned 300% increase in USB taxes (it was made far worse in committee at the request of MDU).
HB 25 has a moratorium on new coal-fired plants and created a new 3.5% tax on energy. If we repeal the Renewable Energy Portfolio (SB 415 Schweitzer/Tester) we could save about $50M immediately and millions more per year.
MH: How about any that need to be fought and kept from passing in the next legislative session?
Brad Molnar: Have been a little preoccupied with the next couple of months to worry about the next session but I assume that everyone agrees that the people of SE Mont would be represented very differently before legislative committees if Tussing should win.
MH: Fair enough, but still, is there legislation that you as a PSC Commissioner would like to see introduced and debated in the next legislative session?
Brad Molnar: Along with Rep Everett I tried to make fraud by, or before, the Commission the same as fraud anywhere (punishable up to two years after discovery) rather than you have thirty days after a ruling to file an action.
Only the three D's on the Commission and NWE opposed it in committee. It got clobbered in Committee and twice on the floor just to get a rehearing.
Listen to the tapes. Jergeson went berserk to kill it. Totally berserk. It was amazing. My jaw dropped. It would have allowed the Commission to be held responsible for the fraud and collusion they committed (and admitted to) when they asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate Montana Power and PPL.
Dems really hate the truth on this subject. I'll bet they quote Justice Nelson on this topic when they blog. Four justices refused to sign his dissent so they naturally quote him like he actually represented someone other than himself and his loathing for my conservative politics and our many years running feud over his judicial activism.
MH: Well, that spares us from having to ask for a comment or two about the role of the judiciary.
Next up, what kind of a grade would you give the current governor when it comes to the basic pocketbook issues of utility rates?
Brad Molnar: A+ for taking credit for the efforts of others.
D-minus for what he has done to consumers and the cost causers he has planted.
When I nailed him on imploring us to help low-income ratepayers with their increasing utility bills, when he promoted every cost causer in the legislature he said, "Yes, but my concern was for the jobs it creates."
Six months building wind mills and 20 years of higher rates. Make that an "F."
Same, exactly the same, answer from his transmission guy (Tuttle) at the Colstrip meeting of the interim ETIC when he was asked by Weisman (D-Great Falls) about the impact of the Montana Idaho Intertie.
So it is definitely Schweitzer’s policy to ignore costs if he gets a good headline about jobs. He is a very bright guy so I assume he knows he is guilty. It's just that the press prefers to not ask any follow up questions. Just quote the press agent...or they might not be invited to the next wine tasting.
Same thing when Barret told legislators to resist my amendment to HB 3 (special session) that would have saved consumers $38.85M on electricity bills (That reminds me. We should try that one again.)
ZERO dems voted for it. Why doesn't Schweitzer say what he has done to lower energy bills (not counting subsidizing the poor with other people’s money)...make that F-minus.
Republicans put price caps on the renewables in SB 415 2005 in House Committee. The amendments to pull off the consumer protections were called the governor’s Amendments...mainly because they were. Hell of a floor fight. Nothing in the press.
What is lower than F-minus? Add $10,000 to the war chest against me.
MH: Let us know if there is a spike in fundraising from Helena after this interview appears.
Let’s move on to a different intra-governmental relationship. How do PSC commissioners interact with the federal government?
Brad Molnar: Constantly. Directly via meetings with FERC and FCC top personnel at NARUC meetings and teleconferences and through regional stake holder issues (BPA) and transmission issues to the east. The commissioners you must work with are "no nonsense" professionals. They Googled me before I got there and judged if I had anything to add to the issue.
If not, you will just be a placeholder and cannot represent Montana. Very judgmental and very hard working group. They wouldn't let Tussing carry the donuts.
MH: As entertaining as it is to pull a visual of Mayor Tussing fetching donuts and coffee for the big boys, let’s hope we don’t have to deal with that. How has the change to Democratic control in the U.S. Congress affected things in the last couple of years?
Brad Molnar: It appears to me that the people voted to end the war. They still have the war but got stuck with a freshman congress controlled by a bunch of enviro zealots that simply refuse to have a holistic approach to energy and the environment.
I never thought that there would be a working majority in congress that was willing to perform great violence on families in the US via their utility bills (Cap and Trade/carbon tax) (a crafty tax hidden in utility bills that we will never get rid of.). I must now concede the possibility and work to mitigate the harm.
MH: Will the outcome of the Presidential race this year affect what you do at the PSC?
Brad Molnar: Both Obama and McCain have signaled that they will sign Cap and Trade. They are both willing to sell this country down the river for a sound bite.
Maybe Sarah can get McCain to moderate but I doubt it. Before it was Warner-Lieberman it was McCain-Lieberman. Either way we are screwed and, if I am in the majority, will write rules to mitigate the damage they will do.
If not in the majority I will use the position to inform consumers....actually a pretty good weapon....which is why I am so heavily targeted.
Add another $10,000 to Tussings war chest. I'm joking -- it will be independent expenditures.
MH: We’ll look forward to getting those mailers. Let's turn back to the specifics of energy for a final question. Is it safe to assume that we are in agreement that for now, drilling for more oil, building more oil refineries, and mining and using more coal are the irreducible minimum in relieving the burdensome cost of energy?
Brad Molnar: Those that argue against more drilling are just plain goofy....but may get elected president. It's a purist environmentalist argument..."No carbon at any cost -- but confuse the issue at every turn."
MH: And would we also be in agreement that the "all of the above" approach to attacking the energy supply issue on every front is essential to meeting our energy needs in the long run?
Brad Molnar: And the short run. Look how fast Bakken turned the argument. Even Tester is taking credit for it now.
MH: Moving on from that, what alternative energy source is the most promising for Montana -- and what makes it the most promising technology?
Brad Molnar: Wind, though not as a stand-alone generation. But wind with compressed air storage (still in R&D), tied to hydro, tied to EXISTING natural gas.
As a nation we have 205,000 megawatts of natural gas baseload. We would be generations tying it to wind and the results would be astoundingly good. Building gas generation to support wind....totally political and wildly anti-consumer.
And when you say "for Montana"...the only winners are those that sell wind power. That's why people have to be forced to buy it i.e. thru renewable energy portfolios etc and that's why they are forced to pay a $16 BILLION dollar subsidy. Montana is often called the Saudi Arabia of wind (so is No Dak. So Dak. Texas etc etc...it's what people say when they think a vacuous statement will work better than facts...usually on the 6 o'clock news).
Do the Arabs have to mandate the use of oil? Do Arabs subsidize its sales to help hide the true costs? If wind is mandated why subsidize it? The least complicated to authorize is "cogeneration" on a case by case basis as long as it is not a Qualified Facility. We have plenty of affordable/reliable energy in Montana. Why we are convincing ourselves that greater investment in subsidized/unreliable energy is a winning argument is beyond me. We have not and cannot curtail one megawatt of electricity from Colstrip since we built Judith Gap with its 135MW capacity. Know why?
MH: I think that is pretty obvious, and can be summarized in one word: demand -- which is only going up.
Brad Molnar: And you would be wrong. Have a nice day.
MH: That's a cliffhanger of a note to end on. We'll have to find the real answer to that one another time, then.
Commissioner Brad Molnar, thank you again for taking the time to talk with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in your campaign – and while we may regret this, you can have the last word.
Brad Molnar: Luck? I'm up against a discredited cop, that became a discredited mayor, that admits he would be a know-nothing Commissioner. How tough could it be.....INCOMING!!!!
___________________________
Tomorrow -- Full text of the entire interview for convenience in linking.
Monday, September 22, 2008
PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar -- Montana Headlines interview (Part 1 of 2)
MH: Commissioner Brad Molnar, welcome to Montana Headlines -- thanks for taking the time to do this interview.
First, we've got to ask this question: are you related to Thomas Molnar…
Brad Molnar: Yes. First cousin.
MH: Hold on, wait for the rest of the question. Thomas Molnar, the famous Hungarian conservative philosopher and historian/political theorist?
Brad Molnar: No. Wrong Hungarian, sorry. Cousin Tom runs a septic pumping service in South Bend, Ind. I don't think that he is very philosophical about it. Don't suppose he thinks it's a political statement either. I could be wrong about that though.
