The question of whether a nativity scene may be displayed in the foyer of the Lone Rock School during the weeks in December leading up to Christmas was discussed by the Lone Rock School Board at its December 19 meeting. Based upon a recommendation from Superintendent John Miller, the board agreed that it needs to review its policies relating to use of school facilities for such purposes.

In the meantime, the board decided to allow a nativity scene to remain in the hallway of the main building until Friday, December 22. School will be in recess until January 2.

The nativity scene consists of standing plastic images of Joseph, Mary, the baby Jesus in a basket at their feet, with a plastic figure of Santa Claus placed nearby.

On December 1, the nativity scene was placed in the hallway of the school by local residents Ken and Cathy Kulonis. Acting on the orders of Superintendent Miller, the custodian removed it on the same day. After a meeting between the Kulonises, Miller and board attorney, Rob Stotz of Helena, it was decided on an interim basis to allow the nativity scene to remain.

At the December 19 meeting, during public comment, Cathy Kulonis stated that the board and some of its staff had shown "religious hostility in the past" by removing the nativity scene and by refusing to call the December school break "Christmas Holiday," and instead continue to call it "Winter Break" or "Winter Vacation." She stated, "Schools are not religion-free zones."

Superintendent Miller addressed the nativity scene issue later in the agenda in his report on facility use. He said that once the issue was raised, he and Stotz, the lawyer for the district, reviewed the school's facility use policies. They determined that the policies "were weak" and did not provide useful guidance for the board to evaluate the nativity scene issue. Miller stated that he is currently reviewing the policies, and he would make recommendations to the board early in the New Year.

In the meantime, he recommended that the board allow the nativity scene to remain in place until after school recessed on December 22.

Miller indicated that his biggest concern for allowing a display of this type was what other community groups, with varying beliefs and purposes, would demand the school to allow them their "displays." Allowing anyone in the community to use the school to express their personal viewpoints and beliefs, Miller asks, "Where and how would we ever draw the line?"

Board Chairman Russ Cleveland pointed out that the board will probably have to face the same issue at Easter time and other holidays. He asked Miller what was the opinion of the district's attorney. Miller said attorney Stotz "was totally opposed to it." In Stotz's view, "it should be taken down immediately."

Board member Ryon Brewer said he supported Miller's recommendations. He said it was important to clarify the school policies. He was in favor of allowing the nativity scene to remain on an interim basis.

From the audience, Gerri Mason stated that her beliefs were private to herself and "they are what they are." She said that the nativity scene "should not be allowed. This is a public school, and it's highly inappropriate." She added, "It's appalling."

Also from the audience, Kerry Mason stated that he had a history in the ministry. If the board allows the nativity scene, he asked what would stop someone from placing symbols of the pagan gods from which the modern celebration of Easter derived. He added, "Once the door is open, it's open for all."

On Friday, December 22, Miller confirmed to the Star that the nativity scene would be removed from the school foyer that afternoon. He further clarified that the school has a policy for use of its facilities by members of the public. The requesting party is required to submit a form, which must be signed by the appropriate official. On December 1, he ordered the nativity scene removed because neither he nor anyone else at the school had approved its placement.

He reiterated that the school policies needed to be "tightened." He explained his decision to temporarily allow the nativity scene to be replaced was because it was "supposed to be part of a larger display about how Christmas is celebrated around the world." He believed that a display of this nature would appropriately meet the court's requirements that any display have educational value, as opposed to primarily religious significance. He admitted that the addition of the plastic Santa Claus figure to the nativity scene might not have met this requirement, but he was withholding judgment until after the policy was clarified by the board.

Cathy Kulonis informed the Star that she and her husband never intended to violate school rules or policies when they put up the nativity scene. She filled out the appropriate form and submitted it to the school's business manager. She and her husband put up the nativity scene believing that it "was approved." She pointed out that this is the identical sequence of events that happened in 2005, when the same nativity scene was placed and remained on a table in the school's foyer during much of December 2005.

District lawyer Rob Stotz told the Star that no one can use school facilities for displaying any materials of any kind without specific approval. Further, Stotz added that the U.S. Supreme Court cases have not provided to school authorities a rigid or absolute test for what types of "free expression" are allowed inside public school property. He said these cases present difficult problems for school districts. "Unfortunately," he added, "there is no easy line to draw."

