The Story - MontanaWatchDog.com

Document Availability Notice: Supporting documents referenced on this page are preserved in the author’s possession and are available for download or review upon written request. To request documents, use the Contact page.

The story begins in 2021, when I submitted two Flathead County Planning & Zoning Violation Complaint Forms, indicating Community Decay at two properties owned by Michael Seaman, at 5609 and 5611 US Highway 2 W, Columbia Falls, Mt., and at 4000 Hwy 2 E, Kalispell, MT. These complaints languished in the FP&Z Office and the Flathead County Attorney’s Office for 2021, 2022, and 2023. During this time, I had multiple conversations, oral and written, with the two offices regarding the status of these complaints.

What began as a straightforward citizen complaint became a test of something more basic: whether Flathead County will apply its own ordinance in a timely, consistent way—and whether its leadership will supervise the process when enforcement stalls.

This page is organized as a chronological record. It relies on dated entries and original communications so readers can follow the sequence of events as a story, beginning to end. This timeline and supporting documents are presented below. I have records, that is letters and emails, to support these events.

July 7, 2021

The story begins in year 2021 when I submitted a Community Decay Violation Complaint Form to the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office.

This complaint lingered in the Planning & Zoning Office and the County Attorney’s Office for 2021, 2022, and most of 2023. The County Attorney’s Office would assign it to a Deputy Count Attorney, who would get familiar with the case, occasionally work the matter, and eventually be reassigned or left the Office, and another DCA would take over. There must have been 5-6 such Deputy County Attorney’s assigned to this case over this time period. In Mid-2023 the complaint was scheduled to go before a Flathead County Justice Court for a bench Trial to force abatement procedures. However, the day before the trial, the P&Z Office closed the complaint, in a manner I believe did not follow procedure.”

This narrative jumps forward to 2024.

January of 2024

I wrote a letter to the Flathead County Commissioners, Ms. Pamela Holmquist, Brad Abell, and Randy Brodehl, with a copy to the Flathead County Director of Human Resources Tammy Skramovsky. This letter was titled “Misconduct ant the Flathead County Seat” to express my concern about the reasoning for the closure of the complaint. Shortly thereafter, I was able to have a conversation with County Commissioner Randy Brodehl, about the mishandling and inappropriate closure of the complaints and he conceded that there might have been some breakdown in the process and he would look into it. Eventually, when I inquired about the status of the complaints to the P&Z Office Code Compliance Technician, Mr. Will Clark, who had initiated the complaint closure memos, I was told that he was no longer employed by the county. When I asked about Mr. Clark, I was told they could not discuss this with me due to it being a ‘personnel issue’. Mr. Clark’s employment ended sometime after I sent my letter to the Commissioners with a copy to Human Resources.

In the “Misconduct” memo above I requested that the original complaint forms be reopened. This never happened.

February 20, 2024

I resubmitted another Violation Complaint Form against the same property at 5609 and 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls, Mt. This time, there were four business owners adjacent to the property, who were willing to co-signer on the complaint. When I later asked the P&Z Office about the status of the new complaint, I was told that it was on hold while the office hired a new Code Compliance Technician. Later, when I inquired about the status, the newly hired Technician, Mr. Jared Schroeder, told me it “would take him some time before he got up to speed on the new job.”

During 2024 I kept asking Mr. Schroeder about the status of the complaint and I kept getting vague answer about progress. In September of 2024 Mr. Schroeder told me that the Seaman’s were applying for a wrecking yard license for the property and that action on the complaint was on hold while this was in progress.

January 15, 2025

I wrote an email to Mr. Schroeder asking for status of the complaint and he said the Mr. Seaman had came into his office just yesterday and said he wants to bring the property into compliance, whereas Mr. Schroeder said he wanted to work with him through the process.

January 15, 2025

I also told Mr. Schroeder that I had a conversation with the County Attorney’s Office regarding the status of my complaint. I was told by the County Attorney’s Office Administrator, Sheri Houser, that they would not give me answers as to status, and such, and that I had “no standing to request status”, I would have to get that from the P&Z Office.

January 15, 2025

I submitted a written “Freedom of Information Act Request” to Sheri Houser, Office Administrator, Flathead County Attorney, for all public records the County Attorney’s office has created or received regarding my complaint, P&Z Office File No. FCD-21-26. I never did receive a response from Ms. Houser.