MH: Well, we’re off to quite a start, aren’t we? So let's start with a simple but crucial question: what exactly does a PSC Commissioner do?
Brad Molnar: All fifty states have some form of Commission. Fed regulators (FCC and FERC) share responsibilities with us. If state or federal legislation grants monopoly power we act as a brake to make sure the customer get the value as if there were competition. I'm pretty sure the brake is broke.
MH: Correct us if we're wrong, but you seem to enjoy your job as a PSC Commissioner immensely.
Brad Molnar: Yup.
MH: Put differently, a lot of public office holders enjoy the attention, the power, or the potential for future political ambitions that go with their jobs (yes, that was a little side-swipe at your opponent) -- but don't necessarily seem to enjoy the day to day grind of their lives in public service. You seem, more than most, to just plain enjoy doing what you do. Do we have that right, and is this typical for PSC Commissioners?
Brad Molnar: I truly enjoy the job. Like most before me I am amazed at how different it is from how it is perceived. I would say that all five of us are very dedicated to doing the job as best we can. Even Toole, which surprises me. But he is so political and infecting the Commission that he overshadows the good he can do. Raney and Jergeson have become far more political since Toole got elected.
MH: What is it that you find so enjoyable or satisfying about this job?
Brad Molnar: The total and ongoing exposure to new problems and various solutions in a room filled with very intelligent people and very different ideas. The fight for individual liberty and against runaway liberalism is fought here every day. But it’s not like in the legislature -- you can't go back to your caucus at the mid-day break or go home. You are in for four years. I've actually had to develop people skills...
OK "try" to develop people skills.
MH: We've heard it said that PSC Commissioners have a more direct impact on the daily lives of Montanans than do many state-wide positions that are higher profile. Is that true, and if so, could you explain?
Brad Molnar: We make the Appropriations Committee look like a bunch of panty-waists. Schweitzer talks (and talks and talks,) about energy but we analyze myriad proposals constantly. We recently implemented an additional 50 MW of QF wind (never mind the jargon just catch the drift.) If history holds that will cost consumers over a billion dollars more than the electricity is worth.
And we have zero capacity for ancillary services to firm it. NWE was against it. Montana Consumer Council was against it. I was the only no vote. The press never reported it (Who would write the story and who would understand it?). Only lobbyists and special interest liked it. By the time it kicks in no one will remember it and those that voted for it will be retiring from their new jobs as lobbyists for the same special interests. (Least ways that's my humble opinion)
On a 3-2 vote we OK'd sending 2,000,000 of NWE ratepayer dollars to Portland and Seattle to help spread the word about energy efficiency in the wood pulp industry. I'm sure that most of that money will find its way back to Montana via liberal PACS. Not one word in the daily press. TRY THAT in the legislature.
A rate increase of $15M got big press but the $60M "tracker" we passed several weeks later never got a mention. I was the only no vote and will soon show the world why. But the "why" is a twenty year deal. Legislative actions are only good for two years. Our mistakes can't be undone, are under analyzed, and in the billions of dollars. That is why we have more impact.
And the obvious. You get an energy bill every month. All business and government entities get a utility bill every month -- so you actually pay all three.
MH: Readers of Montana Headlines know that we find your opponent, Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, to be... well, let's not go there.
From a public-interest perspective, we were definitely rooting for Curry in the Democratic primary, but as we wrote in an earlier post, "From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match."
You don't seem like someone to back down from a fight, and you're certainly in one. We haven't seen a lot of fireworks yet -- when will it start, and what shape will it take?
Brad Molnar: It's definitely started. The state Demo party has filed grievances against me with the Office of Political Practices about the Billings Brownout. They were thrown out because Noonan tried twice to get the form right but couldn't quite grasp the concept. Mary Jo Fox (formerly with Raciciot then Martz -- now Tussing's campaign manager) has filed and amended several, also on the Billings Brownout, and of course the D's on the Commission have asked for a ruling from the AG also stemming from the Billings Brownout.
Plainly they feel the Billings Brownout is a good thing in need of attack to try to drown out Tussing's enormous negatives by creating some for me. Pretty stupid. EVERYbody I have talked to about it sees right through it. Does anybody think Tussing could even win Mayor again? The last three days of his campaign for Mayor were a gathering of some of the slimiest people in Montana politics. How they escaped prosecution I have no idea. I expect I'll get some on me as all the old ones are back plus a few new faces.
Because they are issueless they have really tied me up with all the work I have to do on their inane complaints. It is very consuming of emotional capital, money and time. IS this really the best way to form a new government every two years? The Tussing campaign (Led by Mary Jo Fox and Joe Gunthals) is the spiritless fate we must now suffer for failing to rein in crap-mongers during so many campaign cycles. Especially the last mayoral campaign in Billings and the Fox v Cooney for Senate. I fully expect a repeat of the final days of the mayor’s race with enough crap slung by "independent expenditures" to make me vote for Tussing. Tussing’s name is so negative that they can't raise him up. They need to try to bring me down.
MH: One war that you are definitely winning, from what our eastern Montana readers tell us, is the Burma-Shave sign war. Do you expect to maintain your commanding Burma-Shave lead over Tussing -- and so our readers who don’t make it onto the roads of PSC District 2 can know what on earth we're talking about, could you share a couple of your favorite Burma-Shave campaign sign sequences?
Brad Molnar: Displaying all the creativity and originality that Tussing can muster on energy and telecom issues ("I want to explore options and "look for"...never mind) -- Ron Tussing has copied my signs.
MH: Mayor Tussing really is shameless, isn’t he? But in all fairness, he did manage to compose a puerile ditty about the city administrator he was in a fight with -- readers can look that monumental act of creativity up in the MH archives (search for "The House that Ron Tussing Built") -- or in the court records from when the City of Billings was being taken to the cleaners for millions in no small part because of Tussing.
We digress shamelessly -- go on...
Brad Molnar: Of course I copied them from the Burma Shave idea but let’s admit that I took them to a new level in Montana politics. The people that have mentioned Tussing's signs, regardless of party leanings, all use the word "copy cat".
What else did he think people would feel? That he was clever? The rest of us learned in fourth grade that "copycats" were to be shunned on the playground. He has a right to do it but it's dumb and again raises all of his other myriad ethics issues.
But for the unenlightened they are signs with jingles on them rather like the old Burma Shave signs. Some are silly but all fit my theme.
Those Liberal Fellas / Sound Real Clever / Do their ideas work / Never Ever / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This is the only sign to be stolen so far; last cycle it was the only one to be driven over.)
Mine it now / Drill it now / Don't need Arabs / To show us how / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This one is very popular. Got me labled a racist. Sheesh.)
When near a school / Drive real slow / Let those little / Voters grow / Molnar for Public Service Commission -- ( This is also a carryover from last cycle. Actually from an original.)
Can't make him run / Can't make him cry / Molnar is / A stand up guy / Molnar for PSC Molnar for PSC -- (In case they were wondering.)
MH: These are, of course, 5 separate signs in a row, and you have to wait a bit for the next line -- very effective. As noted before, you are crushing the opposition in the Burma-Shave wars. Turning to more serious topics on the campaign front, where is this election going to be fought and won?
Brad Molnar: I think that I have to play a heads up game but it is already decided. In redistricting my area was designed to be Republican and Jergeson’s was designed to be Dem. The others are plus or minus 6%.
But 140,000 of my 200,000 voters all live in Yellowstone County. Obama people are really registering a lot of people here but we don't know how many of those will actually vote. That and the Baucus money thing are the only two unknowns.
Other than that the Gazette is the paper of record for the district and everywhere I go people are well aware of Ron's reneging on the $160,000 pay to leave, shoving the reporter and claiming self defense, the law suits, the multiple ethics violations, voting money for his wife’s projects, subordination violations, lying under oath, being already bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.
Getting yard or Burma sign locations is easy. I just have to say that Tussing is my opponent. I think that the majority of people have already made up their minds about us. If he is the kind of guy (with the kind of followers he has) they want on the PSC they can have him. But plainly even those that supported him for Mayor have come to see that the City Manager was right and Tussing had to go to protect the people of Billings and now they have buyer’s remorse.
