Monday, November 30, 2009


Property Tax Day is again upon us. Many people saw a very large increase in the valuation of their real estate due the recent re-appraisal. Some people also saw substantial increases in the amount of taxes owed due to the re-appraisal while others received tax notices that were basically the same as last year. An important fact to consider for those that had a large increase in appraisal, even if it didn’t affect your tax bill this year, is the possibility that your future taxes in subsequent years can be increased by simply re-adjusting your mill levy which would then increase your taxes. This could be accomplished by the taxing authorities without notice and without any change to your property valuation. The Department of Revenue needs to be accountable for the proposed administrative rules which they are seeking to pass retroactively. You can contact your local representatives to demand that they support a legislative analysis of these proposed rules. The Department of Revenue will be increasing their taxing authority as it now stands. Please investigate and be wary of this back door very likely possibility of the government reaching deeper into your pocket books.

You can file an appeal of your taxable valuation, but the time is past for this year as you only have 30 days from the time the assessment notice is mailed. You can however file one for next year after January 1, 2010. You can find a blank form for doing this as a link on the website You also should obtain the 2009 Property Record Card from your local Department of Revenue office. This notice contains all of the details of “added calculations” used by the Department of Revenue to increase values.

The Havre Daily Corrector previously reported information about a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the unfairness and inadequacies of the re-appraisal process and you can read updates of the progress at

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


First, I am thankful that our congressional delegation is headed back home where they can do no more harm.  Since our Senators don't seem to want to have any townhall meetings so we can give input into this flawed health plan.  Be sure and track them down while they are on break if you can and have a little one to one meeting instead to make your opinions known.

Some of us at the Havre Daily Corrector have relatives in town or plans for Thursday on so this would be a perfect opportunity for thos of you that have a desire to share a "guest" editorial if you have the desire.  Just send them to our e-mail at  and we will get them posted.  Real name or your "handle" is ok with us

Monday, November 23, 2009


Senator Testor was reported as saying he was not for "government" run healthcare on Wednesday in the Sidney Herald yet voted for that exact same thing on Saturday.  What is his true stance on the subject?   I am confused, is Tester confused also?    Check out the bill's contents on Senator Tester's site at                                                                                            By Bill Vander Weele
Sidney Herald

All Montanans who wish to read the Senate’s health reform bill will have an opportunity to examine the contents.

U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., told state newspaper reporters Wednesday that once he has the bill, a link will be established on his Web site,, for the public to read the proposal. The bill was released Wednesday night.
“We anticipate the bill any day, really any minute,” Tester said on Wednesday morning. “Once we get it, it’s all hands on deck to read and analyze it.”

Tester says what he’s looking for in the bill are affordability, accessibility, prevention and wellness. The senator also wants to make sure residents can keep their current insurance if they like their plan.

He noted doing what’s best for rural America is the key. “By the way, all Montana is considered rural America,” the senator said.

Tester said he’s not in favor of a government run health care system. But he’s not totally against having a public option if it can help people.

“I don’t know if it will be finished by Christmas, but my crystal ball has been foggy about this process,” Tester said. His guess is the bill might get off the Senate floor about the time senators adjourn for the holiday break.

He added it’s a challenge to educate the public completely about health reform now because there are different bills. “As soon as we can get the bill done, we can do some serious education.”

Tester shares concerns about the federal deficit, but he feels health reform will create jobs and reduce health care costs on a national level.

“Health care is an animal around the neck of businesses and families right now,” Tester said. “We have to fix it. It can’t break the bank of families in the process. That’s our challenge.”

Saturday, November 21, 2009


My Senators must be confused.  Somehow they think that I want to pay more and be forced to buy, or have shoved down my throat, this health care package.  I was watching the coverage tonight and it wasn't an hour after the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents voted yes to move on to the debate on the Senate Health Bill that I got an e-mail from the Democrat Senatorial Committee telling me what a great job the Democrat Senators are doing and asking me for a donation to my party so we can get more of these "good Democrat" Senators next election. 


Come on people.  Start telling these political party people why you will no longer be giving them any money when they call and e-mail you!  Cut them off where it hurts and remind them that they represdent Montana, not Washington, DC

Friday, November 20, 2009


The Senate is set to take its first crucial vote on the Senate version of the Health Care reform bill Saturday night. The bill needs 60 votes to move forward to continue debate in its current form. The Democrats control 60 votes so it’s very important that they all stand united for the bill’s advance.

Some key provisions of the bill include
• Creates “non-profit” co-ops to provide insurance to members
• Establishes government insurance companies to compete with private insurers
• Provides that individual States can choose whether to participate in “government insurance”
• Beginning in 2013 everyone would be forced to buy insurance
• Deductable paid by insured would be based on income
• Many of the costs begin upon passage but the benefits of the program don’t go into effect until the years 2013 and 1014 allowing the pool of money to “buildup”

Who pays?
• Establishes a tax on “Cadillac” health plans
• Establishes an excise tax on all annual premiums of plans that are over $8,300 for individuals
• Raises Medicare payroll tax
• Slashes Medicare coverage
• Taxes health insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals
• Places an additional tax of 5% on cosmetic sugary
• Cost exemption goes into place after those that can’t afford coverage have paid 8% of their income for coverage
This is the Obama-Max Baucus Democrat plan and they need 60 votes to move it along. If one Democrat senator falters in his vote for this bill it will fail to move ahead. Now we know our Senator Baucus will vote yes as it is his bill. Senator Tester however, can make a difference on this vote. He has the opportunity on Saturday to protect Montanans from this over-reaching and costly plan. If our readers think this is a great plan, then by all means do nothing. If, on the other hand you think some of these details need more work as I do, be sure and call Senator Tester and demand he vote NO on Saturdays vote. Call the Capital - switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for Senator Tester’s office. Be active! Do something! Or do not complain when you get the bill.

