• Dylan in Missoula on Tuesday? How can I not go? #
• Old, or is it? Photographic Evidence of Time Travel. http://gizmo.do/d559vj #

I don’t know Betsy Baumgart. I don’t know what kind of work she did promoting tourism in Montana and I don’t know what might have led to her termination. Neither, apparently, does the Independent Record, but that didn’t stop them from offering one of the sloppiest editorials I have had the misfortune of reading. The core of the editorial can be found in these three paragraphs, a series of unsupported and unsubstantiated questions:

Is there a connection between these personnel changes? Is there move afoot to shake up the Commerce Department? Or are the ousters acts of simple vindictiveness, rooted in differences of opinion or partisan politics?
There is one answer to all these questions: Who knows? And that’s the problem.
Hiding behind a claim of privacy to withhold information about highly visible public officials in a critical state department simply doesn’t pass muster.
Do the nature and circumstances of these personnel moves create a potential financial liability for Montana taxpayers in the form of potential wrongful discharge actions? Were any of these moves accompanied by severance payments? If so, shouldn’t those payments be a matter of public record?

“Who knows?” is exactly the problem. An indignant editorial that cavalierly dismisses the importance of protecting the privacy of a terminated employee is no substitute for journalism; it’s sloppy and it’s unprofessional. There may well be a story worth writing about this firing, but not without laying the groundwork and doing some investigation. It’s tremendously easy to ask leading questions and cast aspersions against government and public officials, but it’s not the role of journalists, who should be writing stinging editorials after they’ve written the news story, not the other way around.

The editorial also offers an instructive insight into how the news gets framed. Consider this section from a news story in the Great Falls Tribune by John Adams:

Baumgart declined to say what reason Schwinden and Roos gave for the termination because she is considering challenging the decision. She said she has discussed the matter with an attorney.

Or the story in Independent Record itself by Mike Dennison:

Baumgart also declined to say what reason she was given for her dismissal, which occurred Aug. 20 in a meeting with Commerce Director Dore Schwinden. She said she’s consulting with an attorney about a potential lawsuit.

How did today’s editorial frame that?

But neither Baumgart nor Schwinden have shared any reasons for the firing. Baumgart said she may challenge the dismissal and is working with an attorney.

It seems like the IR decided to leave out a causal connection that might just undermine the narrative they’re spinning. It seems Ms. Baumgart was given a reason for her termination and has chosen not to share it, seemingly an important detail.

I know times are tough for newspapers, but that doesn’t excuse this kind of “journalism.” Looking over today’s top news in the IR, one could make the case for realigned priorities focused on news. Then, instead of asking questions, the Independent Record might start providing us all some answers.

Today’s story, about the Montana Chamber of Commerce endorsing both Beth Baker and Nels Swandal, seems to have a headline that is somewhat content-deficient and doesn’t really capture the story. It reads “State Chamber of Commerce endorses both Supreme Court candidates, gets grief for it.”

Ignoring the fact that the endorsements (and reaction) are a week old, the headline doesn’t really say what happened: the Chamber endorsed both candidates and Swandal is crying about it.

This campaign has certainly demonstrated that Judge Swandal lacks both the temperament and impartiality necessary to sit on the Supreme Court, and this latest fit demonstrates that his judgment is, at the least, suspect. As the president of the Montana Chamber of Commerce told the IR, it’s an unconventional strategy to attack an organize that gave you its endorsement.

I happened to notice this evening that the Montana Standard offered some well-deserved praise for Senator Tester’s latest publically-released ethics review. Says the Standard:

There’s no time like the present for other members of Congress to follow Tester’s lead and invite such scrutiny. We’d say this is an excellent idea not only for the remainder of the Montana delegation, but for senators and representatives in other states as well.

Judge Bennett, while making some suggestions for improvement, gives the Senator and his staff high praise:

Well, what about it, Representative Rehberg and Senator Baucus?

The entire report (actually an interesting read) is available here.