I think the primary numbers show that. Curry's campaign was nonexistent (I saw just two yard signs). The Curry votes were not Pro Curry. They were anti-Tussing. No idea what that means in the general. People should wonder why the Dems and liberals are so willing to debase themselves to get Tussing on the PSC when they already have a majority and the odds of Repubs sweeping all three open seats are long.
MH: You mentioned the Gazette as the paper of record in your PSC district. Do you believe that the Montana press in general and the Billings Gazette in particular has given you fair and balanced coverage during your tenure as commissioner and during this campaign?
Brad Molnar: In general "no." But, in truth, I think it is improving. Dennison and I have a respect for each other and trade barbs without ongoing animosity. Actually a healthy reporter/reportee relationship.
I miss talking with Chuck Johnson. He was very unfair to Judy Martz but always fair with me. I think, and hope, that my chagrin with LEE lies with the editors. I know it is with AP. Gouras is OK. Hergenrider in Billings tries to be fair but Lutey is nothing but a partisan hack. The new Capitol Correspondent for the GF Tribune has definite Democrat leanings. Sometimes he overrides them sometimes not. The jury is still out on him.
What's her name, the old GF Capital correspondent, was great. Very unbiased writing but she went to work for Lee in Missoula. Lucky Missoula. AP should have picked her up for Helena. Assume I will have between 45 days and 4 years to regret these comments.
MH: How about being a little more specific and forthright in answering the rest of these questions!
Anyway, while we're on the press, tell us about your working relationship with the Billings Outpost and its editor, David Crisp. Crisp at Billings Blog and Montana Headlines are the totality of the political blogging scene here in this part of the state, so we take a keen interest in the success of the Outpost.
Brad Molnar: I have total respect for David as a person, for his intellect, his ethics, and his journalistic capacities.
MH: While he often describes himself as a conservative, it would seem that you and he would probably have slightly different conceptions of what that word exactly means.
Brad Molnar: I think that David is more like a European style "liberal/conservative" and I am perhaps "right" of that sniveling, teary eyed, limp wristed, panty-waist that wrote Genghis Khan’s prisoner policy.
Dave's and my differences are probably more specific – for example, where we might both agree that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state, I would argue that it should not because of the 10th Amendment but he would challenge my conservative credentials for making such an interpretative argument after standing on fundamentalist interpretation ideals for so long. Hope that is not too obtuse; and that Dave concurs.
MH: I imagine that we’ll find out, since Billings Blog and MH regularly engage in good-natured, yet substantive disputes.
Anyway, in spite of your differences, your column was a staple at the Outpost for some time.
Brad Molnar: It was very popular. Even in Wyoming. But the #1 comment I got was from Dem's telling me how surprised they were that they actually agreed with me. Dave paid me $30 per column and never tried to censor me. People still tell me they miss it; but alas.
And I miss writing it. Actually the column appeared in several papers off and on.
____________________________
Tommorrow: Molnar on labor unions, energy deregulation, slimy campaigning, interactions with the federal government, the governor, and much more...
First, we've got to ask this question: are you related to Thomas Molnar…
Brad Molnar: Yes. First cousin.
MH: Hold on, wait for the rest of the question. Thomas Molnar, the famous Hungarian conservative philosopher and historian/political theorist?
Brad Molnar: No. Wrong Hungarian, sorry. Cousin Tom runs a septic pumping service in South Bend, Ind. I don't think that he is very philosophical about it. Don't suppose he thinks it's a political statement either. I could be wrong about that though.
MH: Well, we’re off to quite a start, aren’t we? So let's start with a simple but crucial question: what exactly does a PSC Commissioner do?
Brad Molnar: All fifty states have some form of Commission. Fed regulators (FCC and FERC) share responsibilities with us. If state or federal legislation grants monopoly power we act as a brake to make sure the customer get the value as if there were competition. I'm pretty sure the brake is broke.
MH: Correct us if we're wrong, but you seem to enjoy your job as a PSC Commissioner immensely.
Brad Molnar: Yup.
MH: Put differently, a lot of public office holders enjoy the attention, the power, or the potential for future political ambitions that go with their jobs (yes, that was a little side-swipe at your opponent) -- but don't necessarily seem to enjoy the day to day grind of their lives in public service. You seem, more than most, to just plain enjoy doing what you do. Do we have that right, and is this typical for PSC Commissioners?
Brad Molnar: I truly enjoy the job. Like most before me I am amazed at how different it is from how it is perceived. I would say that all five of us are very dedicated to doing the job as best we can. Even Toole, which surprises me. But he is so political and infecting the Commission that he overshadows the good he can do. Raney and Jergeson have become far more political since Toole got elected.
MH: What is it that you find so enjoyable or satisfying about this job?
Brad Molnar: The total and ongoing exposure to new problems and various solutions in a room filled with very intelligent people and very different ideas. The fight for individual liberty and against runaway liberalism is fought here every day. But it’s not like in the legislature -- you can't go back to your caucus at the mid-day break or go home. You are in for four years. I've actually had to develop people skills...
OK "try" to develop people skills.
MH: We've heard it said that PSC Commissioners have a more direct impact on the daily lives of Montanans than do many state-wide positions that are higher profile. Is that true, and if so, could you explain?
Brad Molnar: We make the Appropriations Committee look like a bunch of panty-waists. Schweitzer talks (and talks and talks,) about energy but we analyze myriad proposals constantly. We recently implemented an additional 50 MW of QF wind (never mind the jargon just catch the drift.) If history holds that will cost consumers over a billion dollars more than the electricity is worth.
And we have zero capacity for ancillary services to firm it. NWE was against it. Montana Consumer Council was against it. I was the only no vote. The press never reported it (Who would write the story and who would understand it?). Only lobbyists and special interest liked it. By the time it kicks in no one will remember it and those that voted for it will be retiring from their new jobs as lobbyists for the same special interests. (Least ways that's my humble opinion)
On a 3-2 vote we OK'd sending 2,000,000 of NWE ratepayer dollars to Portland and Seattle to help spread the word about energy efficiency in the wood pulp industry. I'm sure that most of that money will find its way back to Montana via liberal PACS. Not one word in the daily press. TRY THAT in the legislature.
A rate increase of $15M got big press but the $60M "tracker" we passed several weeks later never got a mention. I was the only no vote and will soon show the world why. But the "why" is a twenty year deal. Legislative actions are only good for two years. Our mistakes can't be undone, are under analyzed, and in the billions of dollars. That is why we have more impact.
And the obvious. You get an energy bill every month. All business and government entities get a utility bill every month -- so you actually pay all three.
MH: Readers of Montana Headlines know that we find your opponent, Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, to be... well, let's not go there.
From a public-interest perspective, we were definitely rooting for Curry in the Democratic primary, but as we wrote in an earlier post, "From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match."
You don't seem like someone to back down from a fight, and you're certainly in one. We haven't seen a lot of fireworks yet -- when will it start, and what shape will it take?
Brad Molnar: It's definitely started. The state Demo party has filed grievances against me with the Office of Political Practices about the Billings Brownout. They were thrown out because Noonan tried twice to get the form right but couldn't quite grasp the concept. Mary Jo Fox (formerly with Raciciot then Martz -- now Tussing's campaign manager) has filed and amended several, also on the Billings Brownout, and of course the D's on the Commission have asked for a ruling from the AG also stemming from the Billings Brownout.
Plainly they feel the Billings Brownout is a good thing in need of attack to try to drown out Tussing's enormous negatives by creating some for me. Pretty stupid. EVERYbody I have talked to about it sees right through it. Does anybody think Tussing could even win Mayor again? The last three days of his campaign for Mayor were a gathering of some of the slimiest people in Montana politics. How they escaped prosecution I have no idea. I expect I'll get some on me as all the old ones are back plus a few new faces.
Because they are issueless they have really tied me up with all the work I have to do on their inane complaints. It is very consuming of emotional capital, money and time. IS this really the best way to form a new government every two years? The Tussing campaign (Led by Mary Jo Fox and Joe Gunthals) is the spiritless fate we must now suffer for failing to rein in crap-mongers during so many campaign cycles. Especially the last mayoral campaign in Billings and the Fox v Cooney for Senate. I fully expect a repeat of the final days of the mayor’s race with enough crap slung by "independent expenditures" to make me vote for Tussing. Tussing’s name is so negative that they can't raise him up. They need to try to bring me down.
MH: One war that you are definitely winning, from what our eastern Montana readers tell us, is the Burma-Shave sign war. Do you expect to maintain your commanding Burma-Shave lead over Tussing -- and so our readers who don’t make it onto the roads of PSC District 2 can know what on earth we're talking about, could you share a couple of your favorite Burma-Shave campaign sign sequences?
Brad Molnar: Displaying all the creativity and originality that Tussing can muster on energy and telecom issues ("I want to explore options and "look for"...never mind) -- Ron Tussing has copied my signs.
MH: Mayor Tussing really is shameless, isn’t he? But in all fairness, he did manage to compose a puerile ditty about the city administrator he was in a fight with -- readers can look that monumental act of creativity up in the MH archives (search for "The House that Ron Tussing Built") -- or in the court records from when the City of Billings was being taken to the cleaners for millions in no small part because of Tussing.
We digress shamelessly -- go on...
Brad Molnar: Of course I copied them from the Burma Shave idea but let’s admit that I took them to a new level in Montana politics. The people that have mentioned Tussing's signs, regardless of party leanings, all use the word "copy cat".
What else did he think people would feel? That he was clever? The rest of us learned in fourth grade that "copycats" were to be shunned on the playground. He has a right to do it but it's dumb and again raises all of his other myriad ethics issues.
But for the unenlightened they are signs with jingles on them rather like the old Burma Shave signs. Some are silly but all fit my theme.
Those Liberal Fellas / Sound Real Clever / Do their ideas work / Never Ever / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This is the only sign to be stolen so far; last cycle it was the only one to be driven over.)
Mine it now / Drill it now / Don't need Arabs / To show us how / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This one is very popular. Got me labled a racist. Sheesh.)
When near a school / Drive real slow / Let those little / Voters grow / Molnar for Public Service Commission -- ( This is also a carryover from last cycle. Actually from an original.)
Can't make him run / Can't make him cry / Molnar is / A stand up guy / Molnar for PSC Molnar for PSC -- (In case they were wondering.)
MH: These are, of course, 5 separate signs in a row, and you have to wait a bit for the next line -- very effective. As noted before, you are crushing the opposition in the Burma-Shave wars. Turning to more serious topics on the campaign front, where is this election going to be fought and won?
Brad Molnar: I think that I have to play a heads up game but it is already decided. In redistricting my area was designed to be Republican and Jergeson’s was designed to be Dem. The others are plus or minus 6%.
But 140,000 of my 200,000 voters all live in Yellowstone County. Obama people are really registering a lot of people here but we don't know how many of those will actually vote. That and the Baucus money thing are the only two unknowns.
Other than that the Gazette is the paper of record for the district and everywhere I go people are well aware of Ron's reneging on the $160,000 pay to leave, shoving the reporter and claiming self defense, the law suits, the multiple ethics violations, voting money for his wife’s projects, subordination violations, lying under oath, being already bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.
Getting yard or Burma sign locations is easy. I just have to say that Tussing is my opponent. I think that the majority of people have already made up their minds about us. If he is the kind of guy (with the kind of followers he has) they want on the PSC they can have him. But plainly even those that supported him for Mayor have come to see that the City Manager was right and Tussing had to go to protect the people of Billings and now they have buyer’s remorse.
I think the primary numbers show that. Curry's campaign was nonexistent (I saw just two yard signs). The Curry votes were not Pro Curry. They were anti-Tussing. No idea what that means in the general. People should wonder why the Dems and liberals are so willing to debase themselves to get Tussing on the PSC when they already have a majority and the odds of Repubs sweeping all three open seats are long.
MH: You mentioned the Gazette as the paper of record in your PSC district. Do you believe that the Montana press in general and the Billings Gazette in particular has given you fair and balanced coverage during your tenure as commissioner and during this campaign?
Brad Molnar: In general "no." But, in truth, I think it is improving. Dennison and I have a respect for each other and trade barbs without ongoing animosity. Actually a healthy reporter/reportee relationship.
I miss talking with Chuck Johnson. He was very unfair to Judy Martz but always fair with me. I think, and hope, that my chagrin with LEE lies with the editors. I know it is with AP. Gouras is OK. Hergenrider in Billings tries to be fair but Lutey is nothing but a partisan hack. The new Capitol Correspondent for the GF Tribune has definite Democrat leanings. Sometimes he overrides them sometimes not. The jury is still out on him.
What's her name, the old GF Capital correspondent, was great. Very unbiased writing but she went to work for Lee in Missoula. Lucky Missoula. AP should have picked her up for Helena. Assume I will have between 45 days and 4 years to regret these comments.
MH: How about being a little more specific and forthright in answering the rest of these questions!
Anyway, while we're on the press, tell us about your working relationship with the Billings Outpost and its editor, David Crisp. Crisp at Billings Blog and Montana Headlines are the totality of the political blogging scene here in this part of the state, so we take a keen interest in the success of the Outpost.
Brad Molnar: I have total respect for David as a person, for his intellect, his ethics, and his journalistic capacities.
MH: While he often describes himself as a conservative, it would seem that you and he would probably have slightly different conceptions of what that word exactly means.
Brad Molnar: I think that David is more like a European style "liberal/conservative" and I am perhaps "right" of that sniveling, teary eyed, limp wristed, panty-waist that wrote Genghis Khan’s prisoner policy.
Dave's and my differences are probably more specific – for example, where we might both agree that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state, I would argue that it should not because of the 10th Amendment but he would challenge my conservative credentials for making such an interpretative argument after standing on fundamentalist interpretation ideals for so long. Hope that is not too obtuse; and that Dave concurs.
MH: I imagine that we’ll find out, since Billings Blog and MH regularly engage in good-natured, yet substantive disputes.
Anyway, in spite of your differences, your column was a staple at the Outpost for some time.
Brad Molnar: It was very popular. Even in Wyoming. But the #1 comment I got was from Dem's telling me how surprised they were that they actually agreed with me. Dave paid me $30 per column and never tried to censor me. People still tell me they miss it; but alas.
And I miss writing it. Actually the column appeared in several papers off and on.
____________________________
Tommorrow: Molnar on labor unions, energy deregulation, slimy campaigning, interactions with the federal government, the governor, and much more...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Ron Tussing -- the cost to the taxpayer continues to rise (and the Gazette continues to ignore)
Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, tired of only getting paid a few hundred a month as Billings mayor (he apparently didn't read the not-so-fine print on the contract and has been, according to gossip, been discontented with the mayor's pay from day one) is now running for the PSC District 2 spot against incumbent Commissioner Brad Molnar.
As much as so many in our fair city would love to see this guy leave Billings and move to Helena, it needs to be kept in mind that we already tried that tack once, paying him several hundred thousand dollars to leave, only to have him pocket the money and then run for mayor in direct violation of (at least) the spirit of the agreement.
We hope that the residents of PSC district 2 will have the good sense to re-elect Brad Molnar -- and expect that they will. But might we suggest that if Tussing is by some chance elected, that the City of Billings file an injunction to garnish his wages to pay for the damage he has done to our city's finances? He should be able to keep a few hundred a month (maybe the same that he gets paid to be mayor) to live on, but the rest of his salary should go to the City of Billings.
Today's Billings Gazette reports that the bill for the Feuerstein lawsuit is up to $1.6 million, of which insurance will likely only pick up a third. More than $1 million will have to be paid by the taxpayers of Billings.
Par for the Billings Gazette course when it comes to Mayor Tussing, the article amazingly never mentions Tussing's name, even though as then chief of police he was at the center of the lawsuit against the police department, and even though he is now running for higher office and the public has the right to be reminded of his centrality to that lawsuit (jurors interviewed after the case indicated that Tussing's testimony and arrogant attitude was particularly damning.)