March 20, 2025

I received an email from Elspeth Cooper, Deputy County Attorney, Flathead County Attorney’s Office, that suggested that the P&Z Office has supplied me with status of my complaint while not specifically addressing my FOIA letter to Sheri Houser. This email letter from Ms. Elspeth Cooper, dated March 20, 2025, I will call it the “Cooper Mar 20 letter” for brevity, has several troubling issues. The email letter contained an Attachment titled “CAO Notice CD Seaman.doc” which was a letter that Ms. Cooper had sent to Mr. Seaman in January 2025. This email letter from Ms. Cooper never associated itself with my FOIA request to Ms. Sheri Houser, and being over 60 days late in response, I never related this to the FOIA Request. I therefore treated the County Attorney’s Office as being non-responsive to my FOIA request.

In the email, Ms. Cooper, states “… The County Attorney’s Office does not get involved in such matters when the property owner is working with the FCPZ Office to voluntarily come into compliance …” This statement appears inconsistent with the actions documented in the Attached document “CAO Notice CD Seaman.doc that shows that Ms. Cooper, and the County Attorney’s Office, were in fact involved in coercing Mr. Seaman by threatening him with civil or criminal penalties if he did not comply. I can also show, with documentation, that this notice of potential penalties was sent without what I believe to be properly documented evidence of non-compliance by the P&Z Office, only verbal comments, which is hardly evidence for criminal prosecution.

Both of the above issues resulted in my submitting a Grievance (Complaint) Against Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner, to the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which is still active as of January 1, 2026. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) is part of a comprehensive lawyer regulation system established by the Montana Supreme Court.

May 12, 2025

Thinking that the County Attorney’s Office had not responded to my original request for records (FOIA Request to Ms. Sheri Houser) I submitted another request for records to the County Attorney’s Office, this time pursuant to Montana Public Records Act (Montana Codes Annotated 2-6-1001) and this time specifically addressed to Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner. On May 19, 2025, I received an email from Deputy County Attorney Elspeth Cooper, again stating that “The County Attorney’s Office is not involved in this matter”, which appeared inconsistent with the communications I had discovered between Mr. Seaman, Ms. Cooper, Mr. Schroeder, and the Montana Attorney General’s Office.

January 28, 2025

I wrote a letter to the three Flathead County Commissioners addressing the issues (9 of them) I was having with the various county agencies regarding the lack of progress in dealing with my Community Decay Violation Complaint matters. In that letter I stated, “I request a hearing or consultation with you on this matter, at your convenience, within 30 calendar days.” – I never heard back from the Commissioners.

March 5, 2025

I submitted another letter to the three County Commissioners, Subject: Final Demand for Response – Community Decay Complaint and FOIA Request. Again, I never got a response from the County Commissioners.

March 20, 2025

l received an email letter from Elspeth Cooper, Deputy Flathead County Attorney. She stated that the FCPZ office has provided me with the document that I requested regarding the complaint submitted on February 20, 2024 – she never addressed the Public Records that had been subject to my request of the Flathead County Attorney’s Office. Also, in Ms. Cooper’s letter, she attached a letter she had sent to the property owner that threatens him with civil or criminal penalties.

April 21, 2025

Back to the Flathead P&Z Office conduct of Community Decay business.

I received an email from P&Z Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder, stating, in part:

“If there’s no valid license plates on vehicles that does not mean they are not registered. I advised Mr. Seaman, through is daughter Kayla, of this and advised that the vehicles either needed to be removed from the property or be shielded from view as per section 4 of the Flathead County Community Decay Ordinance. As of this email I have not heard back from him.”

One can see from the Mr. Schroeder email that the P&Z Office is still “negotiating” with the Seaman family on how to deal with the issue instead of actively pursuing abatement procedures. This has essentially been going on for four years¸ that is, the property owners do not respond or when they do respond it is with misleading or bogus statements. I have accumulated a series of emails between the Seaman’s and Mr. Schroeder during the summer of 2025, which makes it obvious that the Seamans’ responses resulted in delays, and removal or shielding actions were not completed.

June 13, 2025

This June 13 email letter to Mr. Scrhoeder of the Planning & Zoning Office is an important document, do not disregard this.

-I had a sit-down meeting with Mr. Schroeder in his office and discussed the Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26. Following that meeting I wrote an email letter to Mr. Schroeder summarizing the meeting and I point out to him that I thought that he was not applying the abatement rules of Ordinance No. 6 properly. The following is the email content:

From: Duane Egan
To: Jared Schroeder
CC: Sheri Meadows;David Dobson;Devin Cady
Date: June 13, 2025

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, this may be 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.

The following is the “ChatGPT question on Ordinance No 6.docx.” I mentioned earlier:

Duane’s question to 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.

Duane Egan

I request that we discuss this problem further – I never heard back from Mr. Schroeder.

July 15, 2025

I wrote an email message to Mr. Schroeder later, asking again for a follow-up meeting to discuss the complaint processing and Mr. Schroeder stated that he had referred this complaint to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office for review. I discovered later that this referral was in the form of a verbal conversation. It appears that the FCP&Z office is continuing to expect the County Attorney’s Office to define the abatement procedures which I had pointed out to Mr. Schroeder that the County Attorney’s Office was not going to address.

August 13, 2025

I sent an email letter to the County Commissioners discussing my June 13, 2025 meeting and letter to Mr. Schroeder. I requested a meeting with the Commissioners to discuss this matter – I never heard back from them.

September 2, 2025

I attended an open forum meeting of the County Commissioners, in their public meeting room in the Flathead County Court House. I spoke to them for about 7 minutes regarding my Community Decay Violation complaint issues. I observed that by not addressing the complaint processing issues in the FCPZ office they appear to be in violation of Montana Code Annotated 7-4-2110, supervision of county and other officers. They may also be in violation of MCA 2-6-1006, Public Information Requests, for ignoring my written requests for records. I also suggested that these actions could be violations of MCA 45-7-401, Official Misconduct, and I was prepared to refer these matters to the Flathead County Sheriff for investigation – I never heard back from the County Commissioners.

September 5, 2025

After deciding to file a complaint against the County Commissioners with the Flathead County Sheriff, I went to the Sheriff’s office in Kalispell and had a conversation with Patrol Commander Travis Smith regarding procedures I should follow in submitting a complaint. Deputy Smith sent me an email message shortly thereafter suggesting five alternative options I should consider for investigating the County Commissioners, none of which involved the County Sheriff. When I looked at MCA 7-32-2121, duties of sheriff, item (2), it reads “The sheriff shall: (2) arrest and take before the nearest magistrate for examination of persons who attempt to commit or have committed a public offense:” This law tells me that if the County Commissioners were violating the MCA codes listed above then these fall under the official duties of the Sheriff.

September 17, 2025

I submitted a written, hand delivered, complaint, Subject: “Request for Investigation of Official Misconduct by Flathead County Commissioners” to Flathead County Sheriff Brian Heino. This request alleges that the Flathead County Commissioners failed to Supervise County Offices (MCA 7-4-2112(2) and failed to respond to Public Records Requests (MCA 2-6-1006(2)). I requested that the sheriff open a probable cause investigation into these allegations. I never heard back from the Sheriff.

September 17, 2025

I received an email from Deputy Sheriff Travis Smith, stating that “… I do not believe we are the appropriated party to take that complaint.” Essentially, go find someone else to handle this.

October 2, 2025

I wrote an email to Sheriff Heino suggesting that it is not my obligation to find a suitable agency to investigate my complaint. I pointed out that he has the obligation and duty to determine if probable cause exists to refer my complaint to a prosecutor or other outside investigator for investigation if he feels he has a conflict of interest. I never heard back from Sheriff Heino. I never heard back from the Sheriff.

October 22, 2025

After receiving no response from the Sheriff’s Office, I submitted an official “Public Safety Officer Complaint Form” to the Montana Public safety Officer Standards & Training Council (POST). This office is responsible for the training and certification of all Montana public safety officers. The complaint included a Cover Letter describing the violations as I saw them, a narrative document of the history of communications with the Sheriff’s Office, and my original complaint letter to Sheriff Heino.

November 14, 2025

I received a letter from Mr. Timothy Allred, Executive Director, Montana POST Council, which dismisses my allegation. I have serious issues with this letter and the investigation conducted to that date, but that is a discussion for another time.

November 20, 2025

I decided that it was time to run a test on the Flathead County P&Z Office and the Flathead County Attorney’s Office to get an official accounting for my original Community Decay Complaint. My first step was to send an email letter to the manager of the Flathead Planning & Zoning Office as follows:

From: Duane Egan duane.egan@outlook.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:45 AM
To: Erik Mack emack@flathead.mt.gov
Cc: Pam.Holmquist Pam.Holmquist@flathead.mt.gov; Brad.Abell Brad.Abell@flathead.mt.gov; Randy Brodehl Randy.Brodlehl@flathead.mt.gov; Sheri Meadows sheri@costlesscarpet.com; David Dobson lasallervpark@gmail.com; Devin Cady Contact@empresstentsevents.com; Matt Baldwin mbaldwin@dailyinterlake.com; Holly Michels hmichels@montanafreepress.org; Kellyn Brown editor@flatheadbeacon.com
Subject: Status of Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26

Date: 20 Nov 2025

Dear Mr. Mack
Director, Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department

On 20 Feb 2024, I and three co-signers, filed a Community Decay Violation Complaint Form with your office against property located at 5609 and 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls, Mt. That Complaint was assigned with case number FCD-21-26. That was about 21 months ago. Since that time we have not seen any corrective action (“abatement” in the words of the Community Decay Ordinance) taken on the property.

I and the co-signers would like to know what is the current status of this complaint? And, do you have an estimate of when the corrective action may be complete?

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Mt 59912
Duane.egan@outlook.com

Shortly thereafter, that same day actually, I received an email reply from Mr. Mack as follows:

Erik Mack emack@flathead.mt.gov
To: Duane Egan (You)
CC: Sheri Meadows;David Dobson;Devin Cady;Holly Michels;Kellyn Brown;Pete Melnick

Dear Mr. Egan,
Thank you for your follow-up regarding the community decay violation FCD-21-26, concerning the properties at 5609 and 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls.
At this time, the case file has been forwarded to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office for further action. As the matter is now under their jurisdiction, I do not have any updates on its current status or a timeline for resolution. Any further progress will be determined by the County Attorney’s Office.
I understand your concerns and appreciate your patience. Please feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions.

Erik K. Mack, AICP

Planning Director & Floodplain Administrator
Flathead County Planning and Zoning
40 11th Street W. Ste. 220
Kalispell, MT 59901

My second step was to send Mr. Mack’s response letter to the Flathead County Attorney, Mr. Travis Ahner, and see if he would acknowledge that his office was indeed notified of the complaint by the P&Z Office. The email letter I sent to the County Attorney is as follows:

From: Duane Egan
To: Travis Ahner, Flathead County Attorney

CC: Pamela Holmquist;Brad Abell;Randy Brodehl;Sheri Meadows;David Dobson;Devin Cady;Matt Baldwin;Holly Michels;Kellyn Brown

Date: 20 Nov 2025

Dear Mr. Ahner
Flathead County Attorney

Today, I sent the following email to Mr. Erik Mack, Director, Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department:

I and the co-signers would like to know what is the current status of this complaint? And, do you have an estimate of when the corrective action may be complete?

Very shortly thereafter, I received the following email message from Mr. Mack:

Consequently, Mr. Ahner, would you please advise me and the co-signers of the current status of Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26 and when do you expect corrective action to be complete?

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Mt 59912
Duane.egan@outlook.com

As I have pointed out in letters to various county offices during 2024 and 2025, the P&Z Office declares that the County Attorney has been notified of the issue with Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26 but the County Attorney does not accept any responsibility nor does it take any action to advise the P&Z Office of proper procedures for Community Decay abatement. Furthermore, the County Commissioners, having been kept in the loop with these email letters, has not offered any opinion or action regarding their subordinate officers, the Planning & Zoning Office Manager and the County Attorney, at least none that I have been informed of.

As of February 20, 2026, three months later, I have received no response from him or his office.

[Supporting Document: 2025_11_20-CAO-Status Request To Ahner – Outlook.pdf

January 1, 2026

At this time, I am considering the idea of taking both the POST complaint dismissal and the County Commissioners actions to the Montana Legislative Audit Division which is responsible for conducting independent audits of state agencies regarding operations and finances. I have tried to deal with the Montana LAD before on a different issue but without success or cooperation.

January 15, 2026

I decided that I would try to get some assistance from our local newspaper, The Daily Inter Lake. I sent the following email to the Managing Editor, Mr. Matt Baldwin:

From: Duane Egan

To: Matt Baldwin

Cc: Sheri Meadows;Devin Cady;David Dobson

Hello Mr. Baldwin

On Sunday, January 11, 2026, the Inter Lake had an Inter Lake Editorial “Lakeshore enforcement key to preserving Flathead’s waters”, which I assume you had a part in writing. In that article, you said “… But a regulation is only as good as its enforcement…” Also, the title of that article says “… enforcement being a key to preserving Flathead’s waters.” I called you on the following Tuesday about those statements and left a message that enforcement was bound to fail and I would like to meet with you and offer my rationale for that. I now feel that a written report of what I intended to speak to about would be appropriate.

This email will also act as a status update I periodically give to the cosigners, business owners shown in the Cc’s list above, of a Community Decay Violation Complaint all of signed on March 6, 2024 and sent to the County Planning & Zoning Office. To date there has been no clean-up (abatement) action taken on this complaint and it is still an open action item with the P&Z Office.

So, Mr. Baldwin, here is why Lakeshore enforcement will likely fail.

As you are probably aware of, the Flathead County website, https://flatheadcounty.gov/, has a page for the Planning & Zoning Department. Buried in that page is a database report titled “Flathead County Planning & Zoning Violation Reporter.” This report appears to be current with new complaints being recorded on a continuing basis. The interesting part of this report is when an analysis is done on the data. On January 12, 2026 I did such an analysis.

Alleged Community Decay Violation:

Time period of the complaints: Oldest is 12/16/2022, latest is 1/12/2026

Total complaints are 46

Reported as “Resolved” = 2, or 4%.

Reported as “Sent to Flathead County Attorney” = 12, or 26%

The remainder, 32 (70%), are in some sort of interim status, i.e., First Notice, Final Notice, etc.

Alleged Lakeshore Violation

Time period of the complaints: Oldest is 12/19/2022, latest is 1/13/2026

Total complaints are 12

Reported as “Resolved” = 0

Reported as “Sent to Flathead County Attorney” =1, or 8%

The remainder, 11 (92%) are in an interim status

Alleged Zoning Violation:

Time period of the complaints: Oldest is 12/15/2022, latest is 1/6/2026

Total complaints are 70

Reported as “Resolved” = 5, or 7%

Reported as “Sent to Flathead County Attorney” = 11, or 16%

The remainder, 54 (77%) are in an interim status

Total violations of these three categories:

Total complaints are 128

Reported as “Resolved” = 7, or 5%

Reported as “Sent to Flathead County Attorney” = 24, or 19%

The remainder, 97 (76%) are in an interim status

There are a variety of ways one can look at this data but when one considers that only 5% of reported Total violation have been resolved, there is not much hope that enforcement will protect our lakes in Flathead County.

I have actively worked to obtain corrective action on the Community Decay Violation Complaint that I and the other cosigners submitted years ago and we have seen no cleanup results. I see the Flathead Planning & Zoning Department as failing in several ways of not properly conducting the enforcement rules. The Flathead County Attorney will not answer my email when I ask him for status of my complaint that the Planning & Zoning Office says has been sent to the County Attorney. Most importantly, I have advised the Flathead County Commissioners of these oversights and have been met with silence, i.e., no supervision of subordinate managers, which by Montana law, MCA 45-7-401, is considered Official Misconduct.

Furthermore, I have documented my history of this ineffective county management on a website named Montanawatchdog.com and I urge you to read the long history of records and emails that I have recorded in this matter. In this website is a page named “The Story” which contains the details and timeline of this history.

If you would like any more information on this subject I would be happy to meet with you.

Duane Egan

3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Mt 59912

Tel: 406-892-3621, Email: duane.egan@outlook.com

January 25, 2026

After ten days I have not heard back from the Daily Inter Lake.

January 25, 2026

Since the County Commissioners would not respond to my written requests for discussion on the information on the Community Decay Violation complaint I decided to seek out a formal request for my addressing the subject matter during one of their periodic public meetings that they hold in the meeting room outside their offices on the third floor of the county courthouse. I would need to send a letter to Mr. Pete Melnick, the County Administrator, and request to be put on the agenda for one of these meetings. The following is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Melnick.

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3621
duane.egan@outlook.com

January 25, 2026

Mr. Pete Melnick
County Administrator
Flathead County Commissioners Office
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
cc: Commissioner Pamela Holmquist
cc: Commissioner Brad Abell
cc: Commissioner Randy Brodehl
cc: Dori Magar, Clerk of the Board Planning
cc: Erik K. Mack, Planning Director, Flathead County Planning & Zoning D
cc: Travis Ahner, Flathead County Attorney
cc: Sheri Meadows; David Dobson; Devin Cady (co-signers)

Re: Request for Agenda Discussion and Board Direction — Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26 (5609 & 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls, Mt)
Dear Mr. Melnick,
I am writing to formally request that the Flathead County Commissioners schedule a public discussion / agenda item (Discussion and Direction) regarding the long-pending Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26, involving properties at 5609 and 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls Mt.
This request is not submitted as “public comment.” I am requesting a noticed agenda item where the Commissioners will receive questions from the public, can receive a concise staff update, ask questions on the record, and provide clear direction to the responsible departments regarding next steps and timelines.
Purpose of the requested discussion
The purpose of this agenda item is to obtain:

