Reporter’s Notebook: Observations on Gov. Bullock’s first big speech

Wednesday night’s State of the State address was an interesting evening at the Capitol. It was the first time since I began covering Montana politics that a governor other than Brian Schweitzer was on the big stage, and I wasn’t sure what to expect.

The State of the State is a major event for a Montana governor. The address is broadcast live statewide on Montana PBS and Montana Public Radio, and just about every TV station, radio station and newspaper in the state covers the event.

Many of us in the Capitol press corps admitted prior to the speech we were unsure of how Bullock would do in his first-ever State of the State. After all, he’s following in the footsteps of one of the best orators many of us have ever seen in Montana. Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer wasn’t popular with everyone – particularly Republicans, whom Schweitzer needled at every turn – but at the end of the day nobody could argue the man’s ability to work a crowd.

Bullock brings a much different style to the governor’s office. As he pointed out in his speech, just three weeks in to his term as governor he’s “already been trying to change the tone in the halls of this building.”

While he didn’t mention Schweitzer by name, Bullock’s message on that point was clear: “I’m not Brian Schweitzer.”

The consensus among most people I talked to after the speech was that Bullock did a great job. It was a strong speech and it was masterfully delivered. Even many Republicans said they liked the speech, though they didn’t like all the spending proposals Bullock rolled out.

My first thought after he finished the address was this:

“This guy showed us tonight he is the governor.”

Observations from the floor

The press corps is mostly relegated to the east side of the House floor during speeches like this, which means we’re stationed along the GOP’s side of the aisle. That’s always an interesting place to be during a speech delivered by a Democrat. When the big applause lines come, we all watch to see which Republicans clap or stand and which Republicans keep their arms crossed tightly over their chests.

I paid keen attention to a standing ovation that came when Bullock blasted the rise of dark money groups that “target candidates and refuse to tell the voting public who they really are and what they really represent.”

“They hide behind made-up names and made-up newspapers. They operate out of P.O. Boxes or Washington, D.C. office buildings. They falsely proclaim themselves the guardians of Montana’s traditions.

These groups believe they can violate our laws and corrupt our government in order to create a system that benefits their special interests.

Montanans deserve better.”

At that point the House floor erupted with the cheers and applause from Democrats and a handful of enthusiastic Republicans.  Without having a clear view of the entire floor I can’t say for certain which Republicans stood  and cheered and which ones sat on their hands, but it was a moment many of us talked about after the speech. If anyone can produce video of that particular applause line that shows the entire House floor it would certainly been an interesting study.

Another point that stood out to me was when Bullock talked about returning from the airport after having greeted troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to find out a Legislative committee had cut funding for “wrap-around” services that would make it easier for returning soldiers to attend universities.

“I urge you to restore these funds, live up to the promises we’ve made and welcome these warriors home with more than just words,” Bullock said.

At that point Democrats jumped to their feet and most of the Republican side of the aisle joined them. However, in front of me one Republican Senator remained firmly planted in her seat, not clapping. As another Senator looked over at her and said something she shook her head and said, “I’m not clapping for that.”

All-in-all Bullock did a good job of defining his policy agenda and laying down markers for the next three months of the Legislative session. He’s going to push for more spending on education. He wants a fix to the state pension system that “honors the commitment to Montana’s public servants.” He’s going to continue to push for his proposed $400 homeowner tax rebate. He wants to expand Medicaid. And he wants campaign finance reform that gets dark money out of politics.

How much of that agenda he will get accomplished remains to be seen as the Republican-dominated Legislature continues to chip away at spending proposals and bring their own policy agendas to bear on the state budget, namely, reducing Montana’s reliance on federal dollars.

Bullock, however, seemed sincere in his desire and willingness to work with GOP lawmakers going forward.

“We need each other if we’re going to make progress,” Bullock told members of the House and Senate.

The only words that rang truer were Bullock’s closing thoughts:

“At the end of any one of our terms. . . yours or mine. . . we will be measured by the progress we have made. And the true measure will be taken not by the politicians or pundits, but by our children. Let us not forget that it is to them we are most accountable.”

Schweitzer’s “VETO Chicken”

Absentee ballots hit the mail today marking the home stretch of the 2012 election season, and term-limited Gov. Brian Schweitzer reminded voters what is at stake in the 2013 Legislative session.

Not one to shy away from the limelight, Schweitzer, a Democrat, continues to thump his chest over last session's record 79 vetoes of Republican bills with a tweet today featuring a photo of "veto chicken."

Schweitzer, who has done little to temper speculation that he plans to seek a higher office after his gubernatorial term expires, was was the keynote speaker at NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 18th annual “Chicago Power of Choice Luncheon,” at the downtown Standard Club. According to Schweitzer’s spokeswoman, that’s where the “Veto Chicken” was served.

Schweitzer has built a national following among some members of his party who admire his no-holds-barred approach to taking on Republicans in the Capitol. From calling the GOP-controlled Legislature “bat crap crazy” or using a red-hot branding iron to “veto” Republican bills in 2011,  Schweitzer has never backed down from a battle with his Republican rivals.

With Republicans looking to hold solid majorities in the next Legislative session, many of the same bills Schweitzer vetoed in 2011 will no-doubt land on the next governor’s desk in 2013.

Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock has already said he would veto any right-to-work bill that crosses his desk. Bullock has also invoked Schweitzer’s “bat crap crazy” remark, saying any bills to allow spear hunting, or calls for secession from the union or or measures aimed at imposing a gold standard in the state will likely meet his veto pen. However, Bullock recently told students at Great Falls High that since he’s a lawyer he would probably use a fountain pen, rather than a branding iron, to do the deed.