Generally, he said that the court has followed a three-part test developed from a 1971 case. Under this three-part test (known as the Lemon test, from the name of a party to a case), an action violates the Constitution and is invalid unless: (1) the action has a secular purpose; (2) the primary effect of the action is neither the advancement or inhibition of religion; and (3) the action does not give rise to an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

In 1984, the highest court allowed a Rhode Island city to display a nativity scene. The court said, "Thus, Christmas and Thanksgiving have been proclaimed national holidays in religious terms; our currency contains the national motto 'In God We Trust,' and the pledge of allegiance refers to 'One nation under God;' art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings, and the Supreme Court chamber in which oral arguments are heard is decorated with a symbol of religion--Moses with the Ten Commandments; and there are countless other illustrations of the Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage and governmental sponsorship of graphic manifestations of that heritage."

In 1989, the court ruled a nativity scene placed on Pittsburg public property violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, stating, "[G]overnment may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine. Here, Allegheny County has transgressed this line. It has chosen to celebrate Christmas in a way that has the effect of endorsing a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Under Lynch, and the rest of our cases, nothing more is required to demonstrate a violation of the Establishment Clause."

Stotz said that there is no case directly on point from the Montana Supreme Court and no precise test to guide the Lone Rock School Board regarding the legality of displays of nativity scenes within school buildings. Each and every policy and resulting situation must evaluate with reference to its specific facts and the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal case decisions.

He indicated that he would work with the superintendent and the board to develop a set of policy guidelines that will meet constitutional guidelines.

The matter will be discussed at the January 16 meeting of the Lone Rock School District board.

Two successful ballot measures challenged in court

By Michael Howell

Ten Ravalli County citizens have filed for a judicial review of the two ballot measures sponsored by the Local Government Review Study Commission that were approved by voters in the last election. One of the amendments would increase the number of Commissioners from three to five and the other would limit their terms in office to four years. Both amendments were approved by the voters in the November 7, 2006 election.

Filed in Ravalli County District Court on December 21, the lawsuit asks the Court to find that Ravalli County never adopted the "Commission Government" form of government, which would allow for the kind of amendments proposed by the Local Government Review Study Commission in the last election. The plaintiffs in the case, Fred Thomas, Frankie Laible, Bill Hester, Gene Williams, Dave Hurtt, Dorothy Berry, Gary Zebrowski, Dale Dye, Dave Woodgerd, and Dan Huls, ask the Court to find, instead, that Ravalli County, having never adopted the Commission Form, is by default an "elected county official government form" which does not allow more than three commissioners and sets their terms in office at six years.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Local Government Review Study Commission did not provide the voters with essential information about the effects of their vote, specifically, that by voting to increase the number of Commissioners and to decrease the length of terms in office, the voters would also be abolishing the current commission and that newly elected Commissioner Howard Lyons and Commissioners Greg Chilcott and Alan Thompson, whose terms have not expired, would all have to run for office again if they hoped to be a part of the new five-member commission.

They ask the Court to stop the scheduled April 3, 2007 special election because it is not authorized by the law, and ask for a review of the procedures followed by the Local Government Review Study Commission to determine if the procedures were valid.

Defendants in the case include the Local Government Review Study Commission; its members Alec Sutherland, Vicky Bohlig and Howard Anderson; the Ravalli County Commission; and the Ravalli County Clerk and Recorder.

Ravalli County Attorney George Corn addressed many of these issues at a meeting last week with the county commissioners. The meeting was called by Chairman Greg Chilcott to determine if the commissioners needed to issue a call for an election as part of the process. Corn said it was not necessary because the law gave the power to set the elections to the Local Government Review Study Commission. In response to a series of questions from Thomas at the time, Corn stated that his position was that Ravalli County adopted the Commission Government in 1976 by public vote, following another local government study review commission recommendation at the time.

Study Commission member Alec Sutherland was also at the meeting and said, in response to a question from Thomas, that the Local Government Review Study Commission relied on the information provided by the county in the form of certificates, validating that a Commission Government form had been adopted. Corn also stated that he believed the voter information pamphlet published by the study commission was legally adequate.

