When is public, public?  A silly question at one time, but now the lines seem to be becoming more and more blurred.  Technology allows one to have information at our fingertips literally within seconds.  We expect information to be available.  We believe it is our right when it comes to our government.  Our government, for the most part, agrees.  What we don't always agree on is what information is public?  (Rather than delve into JFK conspiracy theory or Roswell visitors, lets keep this discussion to Montana state gov't and our local gov'ts).  What information do we want to have?  What are we entitled to have?

While there are plenty of examples statewide, lets examine a new one.  The Billings Gazette recently reported on issues surrounding Big Sky Economic Development Authority and Economic Development Corporation.  Both articles (here & here) touch on the question raised above.  In order to answer the question, new ones emerge.

Is there a difference in the public (your) "rights" when public money is passed through to another entity?

The Big Sky EDA now receives a total of $859,514 in public monies: $724,446 a year from county taxpayers and another $135,068 from state entitlements. The rest of the authority's $1.5 million budget for fiscal 2008 comes from federal and state grants and fees for services.

One would assume the the citizens of Yellowstone County would want to know the particulars regarding a 800K expenditure.  I would assume they would expect agenda items, public hearings, and access to information surrounding the expenditure.  If the County refused, I would dare say they would be violating Montana law & our Constitution.  But what if they did all of those things (agenda, hearing, info) when they gave the money to the EDA?  Does the EDA then have the same commitment?

Does the answer lie somewhere in between? What was the purpose of the 800K expenditure?  Was that fully discussed and available for public review?  Or was it simply a pass through, a grant to the agency to do with what they choose? Perhaps that could affect one's view of the issue.  Or is the agency providing a service to, on behalf of, or for the County?

What does the County (attorney) think?

After the EDC was established, McClure sought legal advice about holding private meetings with business prospects.

But Chief Deputy County Attorney Dan Schwarz penned three opinions saying it wouldn't be legal.

"The public is paying for the corporation. It is entitled to know what the corporation is doing," Schwarz wrote.

So, are there private meetings occurring? The article doesn't expand any further, but comments by Commissioner Reno indicate the EDA/EDC is not as open as it could or should be.  When pressed, Big Sky seems to be asking why.  You should be asking why not?  If it helps, ask yourself if it (the expenditure or pass through) is for something the county should approve or support, or participate in as a government.  Whether that be development, expansion, salaries, etc.  Now, If you have to ask yourself the question, regardless of the answer, I submit you already know you're entitled.

Simpler yet, the EDA can be seen as an extension of the County.  The EDA was created, is funded, and is governed through the County appointments. The addition of the corporate arm, the EDC, while autonomous, certainly muddles the waters when responsibilities & resources are shared. 

Investment in the EDA/EDC on behalf of the County is positive and sends a strong signal regarding commitment to growth & development in the region.  It is not, however, a blank check or a closed book.  The investment does have strings attached, the citizens are those strings. 

Upcoming When is Public, Public - Part II - fair competition?