Meanwhile, Rick Hill, a Republican, has said he would allow some of the bills that Schweitzer vetoed to become law. Hill said he supports right-to-work legislation and at a debate in Helena the former Montana congressman said he supports the ballot measure that would change Montana law to require women under 18 to get parental consent before having an abortion, a bill Schweitzer vetoed in 2011.

If the measure fails at the ballot box come November, chances are that proposal will still become law if Hill is elected governor.

Schweitzer’s “veto chicken” tweet, as odd as it was, serves as a reminder that the next governor will probably see many of the same bills he vetoed in 2011.  Some voters will no-doubt have that in mind when they fill out their ballots this fall.

Schweitzer in 2006: ‘I might support’ Romney presidential bid

Six years ago Gov. Brian Schweitzer raised eyebrows in Big Sky Country and beyond when he made an off-hand remark about then-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

The Montana governor — who touched off a firestorm of controversy last week when he told a reporter for The Daily Beast that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee might have some trouble with voters because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico” — didn't use the words "polygamy" or "Mormon" in that interview.

It wasn't even a perceived jab Romney that caught the attention of bloggers and political wonks. In fact it was quite the opposite.

In an Oct. 8, 2006 New York Times profile of Schweitzer, then a rising-star in the Democratic Party, the bombastic Montana governor told Times reporter Mark Sundeen he would consider voting for Romney for president.

Earlier that year Schweitzer, Romney and Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt were part of delegation of governors visiting troops serving in the Middle East as part of "Operation Enduring Freedom."

Schweitzer said he spent a lot of time with Romney on that trip and found him to be a "good guy."

"We talked about all kinds of things, business, family, government, taxes," Schweitzer said.

Schweitzer told Sundeen he supported John McCain's presidential bid in 2000 but soured on McCain because of the way he courted the religious right. Schweitzer went on to say he was intrigued by a possible presidential run by Romney, then the Republican governor of Massachusetts, in 2008.

"If he gets the nomination, I might support him,'" Schweitzer told the Times.

That perceived endorsement of a Republican raise a few Democratic hackles.

A blogger on the national Liberal blog The Daily Kos said he was "appalled" by Schweitzer's comment, writing, "If he keeps saying stuff like this his future in Democratic politics is over."

Closer to home Helena Democratic blogger and one-time Schweitzer primary challenger Don Pogreba wrote: "I know that Schweitzer wants to cultivate an image of independence … but Mitt Romney?"

Romney himself added fuel to the budding gubernatorial  "bromance" in June 2007 when he told a roomful of reporters gathered at the Montana GOP annual convention in Helena: “If any of you see your governor, give him my best. He's a great guy."

Cascade County GOP delegate James Drew, upon hearing the GOP-hopeful's comment about Schweitzer, dropped his support for Romney.

"He said that?” Drew asked me when I was reporter for the Missoula Independent. “Well, he just lost my vote.”

So does Schweitzer — who said in 2006 he'd consider supporting Romney for president — plan to back the Republican in 2012?

Not likely.

"I've watched an evolution in his politics since we traveled together," Schweitzer said in a recent interview. "He's taken a right turn on immigration policy and his recent comments about military expansionism are concerning. I've got concerns about his policies."

Schweitzer said he still thinks Romney is a "good man."

"I haven't met his family, but he's a good family man and he's a warm and good communicator," Schweitzer said. "I just don't really share his vision for the future of America's economic policy."

Rumor Mill: Jim Murry favorite for CPP spot

Rumor has it that Gov. Brian Schweitzer wants to appoint longtime labor leader Jim Murry as the next commissioner of political practices. Murry was executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO from 1969-1991.

The governor’s office did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment yesterday. However, I’ve been told the governor’s office wants the two Democrats on the panel – Senate Minority Leader Carol Williams  and House Minority Leader Jon Sesso – to nominate Murry to replace former commissioner Dave Gallik, who resigned last month amid allegations he misused his state office for private business.

Schweitzer doesn’t have to choose from the list of nominees he gets from the four-member, bi-partisan panel made up of Republican and Democratic legislative leaders. He can appoint anyone he wants to the position.

Whomever Schweitzer appoints will presumably hold the post at least until the Legislature convenes in January 2013. If Republicans control the Senate in the next session, Schweitzer’s appointee could face a tough confirmation process. Republicans blocked former commissioner Jennifer Hensley’s confirmation earlier this  year, leading to Gallik’s appointment. 

The State Administration and Veterans’ Affairs committee will hold a conference call Thursday morning – just prior to when commissioner of political practices selection committee is scheduled to meet – to discuss Peterson’s request that the committee ask the Department of Administration to not delete any files from Gallik’s computer.

Murry’s appointment – if it happens – would likely irk already irritated Republicans. There are rumblings that if the GOP isn’t satisfied with Schweitzer’s appointment they’ll consider attempting to call themselves into special session. Regardless of what happens, the political drama surrounding the Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices is likely to drag on into the 2012 election season.

AP: DOT head resigns over daughter's job

Associated Press statehouse correspondent Matt Gouras is reporting Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked MDT Director Jim Lynch to resign after discovering that Lynch’s daughter was hired by the department.

From the AP article:

Schweitzer confirmed to The Associated Press on Friday that the abrupt resignation was over concerns that the hiring of Lynch's daughter, Emily Rask, could violate state nepotism laws. Rask holds a post in the agency's human resources department.

"I became aware that he had hired his daughter. I spoke to him about it and said, 'Jim, this is a clear violation of the nepotism law,'" Schweitzer said. "On that basis, I asked for his resignation. He had an interpretation that it is acceptable. I said, 'Look, this is not acceptable.'"

