Duane Egan
Pamela Holmquist;Brad Abell;Randy Brodehl
Sheri Meadows;David Dobson;Devin Cady
Dear Commissioners:
On 13 Jun 2025 I sent the following email to Mr. Jared Schoeder, Code Compliance Technician, Planning and Zoning Office. In the email it discusses the “ChatGPT question on Ordinance No 6.docx document that I have Attached to both of these emails. I suggested that further discussion was warranted and I would be happy to discuss this with him. I have never heard from Mr. Schroeder regarding this request.
Therefore, I am requesting a meeting with you, the Flathead County Commissioners, to discuss this subject.
Please advise.
Thank You
Duane Egan
duane.egan@outlook.com
Duane Egan
Jared Schroeder
Sheri Meadows;David Dobson;Devin Cady
Thank you, Mr. Schroeder for meeting with me to discuss the Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26 that you and I have been working on for some time. It is my impression that we disagree on who is responsible for assigning abatement actions. You express the idea that the County Attorney is responsible for defining how the property owner should resolve the decay complaint, that is removal, shielding, etc. Whereas I believe that the Planning and Zoning Department Administrator is responsible for defining the abatement measures according to county Ordinance No. 6 and if the property owner is non-responsive to your directions, then you will call upon the County Attorney to obtain a Court Order to allow you to enter the property and perform abatement. These procedures are spelled out in county Ordinance No. 6, Control of Community Decay, and that is where we have differing views of the wording. Neither of us being lawyers, I decided to ask an uninvolved third party for a reasoned opinion.
The third party I selected is ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI. I posed what I believe is a fair question to ChatGPT regarding how to interpret the meaning of that particular area of the Ordinance that we disagree on and let the AI give us its opinion. I have copied this “question and answer” result from ChatGPT, pasted it into a Microsoft Word document, and Attached that file to this email, labeled “ChatGPT question on Ordinance No 6.docx.” I do concede the ChatGPT warns of possible mistakes, however in this case it appears to be an appropriate response.
As a result, I see that you have two alternatives of action paths:
Scenario 1 – No Change To Your Current Position
In this scenario you will continue to look to the County Attorney’s Office to direct the property owner to take abatement action as the County Attorney sees fit. In this case I expect the CA’s office and the P&Z office to continue to look to the other to be taking action when in fact nothing is being accomplished, as has been the case for this complaint for years now.
If you take the path of Scenario 1, I will consider this to be an act of “Abdication of Duty” and subject to Official Misconduct under MCA 45-7-401(1)(a), and subject to the penalties described therein.
Neither I nor the cosigners of this complaint wish to be forced to hire a lawyer to ask a court to force a county office to provide the public service described by law. We wish you would seriously consider the action of Scenario 2.
Scenario 2 – Assume Authority to Define the Abatement Rules
In this scenario you will advise the property owner that they have x-number of days to remove the community decay (shielding might be a more difficult task as the view from US Highway 2 is elevated by several feet and would make shielding expensive) or you will hire a contractor to enter the property and remove the decay as you define. Based on the property owner’s past history of obfuscation and stonewalling, this final order is not negotiable. If the property owner refuses to abide by your order, then you will request the County Attorney to seek a Court Order allowing you to enter the property and perform the abatement by using a private contractor.
If you take the Scenario 2 action, this will establish a procedure for dealing with many other zoning and decay complaints in the county that have lingered for years without resolution, such as this complaint. This type of action will be useful for convincing other scofflaws that it is not in their best interest to ignore your orders of abatement.
However, I also recognize that the process of hiring a contractor to remove decay or build shielding is not currently established. Also, the process of paying the contractor and placing a lien of the property for recovery of the costs is not defined, I believe. I suggest that these details will be needed to be worked out if you decide to abide by what I consider to be the appropriate and proper resolution, Scenario 2.
I will be happy to discuss this further if you wish.
Duane Egan
The following is a conversation I had with ChatGPT regarding How the Flathead County Community Decay Ordinance No. 6 should be interpreted by the Planning and Zoning Office, specifically, who is responsible be determine the method of abatement.