To be sure, Tussing was not the only person responsible for that debacle, but he was the guy in charge of the police department, and it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Gazette not to remind readers of Tussing's connection.
Think Burns and Abramoff -- editorial guidelines seem to be that you can't mention one in the Gazette without mentioning the other, correct? By the same token, the Feuerstein case shouldn't be mentioned without including Tussing.
Anyway, the number you read is right. More than $1 million that will be billed to the taxpayers of our fair city. Thanks, Mayor Tussing.
There is plenty in the MH archives about Ron Tussing, such as our 5-part series of posts on the Feuerstein case entitled "The House the Ron Tussing Built," which will have to be reprised as this campaign goes on. But first, interested readers can turn to our initial post about Tussing's PSC bid, and the followup piece that was prompted by how popular the first post was with commenters in a frenzy to defend their honey Ron Tussing and attack Commissioner Molnar.
The PSC 2 race will be quite a doozy -- stay tuned. If our last couple of pieces on Tussing are any indication, there won't be long to wait for further comment.
As much as so many in our fair city would love to see this guy leave Billings and move to Helena, it needs to be kept in mind that we already tried that tack once, paying him several hundred thousand dollars to leave, only to have him pocket the money and then run for mayor in direct violation of (at least) the spirit of the agreement.
We hope that the residents of PSC district 2 will have the good sense to re-elect Brad Molnar -- and expect that they will. But might we suggest that if Tussing is by some chance elected, that the City of Billings file an injunction to garnish his wages to pay for the damage he has done to our city's finances? He should be able to keep a few hundred a month (maybe the same that he gets paid to be mayor) to live on, but the rest of his salary should go to the City of Billings.
Today's Billings Gazette reports that the bill for the Feuerstein lawsuit is up to $1.6 million, of which insurance will likely only pick up a third. More than $1 million will have to be paid by the taxpayers of Billings.
Par for the Billings Gazette course when it comes to Mayor Tussing, the article amazingly never mentions Tussing's name, even though as then chief of police he was at the center of the lawsuit against the police department, and even though he is now running for higher office and the public has the right to be reminded of his centrality to that lawsuit (jurors interviewed after the case indicated that Tussing's testimony and arrogant attitude was particularly damning.)
To be sure, Tussing was not the only person responsible for that debacle, but he was the guy in charge of the police department, and it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Gazette not to remind readers of Tussing's connection.
Think Burns and Abramoff -- editorial guidelines seem to be that you can't mention one in the Gazette without mentioning the other, correct? By the same token, the Feuerstein case shouldn't be mentioned without including Tussing.
Anyway, the number you read is right. More than $1 million that will be billed to the taxpayers of our fair city. Thanks, Mayor Tussing.
There is plenty in the MH archives about Ron Tussing, such as our 5-part series of posts on the Feuerstein case entitled "The House the Ron Tussing Built," which will have to be reprised as this campaign goes on. But first, interested readers can turn to our initial post about Tussing's PSC bid, and the followup piece that was prompted by how popular the first post was with commenters in a frenzy to defend their honey Ron Tussing and attack Commissioner Molnar.
The PSC 2 race will be quite a doozy -- stay tuned. If our last couple of pieces on Tussing are any indication, there won't be long to wait for further comment.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Tussing, Molnar and the PSC race, Part II
When Montana Headlines decided to feature the entry of Billings Mayor Ron Tussing into the PSC District 2 race, it was without any inkling of the vitriol that the post would arouse from passionate haters of PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar. Read the comments for entertainment -- and, taken with a grain of salt, perhaps a little enlightenment.
We had no idea what a fan club Molnar had developed over the years. We're still rooting for the other guy in the Democratic primary -- but we have to admit that the PSC race would hardly be a sleepy one with Molnar and Tussing (and their supporters and detractors) facing off.
David Crisp over at Billings Blog puts it quite nicely:
If Tussing survives the primary, that could set up a highly entertaining race in the general election between Tussing and Brad Molnar: two straight-spoken, smart guys with acid senses of humor and probably plenty to disagree about.
This is the sort of race that makes politics a spectator sport. Bring on the lions.
Montana Headlines is hardly unaware of Molnar's sometimes pugnacious approach to political discourse (although Gazette readers are likely unaware of the life that he brings to PSC meetings, given the generally soporific reportage of the meetings.) Still, unless a more qualified Republican enters the race to challenge Molnar, we suspect we will remain unapologetic in our support for Molnar -- especially if the choice on the other side of the ballot is someone whose temperament is hardly more phlegmatic, and whose knowledge of the issues involved is doubtless inferior.
Agree with Molnar on his policy positions or not, even his detractors have to admit that he has a passion for the details of utilities and how the PSC's work affects the average person. Somehow we have trouble seeing Ron Tussing sharing this particular passion, but we are prepared to be proven wrong in that suspicion.
Does Tussing have a passion for political campaigning and for being in the news? Yes. But it takes more than that to be a good PSC Commissioner.
Tussing should have to convince the voting public that he will be a better commissioner than Molnar. He will have to do better than to drag out the same old canards about deregulation in the 1990's. That dog won't hunt, any more than Republicans can hope to succeed these days in elections just by labeling their opponents as pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-liberals for the 15th consecutive election.
And Molnar-bashers might have some hope in negatively highlighting Molnar's colorful personality if he runs against a conventional politician or against an apparently solid citizen like electrician Tom Curry (Tussings primary opponent.)
But he is running against Mayor Ron Tussing, an amateur musician who penned these delightful and statemanlike lyrics (preserved for posterity in the transcripts of the $1.3 million lawsuit we mentioned in our last post) about the Billings City Manager back when he held the august title of Chief of Police for Billings:
Take this job and shove it, you freaking little creep.
I think you're totally clueless and your bullshit is too deep.
We'll see your "cell-phone-gate" scandal, and raise you every time. Note to Molnar-bashers: start campaigning for Curry, soon, if you want to go down that road.
Some legitimate points were raised in the comments section of our last post: does Molnar miss more PSC meetings than other commissioners? We'd like to know that, and so, we suspect, would voters. Perhaps the Gazette reporting will enlighten us on that.
A commenter claims that Molnar has been convicted of assault and battery (see our response to that in our previous post) -- is this true, and did it happen while he was commissioner, and if it happened before he was commissioner, why wasn't it brought out in the press coverage of the last PSC race if it is relevant to his holding the position? We certainly had no trouble finding press coverage of Tussing shoving someone who annoyed him -- so Molnar detractors should have no problem bringing forth supporting documentation, especially if, as the commenter claims, Molnar was convicted.
Would Brad Molnar's lawsuit against the PSC over deregulation have helped ratepayers had it been successful? (No commenter asked this particular question -- we're asking it because it bears a direct relation to whether that lawsuit was, as claimed by a commenter, frivolous.) This bears exploration in the campaign.
And so forth. A PSC commissioner probably affects the day-to-day life of the average Montanan more than do many state-wide office holders. Who serves on the commission is important, and the issues that PSC commissioners face are ones that we should be at least as conversant with as we are about what the Secretary of State or AG does.
Let's hope that this will be an enlightening PSC campaign. Part of our disappointment at Tussing's entry into the race was that a race between Molnar and Democrat Tom Curry could have centered on policy differences rather than on explosive personalities. But that's a citizen's perspective. From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match.
But who knows, maybe the race will draw the kind of attention that paradoxically gets people to talking about PSC issues? Let's hope so.
We had no idea what a fan club Molnar had developed over the years. We're still rooting for the other guy in the Democratic primary -- but we have to admit that the PSC race would hardly be a sleepy one with Molnar and Tussing (and their supporters and detractors) facing off.
David Crisp over at Billings Blog puts it quite nicely:
If Tussing survives the primary, that could set up a highly entertaining race in the general election between Tussing and Brad Molnar: two straight-spoken, smart guys with acid senses of humor and probably plenty to disagree about.
This is the sort of race that makes politics a spectator sport. Bring on the lions.