Lynch had a somewhat different explanation of events:

Lynch told the AP on Friday that he is the one who offered his resignation. He also said that both he and Schweitzer agreed the hiring did not amount to nepotism under the state law.

---

Lynch said he did not get personally involved in the hiring that took place about four years ago, and he said he made sure it was all done correctly.

---

Lynch said he was surprised the hiring became an issue after such a long time. He said he stayed out of the decision-making process, and said his daughter was hired on merit in a normal hiring process.

"When I heard that she was applying, I reviewed it with the legal department and human resources and they said it was acceptable for her to apply for the job," Lynch said. "Quite frankly, that was the end of it for me.

"I don't think there is anything wrong with what we did, we followed the process."

MDT Director Jim Lynch resigns

Montana Department of Transportation Director Jim Lynch abruptly resigned Thursday after 6 1/2 years as head of the agency.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer appointed Lynch shortly after taking office in January 2005.

Lynch said he gave his resignation letter to Schweitzer Thursday morning. The three-sentence letter said little, only that Lynch decided to resign to "pursue other opportunities."

Schweitzer appointed the department's chief legal counsel, Tim Reardon, to take over as director effective immediately.

"The time was always going to come," Lynch said in an interview Thursday. "When you work for the governor there always comes that time when you can leave, and when it is a good time to leave."

Lynch said he wasn't able to make plans for life after his term as director while still serving in that role.

"There were a lot of questions of me while I was director about what I was going to do next. You can't answer those, and you can talk about them, and you can't plan them while you're still a state employee," Lynch said.

Lynch, a former Kalispell businessman, is rumored to be considering a run for governor. Lynch didn't close the door on that possibility.

"I think this gives me an opportunity to evaluate (a possible gubernatorial campaign) and evaluate what opportunities are out there both in the public and private sector," Lynch said. "I'm just going to take a deep breath and sit back and take my time. I'm not in a hurry to make any decisions one way or the other."

In an e-mail press release announcing the resignation Schweitzer thanked Lynch for his "service and commitment to the state and the people of Montana."

“I wish him well as he moves back to the private sector," Schweitzer said. "Jim was always one of the first people on the scene to any road incident; he was always willing to lend a hand in our towns and communities with snow removal or gravel roads and was a great advocate for highway safety.”

Schweitzer did not comment on why Lynch resigned.

MDT has come under scrutiny over the past year for the agency's handling of ExxonMobil's controversial proposal to haul hundreds of massive Korean-built tar sands processing modules from Lewistown, Idaho, along the Rocky Mountain Front and on to the Kearl oil fields in northern Alberta.

Lynch told the Interim Revenue and Transportation Committee in a 2009 hearing that the company was proposing a "permanent high and wide corridor" across the state to service the Canadian tar sands. Lynch later backed off that statement saying that current project is a one-time only proposal.

Critics of the project say MDT failed to adequately study the potential cultural, environmental and economic impacts of such a project.

Last month District Judge Ray Dayton of Anaconda upheld a request by Missoula County and three conservation groups to stop Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil from transporting the megaloads through the state.

Lynch said the Kearl Module Transportation Project had nothing to do with his decision to resign.

"That's what's nice about Montana, we have the (Montana Environmental Policy Act) process in place to deal with these kinds of projects," Lynch said. "That issue will continued to be played out and it won't be over anytime soon, but that's just one of many aspects that we deal with at MDT."

Lynch said this is a "great time" for him to leave the department.

"There was always going to have to be a time that I have to walk away," Lynch said. "We're delivering a great program. We're sound, we have a fund balance in our program and a great staff at MDT that work hard for the people of Montana."

Reardon, an Anaconda native, has been MDT's chief legal counsel since June 1994.

Gov. Ted Schwinden in 1981 appointed Reardon to serve as a workers' compensation judge, a position he held for 10 years. Prior to that appointment Reardon worked as an attorney in the division of workers compensation and worked in the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. He received his bachelor’s degree from Carroll College and his juris doctorate from the University of Montana.

Reardon will continue to make $99,984, the same salary he is currently making. Reardon is married and has four kids and four grandkids.

“I am honored to have Tim on the team as the director of the Department of Transportation,” Schweitzer said. “I have every confidence in his ability and know he will serve the people of Montana well.”

BREAKING NEWS: Activists lock down Montana Governor’s Office over oil pipeline

UPDATE: Here’s the raw video from today’s meeting between environmental activists and Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Warning: there is some harsh language that may  not suitable for all viewers.

I’ll have more on this as the day goes on, including photos and video from today’s protest in Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s office, but here’s the latest.

More than 100 environmental activists from across the country descended on Schweitzer's office Tuesday morning to demand that he rescind his support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the Exxon Mobile megaload transportation project.

Schweitzer met with the rowdy group of activists in the reception room of his office, but refused to meet their demands that he give up support for the massive pipeline project and the transportation project to serve the Canadian tar sands. Activists from Northern Rockies Rising Tide, Earth First! and other environmental groups said last week's rupture of an ExxonMobil pipeline that fouled dozens of miles of the Yellowstone River downstream of Laurel is a prime example of why Schweitzer should "toss big oil out of Montana."

Schweitzer met with the group for about 20 minutes and listened to their complaints and concerns before one of the activists began playing the piano in the reception room, prompting the other activists to jump on tables and dance and chant.

The governor said he hoped the environmental activists could put their passions toward ending the nation's addiction to foreign oil, which prompted boos from the crowed.

Missoula activist Nick Stocks of the Northern Rockies Rising Tide said that the activists were prepared to stay in the lobby of the governor's office indefinitely.

I’ll update this post throughout the day with more quotes from the meeting as well as video.

