Open Mic Night
Missoula City Council opens its meetings to public comment every week, allowing anyone to sound off on whatever they want. Meet the regulars with the most to say.
by Jessica MayrerArticle Tools
"Your system has failed and is corrupt."
That's how Will Snodgrass essentially greets Missoula City Council during a recent debate over maintenance districts. The regular attendee of the council's weekly public comment period takes the opportunity to indict the council members with a barrage of pointed words. Ignorance, Snodgrass says, runs rampant through the governing body. He says it's a criminal syndicate engaged in public works fraud. The rant, more or less, updates a version of the same speech he's been delivering for decades.
As Snodgrass' allotted three minutes of comment ticks away, Councilman Bob Jaffe sinks slowly into his seat. Councilwoman Stacy Rye's mouth hangs open, her head cocked at an angle. About 15 citizens look around the room, flipping through their agendas, whispering to each other periodically, hardly paying Snodgrass much attention. Councilman Ed Childers assumes a curious, strangely gleeful smile. And Councilman Jon Wilkins' eyes begin to close.
"When they come up your eyes do glaze over," Wilkins admits.
"They" refers to a core group of vocal citizen watchdogs, or gadflies, who show up Monday nights to Council Chambers like ants to a picnic. Before Missoula's 12 council members, mayor and city attorney attend to a weekly agenda, residents are allowed three minutes per person to sound off on whatever they want. It's a vital forum to interact with local officials, or, more often, rattle institutional cages.
"You can't call up Max Baucus and get him on the phone. You can't call up Tester," Rye says. "You can come down to us every single Monday night, 52 weeks a year. That's like 300 minutes a year."
Missoula's regular cast of gadflies are cut from a similar cloth, woven from a nagging consciousness that drives them to relentlessly engage with the democratic process. Pushing against the status quo, they aim to forge a new and, they say, smarter direction for everyone. It's an understandable, even admirable, urge. After all, vigilance and a strong voice are necessary tools of a healthy democracy. Yet the repetition brought forward by these frequent attendees, month after month, year after year, and, in Snodgrass' case, decade after decade, visibly anesthetizes some council members.
"I have been told that I have the worst poker face in the world," admits Rye after Snodgrass' recent testimony.
Yet gadflies like Snodgrass still speak up. They are, by definition, persistent and unapologetically aggressive. They are political outsiders, buzzing around the periphery, biting every so often to make sure we're awake. Such actions have branded the watchdogs profiled here as irrelevant, unreasonable and overzealous at one time or another. Their repetition and, at times, lack of decorum also make them unpopular. But they insist they have answers. People just need to listen.
- Photo by Cahrine L. Walters
- Mayor John Engen, right, offers gadflies considerable leeway during City Council’s weekly public comment period. “I think in my role as mayor I just have to be the mature person sitting at the head of the table conducting the meeting,” he says. “And that means I respectfully acknowledge the folks who come to speak to us, even if in some cases they aren’t necessarily respectful of me, or the council, or the other public in the room.”
Honey v. vinegar
Kandi Matthew-Jenkins likes a light City Council agenda. That means she might be able to sneak in a few extra minutes of testimony at the beginning of the meeting.
"That's when I can edge the three-minute rule," she says.
What Matthew-Jenkins discusses during her usual appearance in front of council remains a mystery to some. During a recent meeting, she took to the podium wearing gold-rimmed eyeglasses and read from a stack of typewritten notes. She picked up basically where she'd left off the week before, discussing the details of a drawn-out struggle with Child Protective Service (CPS), a state agency with little relevance to council business.
"(The caseworker) told me that I needed anger management, that I needed all these services," Matthew-Jenkins told the council.
As Matthew-Jenkins spoke, Councilwoman Pam Walzer fiddled with her computer, only periodically looking up. Mayor John Engen stared straight ahead. Childers, as he did with Snodgrass, smiled serenely.
"I probably am trying to figure out how the pieces work together," Childers says of Matthew-Jenkins' testimony. "And it may or may not be the pieces that she's talking about."
Childers acknowledges he sometimes has a hard time tracking Matthew-Jenkins, but he tries.
"The story really has no relevance to what we do, but it's certainly an interesting story," he says. "You know, I couldn't tell you the details. There's some woman in some other state who was a member of the Legislature that had a problem. And Kandi's apparently had a problem. A lot of what I'm wondering is why she chooses this venue."
Matthew-Jenkins says she speaks before the council because it's the only way she can be sure someone hears her. The 60-year-old mother of six claims CPS, which is directed to protect children who have been or are at substantial risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment, steps way out of bounds. Specifically, she says the agency preyed on her family for profit.
"I know after being within the court system, if I were to sit down to write my personal affidavit and file it, it would go nowhere," she says. "No one would hear it. No one would know about any of this."
When not testifying in front of council, Matthews-Jenkins runs a furniture business with her husband, John Jenkins. The couple sells homemade wares at the Saturday morning People's Market. Jenkins, a soft-spoken man, says his wife advocates for the disenfranchised. She looks out for the underdog and doesn't like "sideways talk," he says.