A clear status update on FCD-21-26, including what actions have been taken to date and what actions remain;
A clear timeline for completion of enforcement/abatement, or—if the County is declining to proceed—a written explanation of that decision; and
Clarification of the County’s intended procedure when a property owner does not comply with abatement requirements under the Community Decay ordinance (including when and what legal action is sought and by whom).
Background and prior non-response
This complaint has been pending for an extended period. In brief:
• On February 20, 2024, I and three co-signers filed the Community Decay Violation Complaint Form for the above properties, assigned FCD-21-26.
• Following a meeting with Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder on June 13, 2025, I sent a written follow-up (and later a second request on July 15, 2025) seeking continued discussion on the ordinance procedure and how abatement would be pursued when compliance is not obtained. I did not receive a response to those written requests.
• On August 13, 2025, I formally requested a meeting with the Commissioners. I received no response.
• On November 20, 2025, I requested status from Planning & Zoning Director Erik Mack. Mr. Mack responded the same day indicating the case file had been forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office for further action and that Planning & Zoning had no update or timeline. I then wrote the County Attorney, Mr. Travis Ahner, requesting status and an estimated timeline. As of today, I have received no response from Mr. Ahner.
Given this history, I am asking for your assistance to ensure this matter receives a scheduled, accountable discussion rather than continued informal circulation without resolution.
Requested attendees
So that the Commissioners can obtain direct answers and provide effective direction, I request that the agenda item include, at minimum, attendance by:
• The Flathead County Commissioners
• The Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department Manager/Director (Mr. Erik Mack)
• The Flathead County Attorney (Mr. Travis Ahner), or a designated representative able to address the legal posture and anticipated timeline

What I am requesting from you

Please take the steps necessary to:

Place this matter on the Commissioners meeting agenda as a “Discussion and Direction” item (or equivalent);
Ensure a short, written status memorandum is included in the agenda packet in advance, addressing:
• the current posture of FCD-21-26,
• actions taken and remaining steps,
• responsibility assignments between Planning & Zoning and the County Attorney’s Office, and
• the County’s expected timeline; and
Provide me with written confirmation that this agenda item has been scheduled, including the date/time, or if it is denied, the reason for denial and an alternative process to obtain a decision on the record.
Practical scheduling
I am requesting a 30-minute agenda slot, at the next available meeting date. If a longer slot is required, I will accommodate the County’s scheduling needs. I am willing to limit my remarks to a concise summary and questions relevant to the ordinance procedure and timeline.
Attachments (history)
For convenience, I am attaching copies of the following correspondence reflecting the history of this matter and prior non-response:
Letter/email to Jared Schroeder — June 13, 2025 (re ordinance procedure)
Letter/email to Jared Schroeder — July 15, 2025 (request for continued discussion)
Letter to Commissioners — August 13, 2025 (request meeting)
Email thread with Erik Mack — November 20, 2025 (case forwarded to County Attorney)
Letter to Travis Ahner — November 20, 2025 (request for status and timeline)
Thank you for your attention. I would appreciate a written reply within 10 business days confirming the scheduled discussion date or stating the County’s position and next steps.
Sincerely,
Duane Egan

Filename: Letter to Melnick Jan 25 2026.docx

January 27, 2026

I received the following response letter from Mr. Melnick:

Duane,

Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to raise your concern.

I want to explain why this cannot be placed on a Board of Commissioners meeting agenda at this time. When an issue is already under review by the County Attorney’s Office, it is being handled as a legal and enforcement matter rather than a policy discussion. Those matters are intentionally kept outside of the public meeting agenda to protect due process, maintain attorney–client privilege, and ensure the integrity of any investigation or enforcement action.

The Board of Commissioners’ role is to set policy and provide general direction for the county. The County Attorney’s Office is responsible for investigating alleged violations and determining appropriate legal steps. Discussing an active legal matter in a public meeting could compromise that process or create the appearance of influencing a legal decision.