I thought I had better finish my look at Helena’s most entertaining lawsuit this evening.  Part of the reason I stopped today was that I honestly couldn’t understand a single paragraph of the second half of the document. Six hours later, I still can’t, but I’ve decided that’s probably not my fault.

The earlier sections of the complaint, while characterized by boilerplate right-wing grievance syndrome, were understandable. As we move deeper into this masterful work of fiction, the tale becomes much more complex. Consider this section, headed by the delightfully ironic reference to the Montana Constitution’s prohibition against state agencies funding religious institutions:

Kristi has made attempts as late as the August 10, 2010 District Board meeting to acquire an economic analysis of the development and production of the health enhancement curriculum brought forward by the district. None of this information has been made available, again rendering question as to the source of funding. All funding and the sources of the funding of the school curriculum must be disclosed under law.Without such, Kristi claims the findings of facts once again violate her rights under these provisions of the law. With federal funding being used in the education programs in Montana it is furthermore important to have access to the sources of that funding as a right to know by the people of Montana.

Kristi again on August 18th requested the District to provide for an opportunity to address the Board of Trustees at their next meeting. (See Attached Exhibit D) Insuring the District is aware of all the facts prior to adoption of the District Health Enhancement Curriculum is the root of the complaint and without such, finding of facts is shortchanged. At time of the filing, the District has failed to respond to the request to address the meeting on this matter.

As  Cowgirl notes, Allen-Gailushas would seem to have no problem with the state promoting a religious view, as long as it was her bigoted one.

My apologies for the length of this excerpt, but one truly has to read a full section to get a sense of absurdity of this document. I’m not an economist or a scholar of the law like lawn chair patriots in the Tea Party, but I would guess that the funding for health curriculum can only come from one source: the Communist-Islamofascist-Progressives. And George Soros.

Or maybe, just maybe, the district intends to pay for the health curriculum out of ITS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE BUDGET, the one that Allen-Gailushas hasn’t bothered to pay much attention to.

I will send $50 to the Tea Party if one of them can explain what the subject or even topic of this sentence is.

Ultimately, under the Montana Constitution Article X Section 8 , vests the supervision and control of the schools in each school district with the Board of Trustees that are under oath as elected officials as provided by law.

I might sue someone for giving me a headache after reading this:

The law provides the citizens of the state of Montana a means of checks and balances. Without such, we the people have no way to insure the interests of the people are protected. The legal system provides for a process to administer all levels of government and the people a way to insure the actions of the District and OPI do not infringe on the basic rights of the people. It is here that Kristi rests her faith in the separation of powers and the court to grant immediate relief to Kristi.

Okay, or this. I mean, this has to be a joke, right?

It is in the heart of due process whereas the District must afford Kristi and other citizens of Montana a right to discover and disseminate the information and to process documents used in the development of the health curriculum by the District which has refused to allow.

The mind boggles. Conservatives scream about frivolous lawsuits, but can’t bother to proofread lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money and students educational resources. I think it’s wonderful for parents to get involved in the educational system and to fight for the rights of their children; they just need to make some damn sense when they do it.

Short summary: the suit is a hodgepodge of half-baked legal theorizing, personal aggrandizement, and perceived slights that will be thrown out of court faster than Tea Party member would be thrown out of a book club.

The suit claims:

The Office of Public Instruction is a subdivision of the state of Montana charged with administering funding and curriculum standards in the public education system. As such, all actions related to funding and curriculums are under the authority of the OPI.

While I have addressed this point a number of times before, I can’t emphasize enough how absurd and illogical this claim is. It flies in the face of the core tradition of American education–local control of curriculum–and Montana law, which makes it clear that the state cannot dictate curriculum. While OPI is charged with establishing broad standards, implementation of curriculum at the local level is a hallowed tradition, especially among conservatives.

It’s not up to OPI to dictate curriculum, and it’s certainly not up to them to change a curriculum to appease Ms. Allen-Gailushas or Sean Hannity.

