One of the many things local voters, specifically those living in Libby city limits, will vote on in the Nov. 3 general election is whether to change the city charter.

The Local Government Study Commission, consisting of D.C. Orr, John Bebee and Vince Backen, recommended several changes to the charter. 

Required every 10 years, the local government review election asks voters to decide if they want to review their local government. Voters overwhelmingly supported the creation of study commissions in the county, Libby, Troy and Eureka.

Now city residents will decide if they believe the charter should be amended. In Libby, voters approved a tax levy not exceeding $30,000 to support the 3-person study commission to examine the City of Libby government and submit recommendations on it. 

The amendments would permit partisan elections for council and mayor, separate legislative and executive functions by having a council chairman conduct city council meetings while the mavor attends and participates but does not direct them.

It would also remove the mayor's authority to decide tie votes, require four affirmative council votes for resolutions, ordinances, appointments and veto overrides. 

Finally, it would establish a legal officer of the city, who may be called the City Attorney, and establish a Transparency and Accountability Committee to review complaints of ethics violations and mismanagement by city officials and emplovees.

The study commission did differ on its recommendations.

Orr and Backen, in its June 28 final majority report, claimed there is no established and adopted system to address citizen or employee complaints or concerns. They also suggested the creation of some form of public affairs office or official to promote and encourage both public participation and right to know, allowing for the development and promotion of public trust.

Bebee, in his June 17 minority report, suggested changes were not needed to the city charter. He cited three reasons in his opposition.

“The power and authority to resolve discrepancies and actions, taken in the past by the local government, that the new charter seeks to resolve by mandate, already exists in the current charter,” Bebee wrote.

Bebee was also concerned about the potential for unintended consequences. 

“It is my opinion that it is as likely as not that the most well-intentioned changes and recommendations could have unintended consequences,” he wrote. “Some of these circumstances and situations are more of a social/community issue and lie outside the purpose of the commission.”

Finally, Bebee cited what he believes is a lack of interest among city residents to change the charter.

“Throughout the study process, I observed that public interest and participation was insufficient to gauge exactly what the elector’s specific wants, needs and goals were to study and rectify.”

Bebee reported the commission’s efforts to determine what city residents wanted. They included three town hall meetings, 65 regular and working public meetings, attendance at three public events and an information at four advertised farmer’s markets.

“Public interest and participation proved disappointing and indicated the absence of public support,” Bebee wrote. “If the local government form, function and plan were so in need of revision and replacement, public participation and interest would have demanded it. Lacking a public outcry or participation I find it hard to substantiate any changes to the current charter.”

Bebee’s comments did follow a likely lack of interest and understanding of the process. Some local officials said there was confusion of what the government study commissions were meant to do. They were not intended to elect new representatives.

There was also a question of participation on the local government study commission. In Libby, while 324 voters approved the commission, just one person registered. The other two were appointed by an application process.

One commission member, Backen, even voted against its formation, but decided after voters approved it, he should be on it. Also, some statements Backen made mischaracterized those made by county attorney Marcia Boris. It led to him making him a public apology to the her.

“I misstated her legal opinion regarding the study commission’s authority,” Backen said. “She advised only that the study commission could recommend to the city that it form an ethics committee, she never suggested the study commission itself had the power to create one. That distinction matters and I’m sorry for the confusion and any harm this caused to her reputation.”

Backen said his position on the study commission’s TAC committee was that it was formed to receive complaints and suggestions for the commission to use as information to better serve Libby residents.