Respectfully,

Pete Melnick

County Administrator

February 2, 2026

Today I sent an email response to Mr. Pete Melnick’s “rejection” letter above with CC: to County Commissioners Pamela Holmquist, Randy Brodehl, and Brad Abell. The email contained an Attached letter with filename “Response to Melnick dismissal letter Rev A.pdf” and the body of the letter is shown below:

Subject
RE: Request for Agenda Discussion and Board Direction — Community Decay Complaint FCD-21-26 (5609 & 5611 US Hwy 2 W, Columbia Falls, Mt

Dear Mr. Melnick,

Regarding your email to me dated January 27, 2026 declining to place my request for a Discussion & Direction item on a Board of County Commissioners agenda.
This request is narrowly focused on status, timeline, and administrative oversight for Community Decay complaint FCD-21-26. It is not a request for the Board to prejudge merits, disclose evidence, or direct litigation strategy.
To keep this clear, I will address the rationale in your email point-by-point:

1.“When an issue is already under review by the County Attorney’s Office it is being handled as a legal and enforcement matter rather than a policy discussion.”

Being “under review” by the County Attorney is not, by itself, a basis to exclude an item from the public agenda when the requested discussion is limited to status, timeline, and oversight. A properly bounded agenda item can cover non-privileged, non-merits topics such as:
• current status at a high level (e.g., referred to County Attorney on [date]; awaiting [next step])
• anticipated timeline ranges for administrative handling
• roles and workflow between Planning & Zoning, the County Attorney’s Office, and the Board
• whether the County is declining to proceed, and if so, the written administrative rationale
• furthermore, I am questioning whether the County Attorney is actively “reviewing” this violation. If so, please provide the written request for legal review or support from the Planning & Zoning Office to the County Attorney’s Office.

2. “Those matters are intentionally kept outside the public meeting agenda to protect due process, maintain attorney–client privilege, and ensure integrity…”

I agree that due process and privilege should be respected. Those concerns are addressed by limiting the scope, not by refusing all public oversight.

Accordingly, please identify:
a) what specific portion of the requested Discussion & Direction item you contend is privileged;
b) who the privileged “client” is (Board/County/department); and
c) why non-privileged topics (status/timeline/oversight) cannot be discussed in open session.

If the County believes a portion truly requires confidentiality, that can be handled by separating

Open session: process/timeline/workflow and any non-privileged status update
Closed session (if truly necessary): limited legal strategy discussion with counsel

3. “The Board of Commissioners role is to set policy and provide general direction for the county.”

The Board’s responsibilities are broader than policy-setting alone. Montana law (MCA 7-4-2110 (2) and (5) provides the Board supervisory authority and a duty to see that county officers faithfully perform their duties (including proper administrative handling and timely processing of enforcement complaints).

4. “The County Attorney’s Office is responsible for investigating alleged violations and determining appropriate legal steps.”

The County Attorney’s Office has told me that they do not investigate alleged violation and determine appropriate legal steps, they say that is the responsibly of the Planning and Zoning Office, which is contrary to your statement above.

Additionally, my understanding from communications with the County Attorney’s Office is that the Planning & Zoning Office performs the investigation of Community Decay Violations and administrative enforcement workflow under Ordinance No. 6 rules, with the County Attorney providing legal services as needed. This needs clarification between the two Offices and are non-privileged subjects. If the County’s position is different, please provide the County’s written description of responsibilities for FCD-21-26 (Planning & Zoning vs. County Attorney) and the current stage of the matter.

To be clear: I am not asking the Board to direct legal strategy or decide merits. I am requesting that the Board exercise oversight to ensure the County’s administrative process is functioning—especially where a complaint has remained unresolved for over two years without a clear public-facing timeline.

Requested resolution:
To move this forward in a constructive and orderly way, please do one of the following:

A) Place a limited-scope Discussion & Direction item on the next available agenda, titled for example:
“Community Decay Enforcement Process: status/timeline/workflow for FCD-21-26 (non-privileged; non-merits) with open discussion with the complainant(s).”
—OR—

B) Provide a written administrative determination that includes:
• current status and the office responsible for the next step
• the expected timeline range for the next action and closure
• Clarification of which Office has specific responsibilities at each step
• whether the County is declining to proceed, and if so, the written basis for that decision
• the specific authority (statute, rule, or County policy) relied upon to deny placing this item on the agenda

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your written response.
Respectfully,

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912

As of February, 10, 2026, I have not received a response from Mr. Melnick.

[Supporting document: 2026_02_02-CC-Rebuttal To Melnick.docx]

[Supporting Document: 2026_02_02-CC Email to Melnick With Attached Rebuttal Letter – Outlook.pdf]

February 5, 2026

I called Mr. Erik Mack, the Office Manager of the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department, to schedule a meeting with him to discuss the resolution of Community Decay Violation complaint FCD-21-26. I told him I think I have a solution that should solve the problem and make everyone happy. He was not available and I left a voice message to return my call.