Next, the suit  criticizes the district’s Critical Competency approach, suggesting that parents were not informed about its implementation:

This administrative process adopted by the District is arbitrary in its vagueness and the failure by the District to advise the citizens of the District of this process leading to the development of a health enhancement curriculum has capriciously circumvented the Constitutional rights of the people.

There are no fewer than ten pages of references on the HSD web page about critical competencies over the past few years. They have been discussed at Board Meetings (which have publicly available and posted minutes) repeatedly. I’m not sure when the disinterest of a parent became a lack of legal notification, but it’s a pretty specious justification for a lawsuit.

It’s roughly at this point that the suit starts to wander off to Crazy Town and the TYRANNY begins:

Then, Superintendant Messinger determines he has exclusive authority to revise the curriculum without providing for the public disclosure of any proceedings or deliberations, or examination of all documents being used to make these decisions. This unbridled authority given to the superintendant by the District and OPI, constitutes a separate violation of the rights of the people.

Let’s see. A public hearing in which participants personally attacked School Board members and employees, following threatening messages being left for them. A planned second hearing, during which the Board has promised to let every person speak, followed by a PUBLIC VOTE by ELECTED OFFICIALS. That sound far from “unbridled power” to me. It sounds a lot like an open, fair process in a democratic society.

To assume that, as she repeatedly claims, Ms. Allen-Gailushas deserves “a seat at the table” at every district meeting exposes not only the absurdity of her position, but the ultimate aim of the Tea Party and its supporters: to cripple every level of government with specious, time-consuming demands that are less about process than they are about paralysis.

More tyranny in the form of CENSORSHIP:

The District, at the meeting on August 10^th 2010, cited a policy that prohibits public comment on issues not on the agenda. The District prohibited the public from commenting on issues on the agenda. The arbitrary and capricious actions of the Board of Trustees provided for the violation of this basic right by impairing Kristi the right to freedom of speech and expression.”Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject.” Kristi was censored by the District, leaving Kristi’s freedom and liberty arbitrarily and capriciously violated.

Yes, the woman who was on the front page of the local newspaper and the state news broadcasts was certainly censored. The woman who was invited to submit comment and speak at the next Board meeting was certainly censored.

I haven’t had much time to read over this document, but I think I have discovered three other forms of tyranny: spell checking, grammar, and sound legal reasoning.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and read something else right away after finishing this.

More thoughts later today.

The Complaint

In news that certainly shocked me, the video announcement about the decision to sue the Helena School District is even more amusing than the decision to file the suit itself.

Her claim that the curriculum process has been completed behind closed doors is, to be polite, a damn lie. Literate Americans can read Board minutes and attend meetings. At the end of the “interview,” Allen-Gailushas even makes it clear that it’s her fault for not getting involved earlier:

This has opened me up to needing to pay attention more, whereas I never really thought about it before.

To recap, the Board’s public meetings and minutes are tyrannical because Allen-Gailushas didn’t pay attention to what was going on.

Allen-Gailushas’s reasoning for suing OPI is another demonstration of the keen analytical work of the Tea Party and its citizen lawyers. According to Allen-Gailushas:

Because they’re [OPI] at the head of the school district and they have not come in to stop what the school board is doing…

Neither is NATO. Why not sue them? They have about the same level of jurisdiction over local curriculum.

Finally, I love the appeal to every citizen across America. I’m pretty sure that conservatives are supposed to believe in local control of schools. I wonder why the Tea Party and its ill-mannered ilk want to let “outsiders” in the conservative media impose their will on local decision making? Hoping for a little attention from the Fox News crowd?

I’m headed to the courthouse tomorrow to get a copy of the suit and will post by the end of day.

Representative Rehberg is just like you and me. I have lunch; he has lunch. Of course, mine is usually a little left over stir fry or maybe a sandwich. When Representative Rehberg has lunch, he dines on whatever corporate bigwigs want to feed him, as long as they pony up a cool thousand dollars for the privilege.

If you happen to be in Alexandria, Virginia next month, perhaps you can join him. Or perhaps you’d like dinner earlier in the month.