etc
by Independent StaffArticle Tools
The state’s fire committee, solemnly charged by the legislature to “study various aspects of wildland fire, including suppression costs and resources and state and federal management policies,” met in Hamilton as part of a cross-state tour. To educate this committee, Laible scheduled an agenda composed primarily of fire professionals and timber agency men. But he also brought in some speakers whose interests had less to do with the committee than with the Big Sky Coalition (BSC).
So then, who is the BSC? While it claims to be a “common sense environmental group,” its goals include promoting “large, landscape-scale” logging projects, “getting the cut out” on public lands and using an unprecedented suspension of NEPA—the legally mandated environmental review process—to avoid having to hear from that pesky public.
One of the scheduled speakers at the meeting was Veto “Sonny” LaSalle, Big Sky’s executive director, who is charged with implementing the vision of the board of directors. Sitting on that board is none other than committee chairman Laible. In other words, LaSalle was presenting his ideas not just to fire committee chairman Sen. Laible, but also to his boss, Laible.
This affiliation didn’t get mentioned until 5:20 p.m., during the day’s last public comment period, when Matthew Koehler, executive director for the WildWest Institute, stepped forward and scolded Laible for being disingenuous in failing to disclose his connection with the hand-picked speaker.
Previously well-composed, Laible went pale, mustering only a half-assed, “I, uh, was gonna do that today, as well.”
Today, Mr. Laible? As in: During the committee’s last ten minutes? As in: Not once during the first seven hours of the hearing? As we see it, this kind of behavior shows a total disregard for the people of Montana and the issue at hand. It reduces the fire committee to a cronyistic dog and pony show.
Montana’s biennial session requires that our legislators have lives outside of politics—that’s appropriate, even expected. But full disclosure is necessary when there’s even an appearance of a conflict or impropriety. By presenting himself as if he had no affiliation with the man he’d actually hired, Laible significantly diminished the decorum of his body and the important work we ask it to perform.
Is there anything else you’d like to tell us, Senator?
Showing 1-5 of 21
Add a comment | All comments »
This is attack-dog journalism fed to you by a "watchdog"? Senator Laible's declared relationship with BSC as a member of its board of directors is hardly a secret to anyone paying attention to the issues. And unlike some people in western Montana who wrap themselves in environmental causes for a paycheck, he's focused on solutions. Did the writer of this hit piece even attend this meeting? "Cronyistic", "pimp" and "half-assed" are colorful adjectives most often wielded by third-rate minds barking from the sidelines. "Decorum" obviously doesn't apply to your editorial standards.
What exactly is Laible's personal agenda, to which you refer in the opening volley but never get around to defining? And how did Laible use his position to further it? That's some pretty angry barking you've got going there without anything apparent to back it up .....
I'm personally glad that the guy at the meeting brought up the fact that Laible is on the board of the Big Sky Coalition. That seems like a pretty big conflict of interest. The agenda that Laible put together was terribly slanted and one-sided and included not only the Big Sky Coalition's executive director, but also included other speakers tied closely with the BSC. At one point, Laible even allowed the BSC's founder (who wasn't even on the printed agenda) to come to the podium to talk more about the opportunity to make millions on biomass energy production from public lands, if it wasn't for lawsuits. During this whole hearing, Laible played coy and basically acted as if he didn't know much about the BSC. Until he was pressed near the very end of the meeting to acknowledge to everyone his position on the BSC's board of directors. The message I took away from the meeting from all these BSC folks is that we have fires and smoke because of lawsuits and the Big Sky Coalition is telling us we need to suspend our environmental laws and public process to get the cut out and then we'll have no smoke and fires.
In talking about the "biomass opportunity" I thought Tom Robak pointed out the obvious: we will never adequately address the many known problems of fuel reduction, at any scale, without a way to pay for thinning projects that are clearly in the best interest of all Montanans, not just some. Should we spend tax dollars to pay for thinning projects or should the private sector play a part in solving the problem by bringing a fresh approach to this very old problem? Do you think it's a sin if someone in this valley makes money from harvested biomass? We have fire and smoke because forests burn, period. Not because of litigation. But we have smoke and fire in spades because we have yet to agree on the best, most cost-effective and scientifically sound way to address a primary source of catastrophic wildfire: overgrown forests and overgrown buffer areas. As usual we're too busy pointing the finger at the other guy while the problem festers. And throwing up roadblocks as if life itself depended on it. Some people in Montana are focused on common-sense environmental solutions. The rest of you are chihauhas.
"Some people in Montana are focused on common-sense environmental solutions." Yes, I agree with this statement and from my perspective the environmental organizations around here are focused on common-sense solutions. Like focusing limited fuel reduction resources around homes and communities, working to get good restoration work happening and ensuring that the government agencies follow the law. The Big Sky Coalition, when recently testifying before Congress, called for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the public appeals process to be suspended. Perhaps the BSC Webmaster could explain how in the world suspending our nation's bedrock environmental law is a "common-sense environmental solution?" And furthermore, I don't see the BSC Webmaster denying anything in the column above, only throwing verbal rocks at the person who pointed out Senator Laible's conflict of interest and at the Independent for reporting on it.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (21) RSS