In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Thomas said that his group was unable to determine from the evidence so far if the voters really adopted a new form of government in 1976.

"We don't know the real answer," said Thomas. "If we can get that nailed down, what kind of government we really are, that will help makes things clearer for everyone."

On the one hand, he said, if the judge decides that the voters did not really choose a Commission Government in 1976, then it would follow that the ballot measures are invalid, but if the judge decides that the voters did adopt a Commission Government form in 1976, then a few other questions will still have to answered, such as, can a local government study commission abolish remaining terms?

"The law seems to say 'no'," Thomas said. "But then we have an Attorney General's Opinion that it says 'yes'. We need a judge to decide. And if he decides they can, did they give the public proper and complete notice?"

Thomas said that he believes there are enough questions about the law and the procedures used that a judicial review is called for.

"The law sets out the option for 10 citizens to seek a judicial review," said Thomas. "If it was a sound process based on sound interpretation of the law, to have a judge take a look at it will not hurt anything."

Thomas said that his group has some legitimate questions and just wants to be sure that the whole process was done right.

Corn said that his office was still reviewing the documents and sorting out the issues.

County agrees to 10-year lease for Hamilton Gun Club

By Michael Howell

The County Commissioners agreed last week to renew a 10-year lease with the Hamilton Gun Club for use of land at the Ravalli County Airport. The club has proposed an improvement project on the land to replace decadent concrete walkways on the site to make it more safe and accessible. One dark cloud looming over the lease renewal and improvements, however, is possible changes in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. According to unofficial minutes of the meeting, Commissioner Alan Thompson cautioned that the FAA sets specific standards and that the county could be notified at any time that the use of the land by the gun club was a non-compliant use and must be eliminated.

Airport Manager Page Gough said that if the club was using grant money to make the improvements, the money might have to be reimbursed if they were required to move due to changes in FAA regulations.

President of the Hamilton Gun Club, Mary Gehl, said the club was aware of the possibility and that the amount to be reimbursed would depend upon how long the improvements were in place prior to FAA notice.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott noted that if the county received notice that use of the land by the club was noncompliant, they might give six months notice or they might only give 30 days. The county would have no choice but to comply or lose its federal funding. Thompson stated that the gun club should be actively looking for alternative property.

Gehl said that the club was looking for alternative property but it was a problem. It was hard to find any suitable property since so much of the valley is already so populated.

Chilcott noted that the county is currently leasing airport land for agricultural purposes for $55 per acre. He thought the Hamilton Gun Club should be charged that amount as well. The club has been paying $50 per acre, but Gehl said that the club would agree to pay $55 per acre.

It was agreed to raise the lease payment from $50 to $55 per acre starting on January 1, 2007. The amended 10-year lease was approved unanimously.

Commissioners approve funds for creating office space at airport

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners decided last week to reach into their own budget to fund construction of some office space at the County Airport Building.

Commissioner Alan Thompson, following an on-site visit, expressed concern about security at the building. He also noted that the current space being used as office space in the building is not enclosed or heated.

According to unofficial minutes of the meeting, Commissioner Greg Chilcott called the working conditions primitive and in need of upgrading.

The plan, recommended by Page Gough, Manager of the Ravalli County Airport, is to build a 12-foot by 12-foot room with a lowered ceiling that would be easier to heat and create some storage space above it. The remainder of the building would only require heat if the equipment needed to be de-iced. Gough submitted a cost estimate of the required materials. Framing and electrical work will be contracted out, but Gough will do the finish work himself.

Commissioners agreed to fund the project from their own budget for an amount not to exceed $1,500.

A Tractor a Day...

By Getchen L. Langton

Gene Crosby was six years old when he began fixing tractors. Then, he did it out of necessity. His father was a sheep shearer in Platte, South Dakota; with nine children, a good deal of shearing had to be done in order to feed the family. When he was away, Gene and his brothers were responsible for making sure the Ford Furgeson was in working order. Gene's older brother would say to him, "I'll take it apart if you can put it back together."