Every Havre Union employee with a “Cadillac” plan will pay more under this version of the bill. Every person with a desire for a boob job or a facelift will be taxed for that luxury. Every poor person, currently uninsured will get forced to pay 8% of their income to yet another tax. Deductibles will be based on income but will be set by agency Czars so it could be argued that anyone with a “decent” job could be subjected to paying the load for those that can’t. Most importantly, the fact that the Government is going into “business” to compete with anyone, scares the living bajeebers out of me. Tell me one “business” that the government has ever run that succeeded.

Thursday, November 19, 2009


The business people in Havre have all been feeling the “pinch” of the tight economy. They are sitting on the edge of their chairs worrying about what could be a long winter with slow sales, high utility bills and other rising fixed expenses. They hear news reports on a daily basis telling them how all is improving, yet they see no local results. Many are hoping and praying that the beginning of the gift giving season of good cheer will bring an increase to their respective slumping businesses. So what do you suppose our State bureaucrats do to help? Yep, they increase the premium employers pay for Unemployment insurance an average of 71.5% starting in January.

Thank you Governor BS and our fat-cat well-paid tax-supported bureaucratic friends for this fine holiday gift. Where the Hell is our “stimulus?”

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


It has become apparent to this blogger that some things in Havre need to change. The news is full of stories about this government entity or that fighting yet another government entity. Allot of these problems are caused by party politics. The Democrats hate the Republicans and vice-versa. If someone from one party had a good idea for the good of Havre you could be assured that someone from the opposition party would oppose it. This just never made any sense to me. We all live and pay taxes here in Havre. I am as political as the next person and will argue and put in my 2-cents worth until the cows come home. However, once the election is over I go back believing we should work together for the good of the community until the next election when we can be “partisan” again supporting out chosen candidate.

Now I have come to realize that it is not only party politics that cause the problems. It is apparent that our elected officials don’t work together either. The whole county courthouse is Democrat, yet I have heard several of the Democrat leaders from the City Council offer views of disdain about their fellow Democrat officials at the county. This surprised me because I have assumed all these years that the various officials stuck together as political party members. Apparently rivalry and jealousy between City and County government is also alive and well. Over the years we have seen many examples of this bickering between our elected officials, such as the swimming pool controversy, location and control of the law enforcement dispatch, responsibility issues with the maintenance of certain roads and streets, and etc. When one of these bureaucratic blunderers does finally reach a decision it is more often than not, reached in one of those “Top Secret” deals such as the school board regularly does. Do these people forget that the taxpayers pay taxes to support ALL of these competing government bureaucracies? I for one am sick of my tax dollars being wasted by people that can’t work together and would agree that every single one of them should be voted out, regardless of party affiliation.

What I have not heard in all these controversies is any mention of a possible consolidation of government. What would be wrong with having a city-county government? You could hire an actual professionally trained City-County manager that could be an expert instead of the elected dim bulbs we presently see in office. The dim bulbs could still be elected as City-County commissioners and still be over-paid at the current two-hundred dollars per month. We could eliminate the salary of the Mayor and three commissioners plus their insurance and benefits thus more than save enough to hire a professional manager. We could also then combine dispatch, ambulance, swimming pool, road maintenance, law enforcement, and on and on. Just combining the positions of those that are duplicate Chiefs/Department heads could conceivably save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars

What is your opinion of at least looking into a non-partisan Consolidated City-County Government?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


We have all heard our “leaders” tell us over and over again that there will be no attack on our second amendment rights. Rehberg, Tester, Baucus, and on up through President Obama have claimed that they have no plans to regulate neither guns nor gun sales in our country.

While you may believe some of these politicians are speaking the truth, I am skeptical of the honesty of some of our so called “representatives. Rueters recently reported that the United States would participate in international talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales. (Read gun control for all participating nations)

Of course this announcement came from the U.S. State Department and our own beloved Hillary Clinton. Does it stand to reason that your representatives and good old President Obama can say they really didn’t lie when they said they opposed gun control in the United States but on the other hand support gun control for all United Nation members, which includes the United States?

2nd amendment rights folks best keep a watch on this one as it appears to be a back door attempt to regulate gun sales. What do you suppose would be next under the guise of international treaties?

Read the report on Rueters at

Sunday, November 15, 2009


E-1 towing is has been located next to Havre Ready Mix on High-Way 2 NE for a number of years operating out of the building you see in the picture. The Erickson’s also have been operating a salvage yard that at one time was located on the old city dump site north of Havre which is owned by Bill Baltrush. The Erickson’s have applied for a new license to locate a salvage yard just east of town on property they own which is off the high-way that has low lying areas to obstruct the junk from the view of the road. Hill County, and particularly Sanitation expert and impender of all progress Clay Vincent, have been constantly harassing them with unending requirements and road blocks to hold up the issuance of the salvage yard license. The long range plan according to the Erickson boys is to build a building on their property and vacate their present location entirely but they must first get the salvage yard back in operation.

The new site in this picture already has junk vehicles being dismantled and stored on the property. The picture of the new site was taken sitting on the approach to the old drive-in theater facing north. It is close to 31st Avenue NE. I drove down this lane as far as I could go until I came to a chained gate with nothing of the operation being visible. I circled the whole property going down to the old Krezlak meat plant, and behind to the railroad right of way, and wasn’t able to see any wrecked vehicles, even though they are there. There is one property that has a residence and the rest is commercial or agriculture uses. For the life of me, I cannot see what Clay’s problem is with this location, other than his disdain for the Erickson’s. The County Commissioners are taking public comment on this proposed site until Wednesday, November 18th at 5 pm and will make their determination according to the written comments they receive.

Now we all know that unless you have a problem with something you don’t tend to send in written comment so it is assured that there will be more negative comment then positive, thus assuring that the Erickson boys are doomed in this venture.

UNLESS! ……………….. Maybe some of our good followers would find this abuse of government power offensive like I do, and actually send in some comments in support of these people being able to expand their business. Is not this the same abuse we are all subject too? Like the school board, etc, etc? It’s time we take a stand against some of these power happy nit-wits that fight free enterprise at every turn.

Drop your written comments off at the Hill County Commissioner’s office or mail them to 315 4th St, Havre, Montana. Make sure they are in the Commissioner’s office by 5 pm on November 18th.

It’s time to take a stand and say “WE ARE MAD AS HELL, AND WE AREN’T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!”

Friday, November 13, 2009


Ever wonder what it cost to run the Head Start Program? According to information in this flyer they receive a $1,578,927 grant along with $394,732 in volunteer and donation dollars for a total of $1,973,659. Yes, you read it right! Right at two million dollars a year. This program serves 211 children in Hill, Blaine, and Liberty Counties for a mere cost of $9,354 each per year. Is this a good deal for us, the tax-payers? While the jury is out on that question the childcare folk at the State bureaucracys claim that this gives these 211 local children the ability to “go to school ready” thus saving the tax-payer money in the long run.

If you go to the State website at you will see page after page of documentation trying to convince you of the “merits” of their programs, but what infuriates me is the same old song and dance trying to get me to believe that these Government run programs are part of Montana’s “ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT”. Just what increase to the economy does a government program give us? Of course it is logical to claim that a program for people to become educated to rise up out of poverty has merit but it is not really something you can call economic development. Expenditure of tax dollars in a local community would seem to help the economy of that community but at what cost? Currently Head Start employs over 50 people to run this program benefiting 211 children. Is that a good return on investment for the tax-payers? And is employing 50 people with tax dollars that were taken from the local community for Federal and State taxes really creating “economic development” or decreasing development? Or is it just re-circulating existing dollars in a back-handed redistribution of wealth scheme? The website further goes on to state that Head Start eases the frequency of employee absences as 21% of all missed work is caused by “family issues”, hence they are helping the economy by keeping people at work. I further wonder how all these “fact finding” missions, studies, and websites funded with tax dollars justifying their very existence cost the over-burdened taxpayer.
Be sure and take a look at yet another burocratic website and give us your opinion.


Thursday, November 12, 2009


Havre City Judge elect David Krezelak made an astonishing move this morning when he announced he was declining the position of City Judge. Voters cast 1,686 votes for Krezelak less than 10 days ago giving him the victory in the non partisan race over his opponent Margaret Hencz who received 1,085 votes. Krezelak cited “personal reasons” for his decision.  Current City Judge, Joyce Perszyk didn't seek re-election and her term expires at the end of the year.

It is our understanding that the City Council is placing the appointment of a replacement on the council agenda to formulate a plan. We will keep you posted as we learn more.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009



The Havre Daily Corrector has obtained a copy of information given to our local school board by a local tax-paying voter regarding the awarding of the Highland Park school addition to an out of town contractor.  As you might have read in the so called local newspaper, the contoversy has arisen because some locals  dared question the actions of our local tax-spending school administration.  This information is posted below following the letter that was sent to the Havre School Board by a group calling themselves "Concerned Taxpayers and Havre Public School Supporters".  As you might have gleaned from the "politically correct" reporting of the local news paper, the requests addressed in this letter were for the most part, ignored.

The Havre Daily Corrector is attempting to obtain a copy of the controversial Chamber letter sent to the school board in support of local business in lieu of out of town spending of our local tax funds.  Watch for further updates


Concerned Taxpayers & Havre Public School Supporters
628 4th Avenue
Havre, MT 59501

October 16, 2009

Shad Huston
3633 6th Street W
Havre, MT 59501

Dear Mr. Huston;

We are requesting an Action Item to be placed on the agenda for the November 10th Havre Public School Board meeting to address the public concern over the decision and the selection process of the contractor for the Highland Park Elementary Building addition.
If an Action Item for the next meeting cannot be provided we are requesting a Special Public Meeting by the Havre Public School Board to be held to address the selection process of the contractor for the Highland Park Elementary Building addition.

Thank you in advance for your consideration for our request.


Concerned Taxpayers & Havre Public School Supporters

Cc: David Mahon, Superintendent

Havre Public School Board Members: Aileen Couch, Darlene Bricker, Harvey Capellen, Lee Christianson, Cindy Erickson, Norm Proctor, Curtis Smeby

John Kelleher – Managing Editor - Havre Daily News


• My name is Debi Rhines, My husband (Dave) & I are tax paying property owners in Hill County. Currently, my husband owns and operates Schine Inc., an Electrical Contracting business – Schine Electric and a Computer division - Bear Paw Technologies.

o Dave began his business in 2003; he currently employs 14 people. I currently work for Schine, Inc. overseeing the office operations.

o Schine Electric has employed upwards of 24 employees during peak construction periods.

o Schine Electric opened a shop in Glasgow, Montana in 2009, due to increased activity in the area by contractors such as Sletten & Clausen.

o Schine Electric is the largest Electrical Contractor in the Havre Area. In 2008, Schine Electric paid $654,713.00 out in Payroll to its Havre employees.

o To illuminate Information requested by the Havre Daily News and is probably of interest to the school board members.

 Schine Electric is a subcontractor for Clausen & Sons.

• Per our sales figures, in 2006 & 2007 less than 20% of our business came from our working relationship with Clausen & Sons.

• For the years 2008 & 2009 – 41% & 43% (respectfully) of sales came from contracts with Clausen & Sons. The increase in sales percentage is mainly due to large jobs such as the Border Patrol Stations built in Havre & Malta.

o Most certainly the relationship with Dave Clausen and his crew has grown over the past several years. Both firms are successful in many areas of the construction business – for example - professional installations, ability to complete contracts in a timely fashion and solid customer service.

o Regardless of our relationship with Clausen & Sons Contracting - I am here as a taxpayer in this city. Tax Dollars are used for the school district; the Havre Public Schools are funded by the collective community tax dollar. Your recent decision enabled you to use our money to supplement the livelihood of another company, their employees and the community in which they live in over 100 miles away from Havre

• In 2008, my husband and I and our commercial real estate partners paid to the Hill County Treasurer $16,738.00 in property taxes. Per the county, 47.354% of the paid taxes goes to the Havre Public Schools = that is $7,926.00 of OUR dollars sent your way for your use just last year. Now, I consider my husband, and our business partners “average” business community members in regards to property ownership. So for illustration purposes only: estimated tax dollar support could be argued to be valued around $300,000.00 or more from local business/property owners!

Estimated Business Property Owners 40
Avg tax contribution to HPS 7,900.00
Annual estimate contribution 316,000.00

This is only an estimate of business property owners in a city population of 9,630 people.

To look at the community as a whole I gathered information from Bear Paw Development.

2000 Housing Units = 4,400
2000 Average Home Value = $81,140.00
Taxable amount for an $81,140.00 home = $81,140.00 x .03010 = $2,442.00

Of the $2,442.00 paid by the homeowner an estimate of 47.354% goes to the School District = $1,156.00.
2000 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value $50,000 - $99,999 = 54.7%.
54.7% of the total number of housing units = 2,406.
2406 Households contribute an average $1,156.00 to the district
which annually is = $2,781,336.00.

I am not claiming to be an expert in school funding, but these simple illustrations show that WE THE TAX PAYING PEOPLE OF HAVRE HAVE A LARGER STAKE IN YOUR OPERATIONS and HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE SPENDING OF 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS.

There are no guarantees that the contractor of your choice will use local contractors. The majority of us in the contracting business live in homes within the range I have used in my illustration. These figures are from the 2000 Census. Please note our home prices have increased, thus has your revenue. I am guessing the employees of the local contractors that have been overlooked are a large percentage of the homes used in my example.

Another illustration:

o 2009 Employment numbers tell us that 4.5% of the measured and recorded populations of 4,588 people are in the construction business in Havre.

o 4.5% of the population measured is = to 206 people – if each person lives in the home previously illustrated, the collective group will have contributed a total of $238,136.00 to the district in just one year.

o Hardly a small figure to look over in regards to the construction business supporting the Havre Public School District.

• The larger corporations hire contractors based on the lowest bid – for example Wal-Mart, McDonalds & Pizza Hut – they are seeking to keep their bottom line lean – within our community these corporations hire out of town contractors – we see it frequently in our business. I can make choices on which businesses I wish to solicit – especially if I don’t feel those businesses are being a good community partner. However, I don’t have a choice to not pay my taxes based on school choosing to be a less than favorable community partner.

• In our request for a meeting with the Havre Public Schools we wanted an opportunity to discuss your decision making process. Discussion of thoughts and ideas can create a stronger relationship between the decision makers and the funding entity – US - the taxpayer.

1. How much have you actually saved between your choice and the local contractor?
2. Did you save enough money to be a good steward of our tax dollars?
3. In the process of selecting a Contractor Manager at Risk you provided a “Qualification Statement” to the contractors invited to present a Request for Qualification, your document indicates the evaluation process would be calculated by weighted criteria. What is the score? Where is the DATA?

Discussion of the process is healthy, by shutting us out – with comments like “you had your opportunity to attend the meeting” – you have created in my mind an antagonistic and a less than transparent operation with MY tax dollars. IN my view, you have taken our money out of town for your own best interests while you had a qualified and willing local contractor right here in our hometown.

• In another note – I feel you have shown a lack of integrity by making a comment to the Havre Daily in regards to your alleged communication with me, then not providing me with a copy of this communication at all. In addition, the Superintendent’s Assistant told me that my information was the information provided in the Havre Daily! Have you now appointed the Havre Daily as your new Communications Director? Under previous administrations the motto was a Tradition of Excellence. This current Havre Public School Board Chair and Superintendent have work to do to meet that description.

• Thank you for your time, I want the best for this community and questioning and understanding the decisions made by this board will offer me peace of mind that you are truly good stewards of our community tax dollars.


Why don't we ever hear any uproar about the wage and benifit packages of our congressional delegation.  The following is a copy of a very interesting article by Robert Longley,  The article appeared on at the following link

US Government InfoSalaries and Benefits of US Congress Members
By Robert Longley,

U.S. Congress salaries and benefits have been the source of taxpayer unhappiness and myths over the years. Here are some facts for your consideration.

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.

In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management1, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2009)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House2 - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Benefits Paid to Members of Congress
You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members of Congress receive retirement3 and health benefits4 under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System5 (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System6 (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

This page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit:
©2009, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009


The Havre Daily Corrector has had several requests for a post about who donated to the campaign of Mayor Rice who was beaten in the Mayor’s race by Tim Solomon. According to the Commissioner of Political Practices reports Mayor Rice contributed $200 to his own campaign as well as a one-hundred dollar donation from the Hilll County Republican Central Committee.

$160 was donated each by  Bill Baltrusch, Betty Baltrusch, Vinee Thompson, Dave Henry, Ken Myers, and Karen Myers. One-hundred dollar donors include Mary VanBuskirk, Larry Adams, Lou Adams, Dave Abbott and Tillie Patterson. Bill and Gail Rader also donated $50 to the campaign.

Hope this satisfies everyone’s inquiring minds that want to know.

Monday, November 9, 2009


Ever wonder just who might have been moved to give money to the victorious Mayor elect Tim Solomon’s campaign? Well, wonder no more. According to the reports filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices, Mr. Solomon’s campaign was financed by the following people plus a $500 donation from the Hill County Democrat Central Committee and a $400 contribution from Solomon himself towards the campaign.

Two hundred dollar donors included Doug Kaercher, and Murdo McKay. One $160 donation from Robert Sivertson. One-hundred dollar donations from Ed Hencz, Rachel Evens, John Musgrove, and Dennis Morgan. Fifty dollar donations from Clay Vincent, Karen Datko, Frank Hayes, Richard Glover, Mike Anderson, Darrold Hutchinson, Susan Somers, Greg Jergeson, and Pam Hillary.

All in all, a pretty moderate campaign budget to win the coveted Mayor’s position in the City of Havre.

Sunday, November 8, 2009


Thanks to Crabby girl for e-mailing us this pic

The house narrowly crammed the Pelosi Obama Care Bill down the taxpayers throats yesterday on a vote of  220 - 215.  At least we had our Congressman Dennis Rehberg having enough sense to vote no on the 2,000 page bill that no one in Montana has even read.  Can we count on the same good sense from Senators Baucus and Tester.  Give them a call to remind them to at least let us read the bill before voting to give away up to 1/6 of our national economy to yet another government take over

Friday, November 6, 2009


The Havre Chamber of Commerce board of directors recently voted unanimously to send a letter to the Havre School Board voicing their displeasure with the School Boards recent decision to send local tax dollars down the highway to an out of area contractor instead of dealing with one of our own local taxpaying contractors. We have been informed that when the School Board Chairman Shad Huston received the letter from the Chamber Directors, he blew a fuse and marched right down to the Chamber office to give them a good old fashion tongue lashing and cancel his business Chamber membership.

Apparently the Havre School Board is close to snapping under the strain of the community backlash regarding this inept decision. School board members are now acknowledging that they know that Clausen and Sons were indeed awarded the Glasgow Jail contract for over 5 million dollars as a “qualified” contractor using the same “Construction Manager at Risk” type of contracting process that our local school board just a few weeks ago deemed Clausen to “unqualified” to complete for 1.5 million.

It appears that the school board has been caught with their knickers down on this one. In an attempt to put a positive spin on this embarrassing situation, various board members are now proclaiming that they were instrumental in pointing out Clausen’s flaws in regards to the Manager at Risk process so he could make the necessary corrections and get the Glasgow job. Are they serious? They give the local a kick to the head and toss him under the bus and now they are trying to spin it that they “helped” him? When this outlandish “spin” was scoffed at by our interviewer the next defense offered was chiding back with “well he is THE out of town contractor in Glasgow now isn’t he?” First, what does that have to do with Highland Park School and Havre Montana? Secondly, he wouldn’t have to haul his crew to Glasgow to spend their wages if he was building a school addition in Havre. Maybe Anderson would be going to Glasgow? And lastly, I believe Mr. Clausen is from Malta which I would assume would be deemed “local” to Glasgow people.

Now the board is trying to divert attention from Havre’s Boondoogle story of the year and is getting off the subject here with chiding, accusations, and angry finger pointing. The School Board members maybe even are feeling some embarrassment about their whole lack-luster board performance (I should at least hope, even I would have at least a blushing when I got an Failing grade, which is what they have just received from Havre taxpayers.

Next they will be trying to tell us the “dog ate their research papers and they didn’t mean not to do their job”. GO STRAIGHT TO THE PRINCIPALS OFFICE AND AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO FESS UP

Wednesday, November 4, 2009


All eyes were on the Havre City races yesterday and now with a new day we recall that President Obama has been with us for one full year. A year ago in his victory speech he proclaimed that it was a new day in America and further went on to promise there would be changes in how Washington does business. He promised no new taxes to the middle class and pledged to go after the wealthy and the greedy corporate America.

So how is he doing with those promises? His first order of business within a week of being in office increased funding to third world countries including the restoration of abortion assistance dollars that were previously cut by President Bush. He then started his “apologetic” tour around the globe trying to convince our neighbors, friends, and enemies that we really weren’t the nation of Christians that the original founding fathers had proclaimed us to be, but rather a nation of diversity that accepted all faiths, government creeds, and ideals with favoritism to none.

It didn’t take long down the Obama Care road to realize that middle class America was going to have to buck up and pay a “little” more for the “good of all”. First on the tax increase spotlight was the untaxed retirement – health benefits of the very Union workers that had voted Obama into office. Social issues such as abortion and gay rights have made substantial progress under the liberal Obama administration.

Obama immediately started replacing seasoned leadership in the Capital with his comrades including the appointment of Czars for nearly everything that moves negating the influence of the various departments of our government. The only promise that this blogger can see that he has kept thus far is that we did indeed get “change”

Oh how I wish for the days of a good old “respectable” liberal like Lieberman.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


The mood was jubilant at the Election night Democratic Headquarters tonight as the Democrat Challenger Tim Solomon beat Incumbent Republican Mayor Bob Rice in a resounding victory marking an end to Rice’s eight-year term as Mayor. Recently there has been much speculation and discussion around town concerning the apparent potential for conflicts of interest should Solomon become Mayor in the often strained relationships between the City and County. Voters didn’t seem to share those concerns however as they gave Solomon the nod with 1,732 votes to Rice’s 1,066  votes in a fairly moderate turnout.

In the Ward one race Democrat incumbent Gerry Veis narrowly retained his council seat over political newcomer Republican Kathy Sangrey. Veis 378 to Sangrey 352. Ward 2 voters sent Republican Terry Schend into retirement from the council replacing him with Democrat challenger Janet Tretewey by 65 votes. Schend 341 – Trethewey 404. Republican Incumbent Robert Kaftan slipped by Democrat challenger Brenda Skornogoski on a vote of 345 to Skornogoski’s 332. Ward four incumbent Allen Woodwick faced no opposition and received 565 votes as the lone candidate.

Retiring City Judge, Joyce Perzayk, will hand over her seat in the non-partisan office to victor David Krezlak who received 1,686 votes to his opponent Margaret Hencz’s 1,085.

We salute all the candidates that threw their hats into the ring for the City election. It is the dedication and willingness to get involved with our local government process that makes this the great country we live in and we at the Havre Daily Corrector thank you. Havre voters now put our confidence in those newly elected to do what is best for all, supporters and opposition alike. We all want the best for our community.

A special thanks to Mayor Bob Rice for all that you have accomplished these last 8 years and we wish you well in the future. We recognize that being the Mayor or a councilman can be a very thankless job and it is because of those of you that are willing to step up to the plate that we have the great community that we live in. Good Luck Mayor elect Tim Solomon in your new office.


Dear Havre Daily Corrector readers,

Some omissions and inaccuracies need to be addressed regarding the
Havre Daily’s story about the personhood amendment that grassroots,
pro-life Montanans are working to get on the ballot for Montana Voters.

First, numerous Protestant and nonsectarian groups support this
effort, including the Montana Assemblies of God and Lutheran
Missouri-Synod, Personhood USA, Central Montana Right to Life, and
American Right to Life, to name just a few.

The article also failed to mention that various personhood efforts are
in the works in states across the nation. Montana’s grassroots effort
is part of a vast pro-life movement today, as science shows clearly
that unborn babies are people through such evidence as 3-D
ultrasounds, studies proving that unborn babies feel pain, the fact
that babies have brain waves at just six weeks gestation and
heartbeats even earlier, and that DNA determines at conception the
baby’s gender and exactly what the child will look like. This new
knowledge has led the solid majority of Americans to declare
themselves pro-life in recent national polling.

Catholic lobbyist Moe Wosepka was quoted as fearing the amendment
could someday find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly be
overturned, and, if so, somehow “solidify” Roe v Wade. I know of the
key lawyer shelling out this speculation (the same lawyer who tried to
get the national Republican caucus to waver in its opposition to
embryonic stem cell research). I disagree with him. And I’m far from
the only one.

The Montana Personhood amendment is supported by the LARGEST Catholic
pro-life organization in the United States, American Life League,
which is led by Judie Brown, one of a handful of advisors to the Pope
on respect-life issues. The LARGEST Catholic pro-life organization in
the world, Human Life International, supports personhood. The
Catholic, nationally renowned Thomas More Law Center has vowed to
support Montana’s amendment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if

I was surprised to read the sentence: “Warburton and leaders of the
Catholic Conference said they are saddened by the falling out between
the two factions.” I was surprised because I never said that, and
because, in my opinion, there is no “falling out,” and there are not
two “factions.” In fact, the actual, official position statement
distributed by Wosepka states: “We applaud the Montana Prolife
Coalition (MPLC) for their tireless dedication to life issues. While
we believe the personhood strategy is a political long shot, we stand
with the MPLC in their ultimate goal of overturning Roe V. Wade. We
do not oppose their efforts, but merely differ in our opinions about
what is likely to be the most effective strategy and what is the best
use of limited time and resources.”

The sentence about the attempt to get personhood on the ballot through
a vote of the legislature, which stated, “The measure was defeated,
receiving little support from Hi-Line lawmakers, except for Warburton
and Windy Boy,” was false. Our Senator, Kim Hanson, voted in support
of it, as did Phillips County’s Rep. Wayne Stahl and Sen. John
Brenden, and Liberty and Toole County Rep. Roy Hollandsworth and Sen.
Jerry Black. The only “Hi-Line lawmaker” anywhere near Havre who voted
against it was Rep. Bob Bergren. Rep. Tony Belcourt was absent. Anyone
can verify these votes online at Just type in a search
for SB 406.
In Montana, we have nothing to lose, unless we do nothing. Right now
in Montana, there are absolutely no state restrictions on abortion up
to the moment of labor. Right now in Montana, parents have no right to
know if their teenage daughter is taken to get an abortion. (But she
had better have your permission before she gets her ears pierced.)
Right now, hundreds of young women from other states come to Montana
to get abortions. This will continue unless we amend our state
constitution to recognize that unborn babies are people entitled to
some rights.

The fact that children who are not yet born are people, too, is simply
right and true. I believe in fighting for what is right true.


Rep. Wendy Warburton, HD 34



It was reported in the Wall Street Journal that Finance committee Chairman Max Baucus is urging the government Medicare administrators to threaten Humana Inc. to quit campaigning against the provisions of ObamaCare or they would be subject to fines and regulatory punishments. Humana Inc had released information to their customers about how the proposed ObamaCare would negatively cut their customer’s current Medicare benefits. Apparently our own Senator Baucus doesn’t think people have a right to know what’s in the health care bill until it is too late.

The whole dissemination of information to this point has involved smoke, mirrors, denial, and ambiguity. So what are some of the regulatory decisions?

In July Democrat Representative Lois Capp, California, added an amendment to the plan that mandates that at least one insurance plan in each State’s federally subsidized health plan must cover the cost of abortions. There still remains a provision that illegal immigrants can opt-into the plan for a small fee but the best part, in this bloggers opinion, states that you will be able to purchase your plan at places such as the local Social Security Office, local hospitals, “other” offices as deemed appropriate by each State, and even the local Department of Motor Vehicles. How convenient, go to renew your driver’s license and select your government run health plan.

These regulatory decisions go on and on like a list from any good socialist country that runs the life of its citizens. My question to our readers is “If the Federal Government is allowed to force you to buy healthcare, what is the next objective on our march to socialism?”

Perhaps the time has come for our readers to call Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, and Congressman Rehberg to vote No to any bills that the citizens of Montana haven’t had the opportunity to read in its entirety to enable local comments before that actual vote for passage.

Monday, November 2, 2009


While I was sitting at the City Council meeting tonight I caught myself wondering if I could sell a draft of the proceedings to NBC for a new Sit-Com and make myself some money. It is nearly unbelievable what transpires at a “normal” council meeting unless you can experience it with your very own eyes. Let me relate the highlights to our readers.

The council spent zero minutes discussing the Citie's oil and gas leases, zero minutes discussing the Fireman’s contract or discussing any other matter of substance before voting to approve. However, let there be a topic of minuscule proportions and the discussions and questions drone on and on.

For instance, Rancher Joe LaSalle, whose family has leased small parcels of City pasture land around the Bullhook drainage for decades, came to the council to request a 10 year lease instead of the annual renewal that he now holds as his prior 10 year lease comes to a close. Joe wants to do some fencing and improvements to the property to better serve his needs and would like to have a long enough lease to amortize the improvements to make it economically feasible for his operation. We are talking nickel and dime stuff here but you would have thought the City was negotiating the lease on the Trump Tower. Councilman rancher wannabe Bob Kaul went on and on trying to educate all in attendance about AUM’s, market values, and then proceeded to request that the council have a few fact finding meetings before taking a formal vote. If you didn’t know better you would have thought you were listening to J R Ewing explain grazing rotation on the South Fork to uneducated “City Folk” Mr. Kaul -- All Hat, No Cow.

The Council went on to approve the idea of offering $10 per square foot or CTEP funding to businessman Dave Shaw and any “other” projects. Seven misguided votes for approval with lone Councilman Brekke voting no to the use of CTEP money on private business improvements. I hope every businessman downtown takes full advantage of this ludicrous offer of the wasting of the City’s CTEP funding. Kudos to Brekke for standing up for what’s right.

The finance committee presented the claims and warrants for approval which were well in excess of $100,000 and the only item that they seemed to find fault with was an expenditure of $70 for anti-freeze. By the way, the anti-freeze was used by the Parks Dept to keep the toilets in the parks from freezing.

Sorry if we at the Corrector are feeling cynical tonight, but these are your representatives spending your tax dollars and it’s disheartening to see these types of “priorities”.

Sunday, November 1, 2009


Welcome to our page in the blogosphere. You may have received an e-mail inviting you to view this page. We apologize in advance for taking the liberty of gleaning some e-mail addresses from our followers e-mail accounts. If you received such an e-mail it will be the only one we will send you unsolicited but we do hope you pass this on as we do need lots of people to make a good blog exceptional.

Have some questions about what you read in the Newspaper? We are dedicated to posting the entire story, including what isn’t deemed newsworthy by the HDN. We will also attempt to correct the many miss-statement of facts printed in the local newspaper and would appreciate your help with this. We welcome your opinion and comments.

The Havre Daily Corrector is also are open to suggestion about the content on this blog and would even entertain the idea of people e-mailing us editorials for publishing on this blog. Any thoughts? You can e-mail us at or just go ahead and post to the comments section. All replies are confidential and we don’t and can’t track comments after the stories. We would ask that you identify yourself with some sort of name to make replies to your comments easier to follow. For instance there are some replies by people named anonymous to comments by other different people named anonymous in the stories below making following the thread difficult. It is easy to sign up for a Google account and it doesn’t even allow your e-mail to be seen, yet it will post your comments with the same “handle” each time you return. You can also just hit the “open ID” button in the comments section and put in a name manually each time you post such as those that have posted here previously,  like Crabby woman, Jimbo, Gallagher Paving and etc. Once you post a comment you can also check “E-mail follow-up comments to _______” to be instantly kept abreast of a follow-up response to your comment and the story.

Be sure and click on the Post (Atom) at the bottom of the page to subscribe to our news RSS feed which will show on your favorites when there is something new posted here. Check back often as we intend to get this blog rolling so we can all be kept abreast of what is going on in and around Havre.

Add our link  to your blogs, websites, Facebook, MySpace, and be sure and e-mail this link to any of your friends that you think may be interested.

We thank you and we appreciate your taking the time to take a look at this,

Havre Daily Corrector


The awarding of the questionable Highland Park School addition contract to out of town Anderson Construction of Helena instead of local contractor Clausen and Son has taken on yet a new twist. Local tax paying community members have been bombarding the School Board members with calls and letters demanding to know why local dollars are being “sent down the highway” instead of “stimulating” one of our own local taxpaying employers and his locally living and spending crew members. Here’s what they have learned.

First, most callers were told that Clausen didn’t have the experience with the “construction manager at risk” concept of contracting that the school had chosen to use on this 1.5 million dollar project. Imagine what a kick to the rear they will feel when they learn that Clausen and Son is inches away from being awarded a 5 million dollar Jail project in Glasgow using, you guessed it, a “construction manager at risk” contract with stimulus funds.

Secondly, a couple of board members let slip that Superintendent Dave Mahon, formerly of Huntley Project Montana, had suggested the “construction manager at risk” type of contract as the best approach to getting stimulus funds because he had experience with the process in Huntley. Also it is interesting to note that Dave Mahon, Dick Anderson Construction, and Nelson Architects all were involved in the Huntley Project construction process. Further inquiry reveals that Superintendent Mahon did in fact favor Anderson Construction and Nelson Architects because of his prior connection and did make this selection recommendation to the board. ATTENTION MR MAHON! You now live and are paid with tax dollars collected in HAVRE MONTANA……………….not Huntley project, Great Falls, or Helena.

Thirdly, the school board members that were quizzed by our “investigative” team, mentioned several times that they have been told to only disclose items that were given to them on a “talking points” type list by Chairman Huston during a behind the doors school board meeting because of “legal” and confidentiality” issues. HELLO unaware school board members! You may just want to check Montana Code Annotated 2-3-203 to refresh yourselves as to Montana open meeting laws which you clearly are violating.

Section 2-3-202 also states that a meeting can be by means of electronic equipment such as telephone or e-mail for determining an action over which the board has supervision or control.

Montana Code Annotated provides in Section 2-3-114 that any school board decision which has violated the open meeting provisions of the code can be set aside according to the law. In our humble opinion, local contractor Clausen should consult with his attorney as these bids should be re-opened.

What else do you suppose the School Board and Superintendent Mahon are hiding from the poor over-burdened taxpayers of Havre?