Montana Headlines is hardly unaware of Molnar's sometimes pugnacious approach to political discourse (although Gazette readers are likely unaware of the life that he brings to PSC meetings, given the generally soporific reportage of the meetings.) Still, unless a more qualified Republican enters the race to challenge Molnar, we suspect we will remain unapologetic in our support for Molnar -- especially if the choice on the other side of the ballot is someone whose temperament is hardly more phlegmatic, and whose knowledge of the issues involved is doubtless inferior.
Agree with Molnar on his policy positions or not, even his detractors have to admit that he has a passion for the details of utilities and how the PSC's work affects the average person. Somehow we have trouble seeing Ron Tussing sharing this particular passion, but we are prepared to be proven wrong in that suspicion.
Does Tussing have a passion for political campaigning and for being in the news? Yes. But it takes more than that to be a good PSC Commissioner.
Tussing should have to convince the voting public that he will be a better commissioner than Molnar. He will have to do better than to drag out the same old canards about deregulation in the 1990's. That dog won't hunt, any more than Republicans can hope to succeed these days in elections just by labeling their opponents as pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-liberals for the 15th consecutive election.
And Molnar-bashers might have some hope in negatively highlighting Molnar's colorful personality if he runs against a conventional politician or against an apparently solid citizen like electrician Tom Curry (Tussings primary opponent.)
But he is running against Mayor Ron Tussing, an amateur musician who penned these delightful and statemanlike lyrics (preserved for posterity in the transcripts of the $1.3 million lawsuit we mentioned in our last post) about the Billings City Manager back when he held the august title of Chief of Police for Billings:
Take this job and shove it, you freaking little creep.
I think you're totally clueless and your bullshit is too deep.
We'll see your "cell-phone-gate" scandal, and raise you every time. Note to Molnar-bashers: start campaigning for Curry, soon, if you want to go down that road.
Some legitimate points were raised in the comments section of our last post: does Molnar miss more PSC meetings than other commissioners? We'd like to know that, and so, we suspect, would voters. Perhaps the Gazette reporting will enlighten us on that.
A commenter claims that Molnar has been convicted of assault and battery (see our response to that in our previous post) -- is this true, and did it happen while he was commissioner, and if it happened before he was commissioner, why wasn't it brought out in the press coverage of the last PSC race if it is relevant to his holding the position? We certainly had no trouble finding press coverage of Tussing shoving someone who annoyed him -- so Molnar detractors should have no problem bringing forth supporting documentation, especially if, as the commenter claims, Molnar was convicted.
Would Brad Molnar's lawsuit against the PSC over deregulation have helped ratepayers had it been successful? (No commenter asked this particular question -- we're asking it because it bears a direct relation to whether that lawsuit was, as claimed by a commenter, frivolous.) This bears exploration in the campaign.
And so forth. A PSC commissioner probably affects the day-to-day life of the average Montanan more than do many state-wide office holders. Who serves on the commission is important, and the issues that PSC commissioners face are ones that we should be at least as conversant with as we are about what the Secretary of State or AG does.
Let's hope that this will be an enlightening PSC campaign. Part of our disappointment at Tussing's entry into the race was that a race between Molnar and Democrat Tom Curry could have centered on policy differences rather than on explosive personalities. But that's a citizen's perspective. From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match.
But who knows, maybe the race will draw the kind of attention that paradoxically gets people to talking about PSC issues? Let's hope so.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tussing to run for PSC 2
We always knew that Billings Mayor Ron Tussing's healthy sense of self-esteem was going to take him further into the political arena. The question was where, and now we know that his target -- for now, anyway -- is PSC District 2, which covers Billings and most of southeastern Montana.
Not that there isn't a bit of ego involved in all political activity -- including blogging (after all, isn't it a bit presumptuous to think that others might actually be interested in one's opinions?) -- but some exhibit a talent for being at the head of that particular class.
When the City of Billings came in on the losing end of a $1.3 million dollar lawsuit brought by a police officer, jurors interviewed by the Billings Gazette confirmed that the "smug and arrogant" attitude of Mayor Tussing and some other police department supervisors was a big reason that the City of Billings lost that case. Our own discreet inquiries confirmed that Ron Tussing was indeed the city's own worst enemy at that trial.
During the course of this PSC race, Montana Headlines will of course be reprising segments of "The House that Ron Tussing Built" -- our series of posts that dissected the Feuerstein lawsuit, one of the biggest financial disasters ever to befall the City of Billings. All courtesy of Ron Tussing's leadership, or rather lack thereof.
It is really amusing that when Tussing announced today that he is running as a Democrat for the District 2 PSC seat, he talked about the money that current Republican PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar had supposedly cost the consumer.
Never mind the fact that Molnar has consistently been someone who has fought for things to keep utility rates affordable. Never mind the fact that the only thing that Tussing could point to was Molnar's involvement in deregulation way back when he was a legislator. Never mind the fact that deregulation was a bipartisan project at the time.
But what exactly does Tussing have to lay at Molnar's feet in his performance as Commissioner? (Insert sound of e-crickets.) Certainly nothing on a par with the damage that Tussing has single-handedly done to the City of Billings, or the money he has cost the taxpayers of this city: the fat six-figure payoff that it took the city to get him to step down from his tumultuous tenure as police chief, and the $1.3 million dollar lawsuit (plus hefty legal costs.)
Deregulation of utilities may have been a mistake on the part of Republican and Democratic legislators alike. But if so, it was an honest mistake born of good intentions. By contrast, Tussing showed what can reasonably seen as personal dishonesty by taking a pay-off from the City of Billings and signing an agreement not to seek employment with the City (i.e. it was "get out of our hair" money that he voluntarily took) -- only to turn around and run for mayor.
We will ask the question we have asked repeatedly. If, while negotiating his buyout, Tussing had announced that he was planning to run for mayor, would the city have offered him such a sweet severance package? It is ridiculous even to ask the question -- but it needs to be answered: of course not.
We hope that Tussing loses the Democratic primary, but we are concerned about how fairly the race will be covered if he wins. Will the press has go easy on Tussing? Will reporters who cover the PSC treat Molnar fairly? We'll see.
This race may get ugly, but Montana Headlines can be counted on to have Molnar's back, now more than ever.
Not that there isn't a bit of ego involved in all political activity -- including blogging (after all, isn't it a bit presumptuous to think that others might actually be interested in one's opinions?) -- but some exhibit a talent for being at the head of that particular class.
When the City of Billings came in on the losing end of a $1.3 million dollar lawsuit brought by a police officer, jurors interviewed by the Billings Gazette confirmed that the "smug and arrogant" attitude of Mayor Tussing and some other police department supervisors was a big reason that the City of Billings lost that case. Our own discreet inquiries confirmed that Ron Tussing was indeed the city's own worst enemy at that trial.
During the course of this PSC race, Montana Headlines will of course be reprising segments of "The House that Ron Tussing Built" -- our series of posts that dissected the Feuerstein lawsuit, one of the biggest financial disasters ever to befall the City of Billings. All courtesy of Ron Tussing's leadership, or rather lack thereof.
It is really amusing that when Tussing announced today that he is running as a Democrat for the District 2 PSC seat, he talked about the money that current Republican PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar had supposedly cost the consumer.
Never mind the fact that Molnar has consistently been someone who has fought for things to keep utility rates affordable. Never mind the fact that the only thing that Tussing could point to was Molnar's involvement in deregulation way back when he was a legislator. Never mind the fact that deregulation was a bipartisan project at the time.
But what exactly does Tussing have to lay at Molnar's feet in his performance as Commissioner? (Insert sound of e-crickets.) Certainly nothing on a par with the damage that Tussing has single-handedly done to the City of Billings, or the money he has cost the taxpayers of this city: the fat six-figure payoff that it took the city to get him to step down from his tumultuous tenure as police chief, and the $1.3 million dollar lawsuit (plus hefty legal costs.)
Deregulation of utilities may have been a mistake on the part of Republican and Democratic legislators alike. But if so, it was an honest mistake born of good intentions. By contrast, Tussing showed what can reasonably seen as personal dishonesty by taking a pay-off from the City of Billings and signing an agreement not to seek employment with the City (i.e. it was "get out of our hair" money that he voluntarily took) -- only to turn around and run for mayor.