Now, at sixty-five-years-old, Gene fixes tractors for therapy and tries to understand how it is that he got taken apart. The government deems Gene to be "110% disabled." Although he is confused how a person can be 10% more disabled than 100%, there is no doubt Gene has seen his share of physical challenges. He uses a cane, though he says he's tried to abandon this device. Gene's inner strength is constantly trying to beef up his outer shell. He suffers from ankylosing spondylitis which Gene's wife Rhonda explains "is five of the worst arthritises rolled into one." Gene says it amounts to a "freezing of my joints." He takes 21 pills a day. He has suffered through a triple bypass, several strokes (the second more debilitating than the first), and two hip replacements. Although the government begrudgingly pays for Gene's medical costs, it won't officially admit that it was his service to the US Army that is the most likely cause of his illness. To this day, the Veteran's Administration does not recognize any medical claims related to Project Whitecoat.

Gene was twenty-one when he entered Project Whitecoat. Project Whitecoat was a series of germ warfare studies (1954-1974) conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, using humans as guinea pigs. Roughly 2,300 Seventh-day Adventist servicemen were intentionally infected with Q fever, Tularemia, black plague, yellow fever, and anthrax in order to test the effectiveness of vaccinations against these deadly germs.

Why were Seventh-day Adventists singled out for such military duty? First, from the perspective of science, Adventists tend to be clean living folks who don't drink or smoke, and therefore, test results would not be tainted by outside influences. Secondly, Adventists are conscientious objectors, taking very the biblical commandment not to kill very seriously. As Adventists were increasingly drafted during Vietnam, they were given the option to be medics in war zones or take part in Project Whitecoat. And the Seventh-day Adventists' General Conference heartily sanctioned the participation of their men, saying, "The type of voluntary service which is being offered to our boys in this research project offers an excellent opportunity for these young men to render a service which will be of great value not only to military medicine but to public health generally." Gene was actively recruited by his church on the Army's behalf.

Whether or not the Adventist hierarchy was sold a fraudulent bill of goods by the US Army or whether they knowingly allowed their parishioners to be used in offensive military research, hardly matters to Gene now. He has left the Adventist church to attend the Baptist church. What does matter is the government's hesitancy to cooperate with the Crosbys. Gene was unable to access his own medical records from Project Whitecoat until Conrad Burns' office became involved because the government said his files were "classified." This is at odds with the Army's own fact sheet on Project Whitecoat which states that "the entire research program of this organization is unclassified." When Gene finally received his records, large, pertinent chunks of his files were blacked out. His records do indicate he was gassed with something, a disturbing revelation to Gene who was led to believe that he was exposed to the test germ by swallowing a foul-tasting liquid "in a dixie cup." Gene remembers asking about long-term side effects and being assured that side effects should not be a problem. Other Whitecoaters have similar stories; either they were placated or bullied, and all were required to keep their "mouths shut" about the project for a minimum of ten years or face harsh military sanctions. Since they were made to be silent, it is incredibly hard to determine who did suffer from side-effects, immediate or long-term, because they weren't able to seek transparent, non-military medical care. Gene says he suffered from bleeding ulcers for years after being gassed, studied, and vaccinated. One on-line source states that it may not have been the actual testing, but rather accidental exposure, which caused serious problems for some at Fort Detrick. Fort Detrick's own safety office recorded 3,330 lab accidents between 1954 and 1962 alone, "one-sixth of which resulted in infections serious enough to make employees too ill to work."

If the government is hoping Gene will just expire and thus be silenced, it may have to wait a while. He's got another tractor to put together, a 1940 John Deere, sitting in his garage in organized disarray. Gene says it's the tractors that keep him from brooding over his situation. That doesn't mean he's not angry. He simply redirects his energies and turns lemons into tractors. With wife Rhonda's help, Gene starts with tractors that could be mistaken for scrap metal, the sat-in-the-field-for-forty-years variety. He restores them from the inside out and is committed to authentic repairs with original parts when they are available. Gene gets parts from around the country and from local sources too. He smiles as he says that people driving by his Eastside Highway residence see his latest projects and leave him parts at the back door that they think he might need; this is how he scored the grill for a Minneapolis Moliene he was working on.

Gene and Rhonda have six fnished tractors parked behind the house right now: a 1970 John Deere, a 50's WD45 Alice Chambers, a 1960 435 John Deere, a 1947 M International, a 1929 McCormick, and a 1940 John Deere.

