Darby town budget in question

By Michael Howell

The Town of Darby has yet to officially adopt a fiscal year 2017 budget by resolution. The main stumbling block to adoption of the budget has been the proposed reduction in force at the Police Department. Now some Council members are at loggerheads with the Mayor over his efforts to enforce a “provisional” budget that would reduce the police force from 2 full-time employees (FTEs) to 1.5 FTEs.
According to Mayor JC McDowell, it is common in Montana for towns to approve by motion a new fiscal year budget and operate by it for months before the state sets the property valuations that will allow the adoption of a Final Budget by Resolution with the actual value amounts. Following that reasoning McDowell believes that, since the Town Council approved a new budget at its December 8 meeting, it is his duty to implement the provisional budget even though it hasn’t been passed yet by final resolution.
Complicating the issue is the undisputed fact that, at the December 8 meeting, the proposed budget was passed (according to the minutes) but along with an amendment that provided that the current hours at the police department would not be reduced. The Mayor then vetoed the amendment and notified the Council that he believed he had the authority to veto any council decision “in whole or in part” and in this case, he was not vetoing the motion of approval but was only vetoing the amendment. Considering the budget (without the amendment) as “provisionally” approved, he now believes it is his “obligation” to implement it.
McDowell says that the cuts have been implemented in the Administrative and Public Works departments, cutting the Administration from 2 FTEs down to 1.4 and cutting the Public Works down from 2 to 1.59 FTEs. But his proposal to reduce the police force from 2 to 1.5 FTEs did not go over well with Police Chief Larry Rose and some of the Council members.
McDowell wrote the Chief on December 20, informing him that the council had “unanimously approved by motion the proposed budget. This approved budget is now the Town’s provisional budget until a final budget can be ratified by the Council.” He states that “in part due to a veto on an amendment and the necessary time seeking legal counsel on the provisional budget, I could not confirm the approved budget is in force until today. As a result, we are already 13 days into the new budget allocation – which will require some additional planning on your part to compensate for the additional man hours logged exceeding the budgeted amount for the past two weeks.” He asks Rose to submit a report by Friday (only two days away) “detailing how you plan to administrate your department with the new budget.” He goes on to state that he would like to see the planned work schedules “maximize your impact patrolling the community.”
Rose replied, stating that it was his understanding “that the Town Council did not unanimously approve those cuts, furthermore asking me to respond within one day with a plan and schedule to those questionable reduced work hours which we have already worked. If in fact our hours have been cut by the Town Council I would need time to do the impossible in how to best serve the public with a major reduction in hours.”
Rose goes on to state that two FTEs, that is a combined 80 hours of work, does not really meet all the Town’s needs as it is.
McDowell wrote back on December 27, stating, “The Council creates policy and I, as Mayor, and you, as department head, work to implement the policy for the best benefit we can for the community. The options are rarely perfect or optimal, however we are still obligated to move forward and work within the approved operational budget.”
He again requests an operational plan, stating, “From the week of the 12th, we are 40 hours over your FTE budget – not including this week. Please detail a plan that recovers the overage over the course of the remaining fiscal year to June 30th, 2017. Please implement the budget immediately within your department.” He requests the information by no later than Friday, December 30th.
Rose responded on the 28th, stating, “It is my understanding that at the 12/8 Council meeting the Council did not approve a cut in man hours nor did three of the five Council members believe there were any cuts.” Rose goes on to state that, nevertheless, if he had to he would split the reduction in hours with Officer Ringer. He goes on to outline a reduced schedule and then finishes saying, “It should also be noted (in my opinion) cutting public safety when it should be increased, could be more damaging to the budget and will only create a great liability to the Town of Darby, along with angry citizens, when we can’t respond to their demands. That is my professional opinion, policing Darby for 33 years.”
Rose told the Bitterroot Star that he believes the Mayor is targeting him without discussing the real reasons. He said that efforts to get rid of him have surfaced periodically over the years and always proved to be based on misinformation and false accusations. He believes the people want adequate law enforcement in the town and that the cuts will hamper that significantly.
Council Chairman Shane Starkey believes the public has expressed strong opposition to the cuts in the police force and he is not sure that the Mayor’s interpretation of the law is correct. He has asked Town Attorney Brian West for an opinion on the issue. He said that at the same December 8 meeting, significant opposition was raised by the public and that he would not support the cuts in the police department at this point in time nor would most of the Council.
“A lot of people in Darby are really upset about it,” said Starkey. “As far as the Council is concerned, we did not pass those budgets.”
Following the recent resignation of three council members over the dispute, the council is now composed of Chairman Shane Starkey, Scott Ralston and three new members, George Cuff, Jason Lewis and Christina Abbey. The next Council meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2017.