Schweitzer still supports oil sands/Keystone XL despite tough talk on Yellowstone oil spill

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has taken a tough public stance against ExxonMobil in the days following the 44,000 gallon Yellowstone River oil spill. Schweitzer has said he’ll be on Exxon “like smell on skunk” and that the Yellowstone River won't be clean, "until Montana says it’s clean.” Schweitzer has publically accused Exxon officials of not being transparent, directing security guards to keep the press away from the unified command center, and not being honest about the true nature of the spill. He's said that the company's interests "are not aligned with Montana's interest," and that ExxonMobil officials' "primary goal here was to limit the liability to the shareholders, not to be straightforward with the details of the spill and subsequent cleanup."

One Politico headline initially proclaimed that “Montana gov has boot on neck of ExxonMobil,” though the headline was recently changed to somewhat less hyperbolic “Montana gov on ExxonMobil like 'smell on a skunk.’”

Many environmental groups – including representatives from the National Wildlife Federation on a conference call to reporters last week — have lauded Schweitzer for his hard-line approach to dealing with ExxonMobil during the disaster.

But others have accused Schweitzer of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. They cite Schweitzer's  ardent support for coal, oil and gas development in Montana, his backing of ExxonMobil’s plan to truck more than 200 massive Korean-built tar sands processing modules across the state into Canada, and his support for Keystone XL pipeline, which would pipe Canadian tar sands crude (the same type of crude that fouled the Kalamazoo River when an Enbridge Energy pipeline burst there last year) from the Montana-Canada border to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Schweitzer on Wednesday told NPR On Point host Tom Ashbrook there is no contradiction between his support for fossil fuel development and his hard-lined response to ExxonMobil’s cleanup of the Yellowstone:

“We’re going to continue to develop energy in Montana. We’re an energy state. But we will not be a sacrifice zone for this energy’s needs. We will develop this energy on our terms, we will protect the landscape and the wildlife of Montana for this generation and future generations, and that energy that we develop in Montana will be developed on our terms.”

The Montana Environmental Information Center’s Jim Jensen doesn’t buy the notion that fossil fuel energy development can be “done right,” as Schweitzer and others claim.

“They’ve never done it right yet,” Jensen said on the same hour-long radio program.

As for Schweitzer, Jensen had this to say:

“Just two weeks ago he had a well-publicized meeting here in Helena with ExxonMobil executives and the result of that was him telling us that we should trust them to haul these massive loads of equipment up the Snake River, up the Lochsa River in Idaho and then the Blackfoot River in Montana into Alberta where they are developing these massive, hideous tar sands…he is a short-skirt cheerleader for that project.”

Missoula Independent columnist and former longtime environmental lobbyist George Ochenski also criticized Schweitzer for his continued support of the megaloads and Canadian tar sands development:

“Schweitzer has been a big booster of allowing Exxon to ship mega-loads of oil production equipment to Alberta's tar sands on Montana's two-lane highways. He also cheers on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would be two and a half times larger than Exxon's ruptured line and transport tar sands crude across Montana. We can only hope when he finally gets a first-hand look at the destruction such corporate failures engender, he might reconsider his far-too-cozy relationship with Big Oil. His allegiance should be to Montanans, not Exxon Mobil.”

I recently asked Schweitzer if his lack of trust in ExxonMobil and their lack of transparency in dealing with the Yellowstone River oil spill has colored his views on the Keystone XL pipeline or Exxon’s impending megaload transportation project.

Here’s what he had to say:

“Well, as I've said from the very beginning, we would trust but verify. But at least as for the pipeline division I'm down to verifying and then verifying again.

“Any study that has been conducted on megaloads has been conducted within the context of the Montana Environmental Policy Act, and (the company) and the Montana Department of Transportation are following the Montana Environmental Policy Act to the letter of the law, as the public expects us to do.”

Use of dispersants on the Yellowstone River?

Oil dispersant and a sheen are seen on top of the water in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico.  AP Photo/The Houma Courier, Matt Stamey

Gov. Brian Schweitzer just sent another letter to ExxonMobil officials asking for more information about last Friday’s oil spill on the Yellowstone River, and in it he requests information about the use of dispersants used to clean up the oil.

Schweitzer addressed the letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson (whom CNN Money ranked #6 on its “25 most powerful people in business” list) and ExxonMobil president of refining and supply Sherman Glass.

According to the letter, Schweitzer wants to know exactly what’s in the estimated 44,000 gallons of oil that leaked into the river one week ago:

“It is imperative that the State of Montana receive all the background documentation on the type of crude oil that was in the ruptured Silvertip Pipeline. I am asking that you provide the last three years of data analysis that ExxonMobile (sic) possesses on the type of crude oil in that pipeline. This includes the viscosity, volatility, and toxicity analysis. Also, please provide any test data that the company possesses for the most effective dispersant for the crude oil that has spilled into the Yellowstone River and the recommended volume of dispersant for that spill.”

The thing that stood out from the letter was this line:

“…please provide any test data that the company possesses for the most effective dispersant for the crude oil that has spilled into the Yellowstone River and the recommended volume of dispersant for that spill.”

Most Americans first learned about the use of dispersants during the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. These are the chemicals oil companies use to break up and “clean” oil from the surface of the water.

At one point, according to ProPublica,  BP bought-up nearly one-third of the world’s supply of dispersants and began pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of the chemicals onto the surface of the Gulf—and thousands of feet beneath it— in an effort to break up the steady flow of oil from the ocean floor.

As we all soon learned, dispersants have their own environmental and health problems that in some cases could be worse than the oil itself:

From ProPublica:

“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade-off – you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”

That’s because dispersants themselves contain unknown toxins. We don’t know what those toxins are because the companies that make them claim their make-up is a “trade secret.”