ChatGPT question on Ordinance No 6.docx
Duane’s question of ChatGPT:
This is a question of interpretation of Montana Flathead County Ordinance No. 6, Section 6 (a), “ The Flathead Zoning Administrator shall be responsible for initiating abatement proceedings.” I believe that this places the responsibility of defining abatement proceedings on the Zoning Administrator, not the Flathead County Attorney. In my discussions with the Zoning Administrator, he feels that the County Attorney should be the person responsible for describing the abatement process. Can you describe the different responsibilities of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney in this situation?
ChatGPT said:
You’re asking a critical legal interpretation question with practical implications. Let’s break it down clearly.
Flathead County Ordinance No. 6, Section 6(a):
“The Flathead Zoning Administrator shall be responsible for initiating abatement proceedings.”
This language strongly implies that responsibility for initiating the abatement process lies with the Zoning Administrator—not the County Attorney. The term initiating typically includes assessing violations, determining compliance status, and taking the first steps to enforce regulations.
Zoning Administrator Responsibilities (in this context):
- Inspect and Identify Violations: Determine if a property violates zoning or community decay standards.
- Issue Warnings or Notices: Often the first formal step in an abatement process is issuing a notice of violation.
- Define and Recommend Remedies: Describe what constitutes abatement (e.g., cleanup, removal, compliance timeline).
- Initiate Abatement: This could include referring unresolved violations to legal counsel or contracting cleanup.
- Coordinate with Legal Counsel: When voluntary compliance fails, the Zoning Administrator might need the County Attorney’s help to enforce through legal action.
County Attorney Responsibilities (typically):
- Provide Legal Counsel: Advise the Zoning Administrator and county officials on the legal implications of enforcement actions.
- Review or Draft Legal Documents: Such as court petitions or enforcement orders.
- Represent the County in Court: If the abatement requires legal action (e.g., court-ordered cleanup, fines), the County Attorney litigates.
- Ensure Due Process: Make sure all proceedings meet constitutional standards.
Key Distinction:
- The Zoning Administrator leads and initiates the process based on administrative/zoning authority.
- The County Attorney assists after legal escalation is necessary.
Your Interpretation:
Your reading is correct: the ordinance assigns the lead role in defining and launching abatement proceedings to the Zoning Administrator. He may rely on the County Attorney, but cannot defer his duties to that office.
If the Zoning Administrator refuses to act because the County Attorney hasn’t “defined” abatement, that could be seen as an abdication of duty under the ordinance.
Let me know if you’d like help drafting a formal inquiry or letter clarifying this division of responsibilities to the County or Commissioners — or want to see a sample legal responsibility summary, enforcement flowchart, or draft memo.
You, Duane, said:
Your last sentence “If the Zoning Administrator refuses to act because the County Attorney hasn’t “defined” abatement, that could be seen as an abdication of duty under the ordinance.” is confusing. When you say “abdication of duty”, who are you referring to and can you be more specific on what that duty is?
ChatGPT said:
Great question — let me clarify that sentence and be more specific.
When I said “abdication of duty,” I was referring specifically to the Zoning Administrator. Here’s why:
Duty Defined by Ordinance No. 6, Section 6(a):
“The Flathead Zoning Administrator shall be responsible for initiating abatement proceedings.”
This clearly assigns the Zoning Administrator the duty to take action when a zoning or community decay violation occurs. That includes:
- Identifying violations.
- Defining the steps needed for abatement (e.g., cleanup requirements, compliance deadlines).
- Notifying the violator and providing instructions or deadlines.
- Escalating to the County Attorney only if legal enforcement becomes necessary (e.g., when voluntary compliance fails).
What “Abdication of Duty” Means in This Context:
If the Zoning Administrator says they cannot act until the County Attorney “defines” abatement, they are effectively refusing to carry out their legal duty as described in the ordinance. That refusal is what could be considered an abdication of duty — meaning they are:
- Neglecting the responsibility assigned to their role, and
- Inappropriately shifting that responsibility to another official (the County Attorney), who does not have the duty to initiate abatement.
This distinction is especially important in a legal or administrative review, as it impacts who can be held accountable for enforcement failures.
Let me know if you’d like help framing this issue in a formal complaint, clarification request letter, or legal argument outline for use with county officials.