We will ask the question we have asked repeatedly. If, while negotiating his buyout, Tussing had announced that he was planning to run for mayor, would the city have offered him such a sweet severance package? It is ridiculous even to ask the question -- but it needs to be answered: of course not.
We hope that Tussing loses the Democratic primary, but we are concerned about how fairly the race will be covered if he wins. Will the press has go easy on Tussing? Will reporters who cover the PSC treat Molnar fairly? We'll see.
This race may get ugly, but Montana Headlines can be counted on to have Molnar's back, now more than ever.
Monday, July 30, 2007
What to investigate -- shooting cats, or false testimony?
It was fascinating that in the Gazette piece about Police Chief St. John and his news conference, there was more discussion about Sgt. Mark Kirkpatrick's habit of shooting cats while driving to and from work than there was about perjury.
Shooting cats may be a sort of a sociopathic thing to do, but since when have police departments been completely free of officers with sociopathy?
The most important item was addressed with the utmost brevity:
It also was alleged at trial that two officers gave false testimony. Officer Terry Bechtold told jurors at Feuerstein's trial that the false testimony was made by Kirkpatrick, a command officer in the agency's detective division, and Detective Blake Richardson.
Given that the jurors' decision rested in no small part on the fact that they didn't find the witnesses for the defense to be credible (if they had believed them to be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then the decision would have gone very differently) -- well, given that, then step one needs to be to investigate the lies and half-truths told at the trial.
That needs to start from the top and work its way down.
There was no bombshell at the news conference, such as any high-profile resignations.
Maybe there will be one at the next City Council meeting. Hope springs eternal.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Comments from the jurors (or, the house that Ron Tussing built, Part V)
Tucked into today's Gazette is a nice piece of journalism that involved reporters successfully being able to talk to two of the jurors in the Feuerstein suit against the Billings Police Department. You know, the one that cost the city $1.3 million. To regular readers who wonder why we're spending so much time talking about this case, well, just chalk it up to Billings being a town where there isn't a lot of excitement going on -- forgive us.
Seriously, though, it is a very big deal in Billings, primarily because it isn't over with (that class-action lawsuit that is almost certainly coming,) and because a whole lot of Billings residents aren't going to trust the people charged with cleaning things up, starting with our mayor.
Current police chief St. John sounds like a reasonable guy, and his responses in the press have been appropriate. While we are inclined to think it reasonable to give him a chance to enact reforms, all one has to do is read the comments sections in the Gazette to see that there are a lot of people who think that St. John is tainted -- or at least sure to be mistrusted -- since he was in the department at the time that all of this happened.
There would certainly be nothing wrong with St. John stepping down and asking the city to appoint a new, outside, chief of police, but it doesn't yet seem like time to be talking about demanding that, as some are.
Anyway, back to the jurors. The two who spoke (one on condition of anonymity) to the Gazette pretty much confirmed much of what Montana Headlines has been surmising based on what is publicly known of the case, and also some new and interesting things.
1. The decisions were "Almost 100 percent on all counts." So these were not close votes (it takes 8 of 12 to make an award. Some of the votes were unanimous.
2. Most jurors wouldn't talk about the case. One of the jurors who did speak "feared possible repercussions in the sensitive case," which reinforces what we have said about the lack of common sense that Mayor Tussing has shown by suggesting that he wants to hear from the jurors about why they did what they did.
Is he clueless? Doesn't he realize how this could be perceived as intimidation or retaliation -- especially when the verdict against the city specifically dealt with issues of intimidation, coverups, and retaliation?
The city certainly needs to look carefully into what happened, but the immediate defendants, such as Tussing, should stay a mile away from that process.
3. It was a careful jury -- deliberating more than 11 hours. "There were no hasty decisions," (one juror) said. "There were no agendas. I never saw a group of people come together who respected each other's opinions and respected each other as a person more than I saw in that (jury) room."
4. The department was sloppy, to say the least, in keeping records of its internal affairs:
Other evidence that tipped the scale in Feuerstein's favor included what the juror described as "embarrassing" record-keeping practices within the department. During the trial, a police sergeant acknowledged that records were kept only sporadically when training drugs in the K-9 unit were checked in and out. The male juror described the practice as "sloppy" and "embarrassing.""Frankly, we have a better paper trail of keeping track of paper towels..."
5. And as Montana Headlines suspected after reviewing transcripts and news reports, it was the testimony of the defense witnesses themselves -- particularly Mayor Tussing -- that sunk the ship. Here's the excerpt from the Gazette piece by Greg Tuttle and Lance Benzel that says it all (our emphases):
Both jurors who spoke to The Gazette said defense witnesses for the city lacked credibility."
I made the comment that I thought the defense attorney had the most difficult job in the world," the male juror said. "He could only work with what he had, and what he had was a continuous group of smug and arrogant people who, not in their entirety, but for the most part, came off as if they're untouchable."
St. John, Capt. Dave Hinkel and Tussing failed to explain deficiencies in leadership that emerged during the trial, Bauck said. Listening to their testimony, she said, it was as though the three could admit "no room for error."
Testimony by Police Department supervisors "really swung us in the direction we went," she said.
The male juror also remarked that Tussing's testimony "helped Feuerstein's case. It did not help the defense."
Not surprisingly, the Gazette editorial today gives nice platitudes about the need for St. John to turn the department around -- but it fails to talk about the elephant in the room: how can the city of Billings work quickly to restore faith in our police department when we have Ron Tussing as our mayor?
It was his mismanagement that led to this huge verdict against the city. To a large degree, what sunk the city's case was the lack of credibility of his testimony, and the picture he himself painted (can anyone doubt that Tussing was "Exhibit A" of whom the juror was speaking when he talked of "smug and arrogant" witnesses?)
And yet, Tussing sounds like he plans to be right in the middle of the process of working on the city's image. There is something very wrong with this picture, and it is disappointing that on this subject we are getting silence from the Gazette -- so far.
Seriously, though, it is a very big deal in Billings, primarily because it isn't over with (that class-action lawsuit that is almost certainly coming,) and because a whole lot of Billings residents aren't going to trust the people charged with cleaning things up, starting with our mayor.
Current police chief St. John sounds like a reasonable guy, and his responses in the press have been appropriate. While we are inclined to think it reasonable to give him a chance to enact reforms, all one has to do is read the comments sections in the Gazette to see that there are a lot of people who think that St. John is tainted -- or at least sure to be mistrusted -- since he was in the department at the time that all of this happened.
There would certainly be nothing wrong with St. John stepping down and asking the city to appoint a new, outside, chief of police, but it doesn't yet seem like time to be talking about demanding that, as some are.
Anyway, back to the jurors. The two who spoke (one on condition of anonymity) to the Gazette pretty much confirmed much of what Montana Headlines has been surmising based on what is publicly known of the case, and also some new and interesting things.
1. The decisions were "Almost 100 percent on all counts." So these were not close votes (it takes 8 of 12 to make an award. Some of the votes were unanimous.
2. Most jurors wouldn't talk about the case. One of the jurors who did speak "feared possible repercussions in the sensitive case," which reinforces what we have said about the lack of common sense that Mayor Tussing has shown by suggesting that he wants to hear from the jurors about why they did what they did.
Is he clueless? Doesn't he realize how this could be perceived as intimidation or retaliation -- especially when the verdict against the city specifically dealt with issues of intimidation, coverups, and retaliation?
The city certainly needs to look carefully into what happened, but the immediate defendants, such as Tussing, should stay a mile away from that process.
3. It was a careful jury -- deliberating more than 11 hours. "There were no hasty decisions," (one juror) said. "There were no agendas. I never saw a group of people come together who respected each other's opinions and respected each other as a person more than I saw in that (jury) room."
4. The department was sloppy, to say the least, in keeping records of its internal affairs:
Other evidence that tipped the scale in Feuerstein's favor included what the juror described as "embarrassing" record-keeping practices within the department. During the trial, a police sergeant acknowledged that records were kept only sporadically when training drugs in the K-9 unit were checked in and out. The male juror described the practice as "sloppy" and "embarrassing.""Frankly, we have a better paper trail of keeping track of paper towels..."