And the risk isn’t just to the environment. As the New York Times reported, oil clean-up workers exposed to dispersants in the Gulf soon began exhibiting health problems:

“…seven crew members aboard fishing vessels who had been working to clean up Breton Sound, southeast of New Orleans, blamed the chemicals for health complaints including nausea, shortness of breath and high blood pressure.”

According to this report on the Gulf Oil Spill Health Hazards:

“The combination of detergent and hydrocarbons ingredients in dispersants with chemicals in crude oil is especially hazardous if someone inhales contaminated water spray.  The dispersant-oil complex in micelles can coat lung surfaces causing lipoid pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, asthma and other serious health problems.” 

Read the report at the link above for more more detailed information on the hazards.

As far as Schweitzer’s request for any “test data,” I doubt ExxonMobil will be all that forthcoming with the information. After all, environmental groups who sued nearly a year ago to try to find out what was in the dispersants being pumped into the Gulf of Mexico are still in federal court.

BREAKING: State pulling out of oil spill command team

Gov. Brian Schweitzer tours oil impacted sites along side the Yellowstone River in Laurel, Mont., Tuesday July 5, 2011. AP Photo by Jim Urquhart.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Thursday said the state is pulling out of the unified command team overseeing the cleanup of oil from a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline that leaked an estimated 1,000 barrels of crude oil into the Yellowstone River late last Friday.

Schweitzer accused ExxonMobil officials of not being transparent about the extent of the oil spill and the resulting cleanup effort.

"We're actually pulling out of the incident command with ExxonMobil because they are refusing to be transparent with the public," Schweitzer said in an interview Thursday. "They have security guards that don't let the press in. They're telling our Department of Environmental Quality officials that the documents that we're sharing are not public documents, and I have said we will not be involved in an organization like that so we're pulling out."

ExxonMobil spokesman Pius Rolheiser said the company had not been notified of any changes to the unified command.

"We at the incident command have had no indication to this point that we should expect any change in the incident command structure," Rolheiser said. "Certainly none that I'm aware of and I'm at the command center."

Rolheiser said state DEQ officials were working at the incident comment center in Billings as of 2:30 Thursday afternoon.

Matthew Allen, a spokesman for EPA, said the agency was unaware that the state intended to pull out of the incident command team and declined to respond.

Schweitzer expressed frustration with ExxonMobil's response to the spill and the concerns of residents and landowners along the affected stretches of waterway. He said the state opened its own incident response office at the Montana Department of Transportation office in Billings to respond more effectively to citizens concerns.

Rolheiser said the company had made every effort to be transparent and to work as closely as possible with state and federal agencies.

"Our top priority has been to identity where the oil is, managing it and cleaning it up and managing impacts," Rolheiser said. "We have stated emphatically — including at the community meetings in Billings (Wednesday) night — that we will be there until that cleanup is complete, and the cleanup will be complete when the state of Montana says it's complete."

Schweitzer said officials with the state Department of Environmental Quality, along with state agriculture officials, will hold a meeting Friday morning to provide guidance to landowners on how to collect their own samples and submit them for testing.

"We're not in the business of submitting samples to ExxonMobil and asking their opinion," Schweitzer said. "We'll submit these samples to third party laboratories and what we'll submit to ExxonMobil is the bill."

Late Wednesday Schweitzer sent a strongly worded letter to Sherman Glass, ExxonMobil's president of refining and supply, demanding that the company preserve any possible evidence related to the ruptured pipeline in case of future litigation. Schweitzer also insisted that officials from both the state DEQ and the Environmental Protection Agency be on hand to observe any work the company does to replace the pipeline.

Rolheiser said he was unaware of the letter and declined to comment.

Schweitzer on Thursday sent a letter to Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, requesting records related to ExxonMobil’s Silvertip Pipeline dating back to 2006, including but not limited to “correspondence, notes, memoranda, reports, inspections, maps, charts, and all other documents…”

Schweitzer also requested records related to “complaints, regulatory violations, corrective actions, remedial actions, or concerns about any pipeline located in whole or in part in Montana….” 

UPDATE: Schweitzer’s office launched a new website with information about the Yellowstone River Oil Spill. Here’s the link.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Schweitzer to open oil spill office in Billings

Gov. Brian Schweitzer announced today that he will open an office in Billings Thursday to help citizens who have comments, questions or concerns regarding the oil spill.  Schweitzer will host a public meeting there Friday.

According to a statement released by the governor’s office Wednesday afternoon, the Billings office will be staffed daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. by someone who will collect information from citizens and help get answers to their questions or concerns.

Citizens can also call the office at (406) 657-0231 beginning tomorrow. Schweitzer will be in the office for part of the day on Friday.

Schweitzer said state agencies will be holding a public meeting at 10:00 a.m. on July 8.

The office is located at 424 Morey Street in the Montana Department of Transportation Billings District Office.

Branding stunt goes national

Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s theatrical “VETO branding” ceremony has caught the attention of the cable news networks.  FOX News and MSNBC aired clips from the Lowdown video last night and this morning.

Schweitzer has never shied away from making a big splash to make a political point, yet Wednesday’s performance was perhaps Schweitzer’s most brazen in-you-face political stunt since 1999, when the then hardly known Democratic U.S.  Senate candidate dumped $47,000 in cash onto the floor of the Capitol Rotunda to highlight the campaign cash his opponent, Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, received from tobacco companies.

Last night MSNBC host Rachel Maddow fawned over the veto branding during a nearly five minute segment on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

“How much does this dude love his job?” Maddow wondered.

Giving the spectacle rave reviews, Maddow said: “I could watch this all day. This is so much better than politics has any right to be.”

Here’s the video from the show:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FOX News picked up the story this morning, calling it a “must see moment.” I can’t find the video on their website so I posted a  camera phone clip from today’s “Happening Now” program. Sorry for the poor quality. You’ll have to turn up the volume a bit. If I find a clip from FOX I’ll post it.

While Schweitzer’s theatrics have garnered a lot of attention and praise from Democrats, Republicans, predictably, weren’t impressed.

"I think it's deeply disrespectful," Republican Sen. Jason Priest of Red Lodge said.

Schweitzer vetoed three of Priest's bills Wednesday, including a bill to revise energy efficiency building code requirements, a bill to prohibit the creation of health insurance exchanges under the new federal health care law and a bill to require cost-benefit analysis of mandated health insurance coverage.

"Some of those bills had bi-partisan support," Priest said. "I think not only is it bad political theater but bad policy."

Priest has a brand of his own: “BS.”

RAW Video: Schweitzer brands GOP bills

As promised, Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday fired up his infamous "veto" branding irons on the front steps of the Capitol and put the brand to seven GOP-backed bills. (video below)

In one of the most spectacular pieces of political theater in the Democrat's six years in office, Gov. Brian Schweitzer applied red-hot branding irons to wooden plaques representing bills ranging from elimination of same day voter registration to a bill that would allow new open pit gold and silver mining using cyanide leach process.

"These bills are either frivolous, unconstitutional or in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the people of Montana," Schweitzer said to a cheering crowd and a throng of reporters and television cameras.

As of Wednesday morning Schweitzer vetoed three bills and issued 10 amendatory vetoes. After the ceremonial "branding," Schweitzer vowed to go back into the Capitol and use his veto pen to officially veto 17 more bills.

"When I swore to uphold the Constitution I meant it," Schweitzer said.

I’ll have more on this later, including reaction from the GOP.

Video & images from today’s rally at the Capitol

Approximately 1,200-1,500 people rallied at the state Capitol today to protest GOP budget cutting proposals for public workers and services for children, the needy and the elderly.

I’ll have a complete story in tomorrow’s Great Falls Tribune.

In the meantime, here are some videos and photos from the event.

Here’s a video of demonstrators marching around the Capitol. It gives you a taste of the signs people were carrying as well as the size of the crowd:

Thoughts on the ‘End Game’

The arrival of April means we’re heading into the final furious weeks of the 2011 Legislature.

While this session has already been about as contentious as anyone could imagine, I suspect the final weeks could turn the dial up even more as majority Republicans begin to implement whatever strategy they have for getting their major budget and policy priorities past Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s “veto brand.”

There are plenty of rumors about the GOP strategy floating around the Capitol these days. One is that Republican leadership will try to get the budget bill out of conference committee early next week and get it to the governor’s desk by Friday, April 8. At that point, so the rumor goes, the Legislature will temporarily recess until after the governor either signs or vetoes House Bill 2. That would allow them to bank legislative days in the event that Schweitzer vetoes the bill. That way they could reconvene and address HB2 without having to come back for a special session, thus facing the wrath of voters whose patience for lawmaking grows thinner as the days grow longer.

But the rumored recess doesn’t necessarily solve the Legislature’s problem with the governor. Sooner or later they have to make a deal with the the lame duck with the veto pen.

And that brings me to the point of this post.

Republicans have taken a hard-line on the budget and other policy priorities. Still riding high on the “mandate” they say voters handed them in November to cut government spending. So far they don’t seem willing to back down and acquiesce to Schweitzer’s demand that they fully fund his human services and education budgets.

But does a body of 150 individual voices have the juice or experience or political savvy to beat Schweitzer at a game he has mastered?

I had a lengthy conversation with a Capitol insider and trusted source about the looming battle. It was a background conversation and not for attribution. But with the source’s permission, I thought I’d share some of the insight on Lowdown.  I can’t tell you the source’s name, but I can tell you this source has broad legislative experience and a background in politics. I think the analysis is sound, but since you don’t know the source you should take what follows with a grain of salt, of course…

Lowdown: Are the Republicans betting that they have public opinion on their side when it comes down to a budget battle with the governor?

Anonapundit: The bottom-line problem any legislative body has when they find themselves at odds with a governor—either on policy, politics, public relations, or a healthy mix of all three—is that it is impossible for a consensus to rise above the din of 150+ policy makers to challenge an individual voice who has staff in tow, a disciplined spokesperson, and typically an entire executive branch of career employees who must, at the very least, give a bold public face to the policy agenda of the governor. This is the institutional disadvantage of the legislative branch nationally, with public opinion polls always showing a legislature well below their counterpart governor regardless of party affiliation (save for a major scandal at the Blagojevich level). (Republican Gov.) Scott Walker in Wisconsin might yet prove to be a new paradigm, but overall this principle holds. 

Lowdown: Given that paradigm, how do you handicap these particular sparring partners: The GOP-Controlled Legislature and the powerful Democratic Governor?

Anonapundit: Regardless of one's take on Brian Schweitzer as Montana Governor, only his most ardent detractors would argue that he is not a strong governor. This is not a policy position or a scorecard on the administration's record, but rather a reflection that he is always on offense and has a a finger on the pulse of both state and national public opinion. Add to this the fact that Schweitzer is heading into the second half of a decade in this gig—with most of key staff and department heads in place—and you have a comfort level with process and policy that the legislature simply cannot match. On the surface the numbers from the election would seem daunting: 68-32 in the House, and as a special affront, a Republican representative in Butte, America of all places! The somewhat chagrined chief executive of the federal government called his much lesser loss a "shellacking." Yet the Governor has negotiated as though he has all the cards, with it remaining to be seen if this is bluff, buster, confidence, or a end game plan that is well thought out.

Lowdown: So what about 150 lawmakers occupying the red corner?

Anonapundit:  Newly elected legislators who received a couple of thousand votes (38 newbies in the House alone) may have driven to Helena secure in the knowledge that they have a mandate to implement what their core supporters have as an interest, whether driven by local concerns, national issues, or political and media narratives, but this needs to be considered within a state-wide policy context. To be fair, the aforementioned context of public opinion towards state legislative service is a bit unfair. Most "citizen" legislators run and serve because they want to make a positive difference in their districts. Their gig involves long hours at low pay  in a stressful situation that puts additional pressure on their main jobs and families back home,  with the cynicism of the public at the end of the day for their efforts. That said, people watching the legislative show have plenty of examples of bills, debate, and dialogue to take issue with. Hunting with spears and/or a silencer on a FWP license that you purchased in gold coins (assuming the agency hasn't been eliminated) might well be hyperbole, but not by much of a stretch. Once again, the legislative branch is not a disciplined machine. It has never been pretty, but if you get elected you get to have your say. What remains to be seen is whether or not legislative leadership has their own end game plan that will match or perhaps surpass the purported institutional advantage of the executive.

So there you have it. Of course we’ll all have to wait and see what happens from here on out, but I think it’s safe to say that the biggest fireworks are usually saved for the end of the show.

Medical Marijuana reform in jeopardy

As I write this the Senate is debating the sole remaining medical marijuana reform bill, Senate Bill 423 by Sen. Jess Essmann, R-Billings.

Please indulge me as I prognosticate about the future of reform…

Due to a procedural snafu the Senate didn’t vote on the bill by Tuesday’s deadline because they didn’t have a fiscal note that outlined the estimated cost of the bill.

The fiscal note was delivered today, and now the Senate will have to suspend rules in order to pass the bill on to the House. Suspension of the rules requires an affirmative vote by a two-thirds majority. Democrats have the votes to block suspension of the rules, but I don’t think that will happen. More on that later…

Senate President Jim Peterson told the Senate GOP caucus this morning that even if they don’t have the votes to suspend the rules, the Senate can still move forward and pass the bill under normal procedures. However, if that happens the House would have to suspend its rules in order to accept the bill.

But I don’t think it’ll come to that. Sources close to the debate tell me that Gov. Brian Schweitzer wants a medical marijuana reform bill on his desk…even if Democrats aren’t comfortable with the restrictions and limitations contained in SB423.

My guess is that Senate Democrats will vote to suspend the rules pass the bill, possibly with some Democrat-friendly amendments. If it then passes in the House, I’m hearing Schweitzer will offer an amendatory veto easing some of the restrictions contained in the bill, particularly as it relates to the use of medical marijuana by chronic pain patients. That could make it more palatable to Democrats and medical marijuana patients while allowing the Legislature to save face on reform.

Reforming the law has been a priority of both parties, and Democrats don’t want to see repeal. If the Legislature passes some sort of reform, I think it’s less likely that voters repeal it at the ballot box. I think that’s part of the calculation Democrats are making as they decide whether to pass SB423.

Then again, if Democrats have the votes to block the bill, it could end up being a powerful bargaining chip for restoring funding for human services in the governor’s budget.

Just some thoughts to keep you guessing as the Legislature nears the end of debate on one of the most contentious issues of the session.

Will the Legislature adjourn early?

Republican lawmakers — ever mindful of Gov. Brian Schweitzer's veto power—are considering a plan to temporarily adjourn the legislative session after delivering the state budget bill to the governor's desk in an attempt to avoid a special session.

Last week, Senate President Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, and House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, requested a memo from the Legislature's legal staff examining possible veto scenarios. The memo outlines the procedural requirements with respect to House Bill 2, the spending bill, including the Legislature's legal and procedural options should the governor veto the budget while the Legislature is in session.

Here’s a link to the full memo from acting chief legislative council Todd Everts.

Milburn confirmed Wednesday that GOP lawmakers are considering the idea of putting HB2 on Schweitzer's desk early, and then taking a break from the session and resuming it after Schweitzer makes his move on the budget.

"We have certainly studied that option," Milburn said.

Schweitzer sent a clear message to the GOP-controlled Legislature last month when he unveiled a "veto" branding iron.

Schweitzer refuses to say which bills he plans to veto, but he has indicated that he wouldn't hesitate to use the "hot iron" on HB2 if the measure is not to his liking.

The governor repeatedly has criticized GOP-proposed cuts to human services and education, including a plan to turn down $120 million in federal money.

"We've mentioned to them that they're just going to make taxes go up for property owners, and make health care costs go up for people who are paying private health insurance. Those really aren't acceptable solutions," Schweitzer said in an interview Wednesday.

Once a bill gets to his desk, the governor has 10 days to decide whether to sign it into law, administer a line-item veto, use an amendatory veto or veto the bill in its entirety. If Schweitzer doesn't sign or veto the bill, it becomes law after 10 days.

If the governor vetoes a bill that arrives on his desk after the Legislature has adjourned for the session, lawmakers can attempt to override the veto by mail-in ballot. If they fail to override the veto, the bill dies.

However, the state Constitution requires that lawmakers pass a budget, so if Schweitzer vetoes HB2 after lawmakers go home for the summer and they are unable to muster enough mail-in votes to override it, the Legislature must return to the Capitol for a special session at a date of the governor's choosing.

That's the scenario GOP leaders want to avoid.

If they get the budget on the governor's desk with legislative days to spare, and then temporarily adjourn for the 10 days Schweitzer has to act on the bill, it will leave time for lawmakers to take up the measure without a special session.

"The idea of adjourning early to leave time was to eliminate the possibility of a special session," Milburn said. "I would say that was more of an option earlier on. A lot of this depends upon what the governor wants to do. Is he interested in using his veto brand on House Bill 2 and then get on with the issues, or sit down and discuss it early on?"

Milburn said he and Peterson briefly met with Schweitzer about the budget on Monday.

"I think that after speaking to him and with Senator Peterson and I, we're all willing to sit down early in the process and get the executive branch included in House Bill 2," Milburn said.

Senate Majority Leader Jeff Essman, R-Billings, was less candid about the GOP's strategy for heading off a budget veto.

Asked if Senate Republicans were exploring the possibility of adjourning early, Essman said, "We are trying to pass a responsible budget that tightens the belt of state government, just like people are trying to do in their own homes. We think we need to go through a fact-based budgeting process. We think every dollar in the state budget needs to be looked at."

When pressed, Essman refused to say whether Republicans are considering early adjournment.

"We think it's important to have a process that we put forth a balanced budget that's responsible for all of Montanans, and give the governor an opportunity to look at it and react to it," Essman said. "I would say the requested memo speaks for itself in terms of all options being examined."

Democratic lawmakers said they are distressed with the pace at which Republicans are pushing the budget and related spending bills through the legislative process.

"I think they're pushing these bills without having given thoughtful consideration," Senate Minority Leader Carol Williams, D-Missoula, said. "The speed with which they're trying to get done is undercutting the quality of the product that we're putting out here. That does disturb me."

The Senate is expected to take up the budget early next week, and pass it as early as Wednesday or Thursday. If the House then accepts the Senate's changes to HB2, the measure could arrive on the governor's desk by the end of the week.

"I would say that would be iffy," Milburn said. "The House may not accept the amendments the Senate puts on."

Gov. Schweitzer’s State of the State

Tonight, at 7 p.m., Gov. Brian Schweitzer will deliver his fourth and final State of the State address to the full Legislature.

As far as I know the address won’t be streamed live on the Legislature’s website. However, Montana Public Radio, Montana PBS and Yellowstone Public Radio will provide live coverage on their member stations and online.

MTPR News Director Sally Mauk will host the coverage.

University of Montana journalism Professor Dennis Swibold and UM political science Assistant Professor Christopher Muste will join Mauk to provide analysis of the governor’s speech and the Republican response.

This is the first time Schweitzer has delivered the SOTS address to a Republican-controlled Legislature. Should be interesting. Be sure to tune in and to check tomorrow’s Great Falls Tribune for full coverage.

GOP candidates lining up for 2012

Former Republican Congressman Rick Hill on Monday announced his bid for Montana Governor at a kickoff event in Clancy.

Hill, who served two terms in the U.S. House in the late 1990s before a problem with his eyes kept him from running again in 2000, said revitalizing Montana’s economy tops his agenda.

Hill joins former state Sens. Ken Miller of Laurel and Corey Stapleton of Billings in the race for the GOP nomination for the post currently held by two-term Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer cannot run again in 2012 due to term limits.

In other news, sources told me on Monday that Bozeman businessman Steve Daines, who ran on Republican state Sen. Roy Brown’s gubernatorial ticket in 2008, intends to announce his bid for the U.S. Senate in the coming days.

Daines was traveling in Australia on Monday and unavailable for comment.

According to one Montana GOP insider, Daines is prepared to step aside from the senate race if Rep. Denny Rehberg decides to throw his hat in the ring to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In that scenario Daines would then run for Rehberg’s House seat, the source said.

Rehberg has long been rumored to be gearing up to take on Tester and has been vocal in his criticisms of Montana’s junior senator. According to Politico, Rehberg was spotted exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters just two days after Republicans’ huge showing in last Tuesday’s midterm elections.

CORRECTION: The Politico story I referenced was published in November 2009, not last week as I stated in my post. So the rumors of Rehberg’s alleged 2012 senate have been circulating for at least a year. Regardless, I regret the error.

Montana’s Senior Senator, Democrat Max Baucus, weighed in on subject, saying:

"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.

Stimulus Watch: "ERROR"

Gov. Brian Schweitzer unveiled the new Montana recovery Web site on Wednesday.

Let's just say it didn't exactly go off without a hitch. When I logged on to the Web site...well, the above screen shot should give you the picture.

I know, I know. The site is new and I'm sure the governor's staff are working furiously to work out the bugs, so let's cut them some slack.

However, I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it a bit amusing. Given the level of difficulty and complexity of trying to track the state's $1 billion+ in federal economic stimulus dollars, it's at least somewhat ironic that when I logged on to the state's stimulus tracking Web site, I found this message:

The server at testportal.msl.mt.gov is taking too long to respond.

In the interest of fairness, here's what Schweitzer says the new Web site will provide once it's up and running. From today's press release:

The updated website, www.recovery.mt.gov, includes an interactive county map that allows users to click on their county for a breakdown of funding into eight categories and a state overview. All monthly agency reports are available on-line.

“We are going to track every dollar,” said Schweitzer. “Every time you see a recovery sign it means we are putting Montanans to work reinvesting in our economy, improving efficiency, increasing public safety, and making a cleaner, healthier Montana.”

The updated website also incorporates an energy home improvement tax calculator. Under the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and state law homeowners are eligible for a $1,500 federal tax credit and a $500 state tax credit for home energy improvements.

“This is a great way for homeowners to see how much tax credits they can receive for home energy conservation improvements,” said Schweitzer. “It’s a win-win for homeowners – you receive a tax credit and see long-term saving in your energy costs.”