Matthew-Jenkins' passion for local issues has led to political aspirations. The pro-life, self-proclaimed "Christian Constitutionalist" ran unsuccessfully for the Montana Legislature in 2000, for Missoula mayor in 2001 and again campaigned in 2008 for state Senate. Most recently, she's thrown her hat into the ring for the upcoming general election as a candidate for House District 99.
Showing 1-5 of 5
I am concerned that the Independent lumped 3 people together in this article under the label of "gadflies". The first two appear to be constant speakers at City Council with no specific relevant agenda.
The third profile of Jane Rectenwald reflected someone who seemed to be speaking about concrete problems that she perceived in Missoula and the manner in which citizen input was received. The lack of respect and attention by the city council is certainly short-sighted. It would appear that she is a conscientious citizen with serious concerns.
As I recall her testimonies before Council, her ideas, opinions and concerns were well researched and documented with data from city records. I don't understand why Council would dismiss such efforts without giving the information honest consideration. After all, it was free research on behalf of the city. It is as if the Council had already made up its mind about an issue and didn't want well researched data about the city to get in the way of their decisions. This attitude is not a way to encourage meaningful citizen participation in local government.
It was unfortunate that the article profiled her last and considered her with the others as a gadfly, which is certainly a perjorative label. It is unfitting to use such a label for someone who has developed cogent arguments, backed up with factual information to substantiate her opinions.
This article missed Ross Best who was a frequent companion with Will and no article like this is complete without him. You can thank Ross for most of the money problems the Ball Park had because he file frivelous suit after friviouls suit and delayep a voter approved project while cost were rising. Jerry Ballas
Thanks for your comment, Jerry. Ross Best was one of a few City Council regulars I had hoped to include but, for various reasons, could not be incorporated into the story.
The absolute bastards that can't seem to track Matthew-Jenkins should be horse whipped!!! I had the unfortunate privilege of having my civil rights totally circumvented by Yellowstone Family Court Services years ago...!!! Maybe these elected officials need to vist the ear doctor to have wax removed. Eventually I will get justice. I ended up in a battered woman's shelter,in Billings, bleeding holding my one month old baby, and my ex who attacked me got custody of my infant. Go Montana the WIFE BEATING STATE!!! When I discovered the three mental health professionals who lost their liscenses with the State, sent me to a facility that was not liscensed, for treatment of co-dependancy, I could never find a Montana attorney to sue for my civil rights. Yellowstone County Court Services played a major role in the loss of custody of my infant to an abuser. My husband had also battered his first wife, but I only learned of it when I was pregnant. Those records of wife battering with his former marriage in Utah were handed over to the wonderful Montana Judge. HEY ELECTED OFFICIALS, CAN YOU WRAP YOUR HEADS AROUND THOSE PIECES?!!! Call me if you dare I have complete records. I will expose Montana elected officials, who do nothing, and the people they hire to work for C.P.S. and the family courts to disinfranchise good innocent Americans from their children. I am a Christan, but, "F you" that do not help us.
Deborah Lynne Connor 801-759-2898
"You can't call up Max Baucus and get him on the phone. You can't call up Tester," Rye says. "You can come down to us every single Monday night, 52 weeks a year. That's like 300 minutes a year."
Disrespect for citizen input is evident in council's body language and word choice, Rectenwald says
A few things:
1/. Rye's comments show her higher-than-thou pedestalian arrogance in comparing herself to two senators. Two senators who are certainly more professional and can probably count a whole lot better than she can. (btw - I personally did get a long helpful phone call from Max Baucus' office, so her statement is, again, also pitifully incorrect.)
2/. The fact that she cannot count is probably one reason why the city needs more of 'our' money to 'balance' 'their' budget.
3/. Instead of constantly complaining, belittling, and generally deriding a member of the public, Ms. Matthew-Jenkins, why doesn't the city council actually try to help; explain that this is not the correct forum, and put her in touch with someone who can help her? Have they tried? Or are they just happy to sink cowering behind their laptops with "eyes glazed over" and collect a paycheck?
4/. The overt disrespect for citizens who take time out of their day to speak (unpaid, unlike the council members) is especially abhorrent. Not only is this simple courtesy essential for democracy to flourish, but it is their duty as members of council to look, take notice, and listen to what is being told to them. It is nothing more than anyone should be able to expect when speaking anywhere. That the mayor countenances such infantile abysmal behavior in his presence shows a severe lack of leadership and poor understanding of the process. Unless, of course, this is all by design, and they each have no intention of giving the public any say whatsoever in the running of this city - in effect, proving 'public comments' to be a sham. As in the case of the Broadway Diet, baseball field, extra arbitrary taxes and maintenance districts. The latter I expect to be true if they are living up to their Progressive creed: In that they each "sneer at the natural rights of man".
5/. I would urge more of the public to show up to these meetings. If only to watch their esteemed council in action. The public would soon see that they are but a hindrance to the city's dictatorial operation.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (5) RSS