5. And as Montana Headlines suspected after reviewing transcripts and news reports, it was the testimony of the defense witnesses themselves -- particularly Mayor Tussing -- that sunk the ship. Here's the excerpt from the Gazette piece by Greg Tuttle and Lance Benzel that says it all (our emphases):
Both jurors who spoke to The Gazette said defense witnesses for the city lacked credibility."
I made the comment that I thought the defense attorney had the most difficult job in the world," the male juror said. "He could only work with what he had, and what he had was a continuous group of smug and arrogant people who, not in their entirety, but for the most part, came off as if they're untouchable."
St. John, Capt. Dave Hinkel and Tussing failed to explain deficiencies in leadership that emerged during the trial, Bauck said. Listening to their testimony, she said, it was as though the three could admit "no room for error."
Testimony by Police Department supervisors "really swung us in the direction we went," she said.
The male juror also remarked that Tussing's testimony "helped Feuerstein's case. It did not help the defense."
Not surprisingly, the Gazette editorial today gives nice platitudes about the need for St. John to turn the department around -- but it fails to talk about the elephant in the room: how can the city of Billings work quickly to restore faith in our police department when we have Ron Tussing as our mayor?
It was his mismanagement that led to this huge verdict against the city. To a large degree, what sunk the city's case was the lack of credibility of his testimony, and the picture he himself painted (can anyone doubt that Tussing was "Exhibit A" of whom the juror was speaking when he talked of "smug and arrogant" witnesses?)
And yet, Tussing sounds like he plans to be right in the middle of the process of working on the city's image. There is something very wrong with this picture, and it is disappointing that on this subject we are getting silence from the Gazette -- so far.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The house that Ron Tussing built -- Part IV
It's fascinating what little gems one can pick up from reading the transcripts of depositions -- the raw material that jurors get to digest in making a decision.
This particular exchange (page 62 starting at line 9) between plaintiff's attorney Elizabeth Best and Mayor Ron Tussing couldn't have helped the City of Billings:
Best: "Isn't it true that you prepared a song with lyrics that stated,
Take this job and shove it, you freaking little creep. I think you're totally clueless and your bullshit is too deep.
(flurry of objections)
Best: You created lyrics which said that?
Tussing: Yes
Best: And you were referring to the city administrator?
Tussing: I don't remember what that was about.
Wow. Brilliant, witty, and penetrating lyrics like that, and Tussing doesn't have any idea who he was talking about when he wrote them?
And he wrote them when in the middle of an extremely public, nasty, and escalating cat-fight with the city administrator -- yet doesn't "remember what that was about."
That really had to have helped him and the city with the jury on the credibility front.
Reading the transcript, keeping in mind that Tussing is putting the best face possible on how he and his department handled Feuerstein's complaints (as he should,) one gets a disturbing picture of a police department without an adult at the helm.
Consider this exchange (starting on p. 19): Best is asking Tussing about what kind of records he had kept regarding any investigation into Feuerstein's initial claim that officers had improperly given drugs (used in training dogs in the K-9 unit) to a civilian (for her independent use in training dogs):
Best: Are records important for investigations of allegations that one of the officers you supervise has committed a felony?
Tussing: Well, under most circumstances I would say yes. I mean, we had nuts come in all the time and say -- you know, I can think of two people right off the top of my head that had constant complaints.
Best: Well, and you know we're not talking about nuts in this case, right?
Tussing: Well...
Best: Is Steve Feuerstein --
Best: Is Steve Feuerstein a nut?
Tussing: I think he's got some psychological problems.
Best and Tussing then go on to discuss the changes in Feuerstein's demeanor that Tussing said he observed, before returning to the issue:
Best: And you did nothing to notify other people that he was mentally imbalanced at that point, right? Right?
Tussing: Right
Best: You did nothing to determine whether or not he was a safety hazard to himself or others because of what you described as his mental problems, right?
Tussing: I subsequently spoke to the city administrator (MH: this was not Bauer, but the administrator who preceded him) about the issue later as -- as his behavior became more and more bizarre.
Best: I asked you a direct question, sir. Did you do anything to determine whether or not he was fit for duty as a result of your claim that he had -- his psychology had changed?
Tussing: I -- I tried to.
Best: And what way did you do that?
Tussing: I wanted to have him -- have a psychological evaluation.
Best: And so the way you did that was to go to the city administrator and tell him that you wanted one?
Tussing: Yes.
After an exchange regarding Tussing's qualifications as a mental health expert, or rather lack thereof (Tussing notes that he was working on a PhD in psychology,)and regarding whether Tussing had consulted with any mental health professionals about how to proceed (he hadn't,) Tussing offers this up:
Tussing: I thought it was appropriate that we should evaluate him to see, because other officers had expressed concerns to me that he might go postal, to use a euphemism.
Now all of this was some years ago -- and the deposition subsequently determines that after Tussing was wondering if Feuerstein would "go postal," the latter was out doing PR work for the department regarding K-9 unit work.
We never do learn in the deposition whether that mental evaluation was ever done, or if so, what the results were.
Now, for all we know, Feuerstein could easily have been a mental case and a danger to self and others -- in fact Tussing stated in his deposition, in the present tense, that he thinks Feuerstein has psychological problems.
Yet what is glaringly missing in this deposition is a record of a dispassionate, careful, investigation into the alleged mishandling of drugs and a careful and dispassionate evaluation to determine one way or another whether Feuerstein was stable enough to be a police officer.
And amazingly, Tussing gives us as a reason for not keeping records of all of this was (drum roll, please...) the fact that he thought Feuerstein was mentally imbalanced and that some fellow officers were allegedly worried that Feuerstein would "go postal."
My, my. All of this really had to go over well with the jury: after all, if Feuerstein was a "postal" kind of guy, why wasn't it dealt with quickly and professionally? On the other hand, who isn't familiar with the tactic of threatening, or giving, a psychological evaluation to a "problem employee?" Scary stuff.
The more thought that is given to this, the more MH feels a little guilty about wondering aloud whether Feuerstein was a "worthy plaintiff" or not. This had to have taken a tremendous amount of courage, especially knowing that he had to have been offered a tidy settlement to keep the case out of court.
And you have to think about the jurors and their courage, too. Billings is a small town, and if the jurors believed that there was over $1 million worth of stink in the police department (at least back then,) it had to have at least crossed their minds that there might be some remaining stink there that could lead to retaliation.
And now we have this from Mayor Tussing:
Tussing said he is curious to hear from members of the jury about how they weighed the evidence and came to the verdict.
More than likely, it was Tussing's testimony that hurt the city the most with the jury. How are they going to respond to Tussing's suggestion that they tell him why they decided what they did?
We also learn that "the City Council has an executive session scheduled for Monday night 'to talk about legal issues.'"
Really?
The city's insurance rates could be affected as a result of the damages awarded to Feuerstein, Tussing said.
No kidding?
And to think, the class-action lawsuit hasn't even been filed yet. And oh, yes, there will be one, to be sure. The lid is off, and this isn't over by a long shot for our fair city.
But this should be left on a positive note, since what is important for Billings is that we as citizens give the department the chance to demonstrate that things are already different now than they were then, and that even more lessons learned in this trial will be put to good use. It sounds like this will be the case:
Police Chief Rich St. John said he was "very disappointed in the verdict."
"I certainly respect the jury and the deliberation they did, but I'm disappointed. I thought we defended our case," St. John said shortly after leaving the courthouse.
"I feel terrible for the police department and the city."
[]
"The work to repair the damage in the Police Department begins right now and the work to re-establish the public trust.
[]"
"I reassure the public that the department is committed to providing the very best law enforcement and public safety service that we can. This department is filled with highly skilled professional people."
The trial was a "look at a snapshot in time several years ago," St. John said.
"That was the past," St. John said. "But it's my shop now, and I feel responsible. We'll right the ship. We'll get moving the right direction."
And to that, one can only say a heart-felt "make it so."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)