Gene's always got an eye open for new tractor projects. When asked for a good tractor acquisition story, both Gene and Rhonda laugh about the time they bought a super rusted 801 Ford for seventy-five bucks, in the Padre Islands, and decided to go pick it up on the most hectic traffic weekend of the year, during Spring Break. Risking life and limb to bring this one home was an OK proposition in the end since they were able to restore that Ford to mint condition and sell it for $5,500. Gene doesn't bother figuring out his hourly labor costs on these projects (although he will do tractor repairs for $20 per hour).

"Time doesn't mean that much to me," says Gene. "When I feel like working, I will." He says this in a laid back tone which doesn't do his industrious nature justice. He has albums full of encouraging before and after shots.

Gene doesn't just work on tractors. He painted his own Cherokee Warrior airplane and has worked on road graders, horse trailers, pick-ups, a Model A car (in process) and even rebuilt a John Deere corn harvesting wagon, which he trained his mules to pull. Gene and his wife of twenty-nine years have also raised emus, ostriches, and rheas (an ostrich-like bird). At one time they had 6,000 bee boxes and 2,000 hives.

The Crosbys have led incredibly interesting lives in the face of diversity. They plan to keep trying to gain information about Project Whitecoat, and they plan to keep acquiring tractors. If you have an old rust bucket behind the barn that you'd like to peddle, or if you have random tractor parts Iying around, or if you are in the market for a restored, fully functional tractor, give Gene and Rhonda a call at 777-0928.

Middle East Fork Project approved by Court

By Michael Howell

U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy rejected every claim made in a lawsuit by the WildWest Institute and Friends of the Bitterroot (FOB) contesting the approval by Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull of the state's first fuel reduction project done under President Bush's Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

The project, which covers almost 5,000 acres in the Sula area, was designed to reduce wildland fire threats to the Middle East Fork community and to treat the effects of a massive Douglas fir bark beetle infestation in the area, which exacerbates the fire hazard as trees die from the beetle infestation.

Although Molloy granted an initial request for a temporary restraining order in the case, he denied a request to extend that order when it expired, based on his determination that the groups did not have a fair chance of succeeding on the merits of the case. Since then, initial contracts for work on the project have already been awarded and work is ongoing on the Spring Mink Stewardship Project.

The groups claim that the Forest Service committed resources to the project before any decision was made when it paid to have the cutting units surveyed and trees marked for cutting. The groups also accused the Forest Service of censoring scientific data that was contrary to the proposal, of excluding certain members of the public from the decision making process, and ignoring soils data indicating that impacts from past logging in the area had already surpassed limits established by the Forest Service itself.

Molloy not only ruled against the environmental groups in his order, but also castigated them for ignoring the record and providing little or no citation to the record or to legal authority in their lawsuit.

"It creates the appearance that all a disgruntled participant needs to do is go through the motions until it is time to appeal to the Circuit," wrote Molloy.

Mathew Koehler, Director of the WildWest Institute, said that his group had not yet finished reviewing Molloy's ruling and that no decision had yet been made about how to respond. The group is concerned that the Forest Service is using the fuel reduction project as a guise for logging large trees far from the residential structures in the area.

The Forest Service has tentatively agreed to a request from the groups to institute a multiparty monitoring program for the project which would include members of the institute and FOB as well as University of Montana faculty and local residents.

Ravalli County joined the lawsuit on the side of the Forest Service and Ravalli County Attorney George Corn said that he believes that Molloy made the right decision. He called the case a "waste of judicial resources." He called it an important decision due to the issues of community safety involved.

Jim Miller, President of FOB, said, "We strongly disagree with Judge Molloy's decision. We feel that there are procedural and substantive issues with the project that were clearly illegal."

Miller pointed to the fact that the Forest Service spent $280,000 marking trees in the cutting units before any agency decision was made, as the primary offense. He said that since the temporary injunction on the project was not renewed and work on the project had already begun and the potential damage in the area was already being accomplished that the goal at this point would be to set a legal precedent so that actions like this cannot proceed in the future.

"Our judicial system allows that," said Miller, "and we will be making a decision soon."

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney