Committee hearings fail to reveal any wrongdoings

Sam Kaufman/Bigfork Eagle Tony Sagami gestures while addressing a special commission of Bigfork Steering Committee members last week.

After two meetings spread over two days involving nearly three hours of testimony, the Meyer Commission--for the lack of a better name--wrapped up an investigation Monday into whether the Bigfork Steering Committee chairperson used his influence to slant the community survey to favor his business interests.

The commission of five chosen from the Bigfork Steering Committee to conduct the investigation adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Monday leaving the impression that they could find no wrongdoing on the part of chairperson Doug Averill.

Last Thursday, during the regular steering committee meeting, members elected Buz Meyer, John Bourquin, Craig Wagner, Sue Hanson and Bob Hoene to conduct the investigation brought on by accusations from steering committee member Tony Sagami that the survey was tainted.

After much questioning, the commission offered nothing to indicate they found anything of substance to report back to BLUAC.

One of Sagami's primary complaints Monday was his claim that he was excluded from a leadership position as a steering committee officer because of "race," a claim steering committee members and officers said was untrue.

By only allowing officers to be at least one-year residents of Flathead County, Sagami said he was discriminated against because he has lived in Bigfork less than a year.

"You got to be white for that," he said. "It didn't affect anyone else. It excluded me from a leadership position. Nobody else in town was excluded."

Meyer and others on the commission disagreed and pointed out that Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee members must be at least two-year residents in order to get appointed to that board, and in order to get a fishing license from the state you have to be a resident for at least six months.

"You still had the right to vote. Everyone still has one vote," Meyer remarked.

They also pointed out that Averill never participated in the subcommittee that put together the survey and only served with reservation as chairperson of the entire steering committee.

Sagami also said Averill wanted to get a question regarding "trading development rights," also known as TDRs, on the survey.

The concept, a complex land development exchange between land owners that commission members said isn't even recognized by the state Legislature, failed to make it on the survey.

Sagami made a comparison, saying that even if you try to rob a bank, for example, it is still a crime whether you pull it off or not.

Averill pointed out that he couldn't make any financial gain by selling or buying a TDR, a concept that isn't even possible to carry out under Montana law in the manner Sagami described. Nor was it determined whether Averill would ever be a buyer or a seller of TDRs, making the question even less significant.

Sagami also said Averill doesn't favor incorporating Bigfork and tried to get that question taken off the survey, yet it remained on the survey.

"The county wants us to incorporate," Myer pointed out, and that was followed with Wagner stating that it was actually county commissioners who pushed to have the incorporation question put on the survey. Averill said he never recalled voicing an opinion one way or the other regarding the question being on the survey.

Sagami also said Averill also failed to alert the steering committee of his plans to develop 800 acres on the south side of Bigfork, and that amounted to a conflict of interest.

Averill, again, countered that claim, saying it was known for years that he is a large landowner and that he was forthcoming in telling steering committee members that he had potential land developments on the horizon.

Several steering committee members routinely backed Averill's testimony during the hearings and members of the commission regularly discounted Sagami's claims against Averill.

The week before, Sagami had pulled his accusation of discrimination "off the table" as a topic to be investigated by the commission.

He refused to clarify whether it was Averill as an individual, or the committee as a whole, that discriminated against him. He said he has directed that matter to the Montana Human Rights Commission, although late Monday he would only divulge that the state Human Rights Commission has appointed a "caseworker" to address his complaint.

The most damaging rebuttal to Sagami's claim that the survey was slanted to favor Averill's business interests came with the disclosure of "Exhibit C," a list of people and their signatures on a form stating that they approved of the survey and its contents.

Sagami's signature, likely made at a steering committee meeting in March, was clearly visible.

"Did you sign this?" Myer asked Sagami. "Yes," Sagami answered.

"You can't come back and criticize a survey you signed off on," Myer declared.

The commission met behind closed doors for a few minutes before adjourning. Myer said they would report their findings to BLUAC members on Thursday, a deadline imposed when BLUAC members assigned steering committee members the duty of investigating Sagami's claims.

Sagami, however, wanted at least 30 minutes more to go over the survey questions, a matter he said was a "less significant part of this."

It is the "appearance of impropriety" that Sagami said formed the core of his compliant, but commission members seemed not to buy into Sagami's line of reasoning.

"He either did or he didn't," Myer said at one time during the hearing Monday. "That's what we are here to decide."