February 10, 2026, 11:16 AM

After receiving no call back from Mr. Mack, I sent him the following email message:

Hello Mr. Mack

I would like to sit down with you and discuss a solution to the delay in resolving my Community Decay Violation Complaint, FCD 21-26. I think that I have a solution that would satisfy everyone.

Can I have 20-30 minutes of your time, at your office, at your convenience to discuss this proposal?

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Mt 59912
Tel: 406-892-3621 Email: duane.egan@outlook.com

February 10, 2026, 4:30 PM

In the afternoon I received an email response from Mr. Mack. This email is copied below:

Erik Mackemack@flathead.mt.gov
To: Duane Egan

Cc: Jared Schroeder

Thank you for reaching out. At this time, I am unable to meet to discuss the Community Decay Violation Complaint, as this matter has been forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office for further action. Once a case is in their hands, any discussion or resolution needs to occur through their office rather than ours.
I appreciate your willingness to work toward a solution, and you are welcome to present your proposal directly to the County Attorney’s Office for their consideration.

Erik K. Mack, AICP

Planning Director & Floodplain Administrator

Flathead County Planning and Zoning

40 11th Street W. Ste. 220

Kalispell, MT 59901

February 11, 2026 Red Flag Analysis:

This email from Mr. Mack is classic stonewalling: redirect the complainant to another office and close the door. Notice what he doesn’t acknowledge—the five-year delay, when the case was supposedly forwarded to the County Attorney, what action (if any) is being taken, or any timeline for resolution.
I didn’t ask Mr. Mack to resolve the complaint in our meeting. I asked for 20-30 minutes to “discuss a solution to the delay” and present a proposal. His refusal to even meet reveals the core problem: Planning & Zoning says “talk to the County Attorney,” the County Attorney’s Office has told me they aren’t involved (see November 20, 2025), and responsibility circles between offices while nothing gets resolved for five years.
This is how stonewalling works. Redirect. Defer. Close the door. Another problem off his desk—except the problem isn’t solved, it’s just buried.

February 17, 2026

For Your Information (FYI): The following is a news release posted in the Daily Inter Lake on February 17, 2026, announcing Mr. Brad Abell’s run for re-election:

Running for a second term on county commission

by Brad Abell
| February 17, 2026 12:00 AM
Today, I would like to announce that I am running for a second term as Flathead County commissioner.
I will continue to support all law enforcement agencies to keep our community a safe place to live and work. By supporting the bond for the new detention facility, our employees will have safer working conditions. The new more efficient facility will provide space and accountability for those who break the law. The new facility will make sure Flathead County does not release violent criminals onto our streets. With the new mental health wing, we will be able to better support and help those that are in a low point in their lives.
I do not support Flathead County becoming a sanctuary county.
My promise to you is that I will do everything in my power to support law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws and prevent Flathead County from becoming a sanctuary county.
I remain committed to maintaining a fiscally sound budget. I have worked hard to hold the line on spending, while still providing essential services that will keep Flathead County a safe place to live and work. Our budget is in excellent shape, and I am committed to keeping it that way.
I have learned a lot in the last six years that will serve me well if I am fortunate enough to be elected to a second term as your commissioner. I have worked hard to build relationships with other elected officials, which has allowed me to work together with other talented individuals to solve problems and address issues vital to Flathead County.
I want to thank you for the confidence you have placed in me as your commissioner over the last few years. If I am fortunate to be elected to a second term, I promise you that I will work as hard as I can to keep Flathead County a wonderful, safe place to live and work.
I humbly ask for your support as I launch my campaign for a second term as Flathead County Commissioner.
Brad Abell is a Flathead County commissioner.

Mar 3, 2026

I sent the following email to Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner:

From: Duane Egan
To: Travis Ahner

Dear Mr. Ahner
Flathead County Attorney,

On November 20, 2025 I sent you an email requesting the status of Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26 that I was told by Mr. Erik Mack, Director, Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department, had been forwarded to your Office for further action. I never heard back from you.

I am therefore writing to formally request any public records you may have received from the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department relative to Complaint FCD-21-26 under the authority of Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 2-6-1006, which governs access to public information. The time period would cover year 2025 and this year-to-date.

Montana law requires that a public entity shall respond to requests for public records in a timely manner. Specifically, MCA 2-6-1006(2) requires that a public agency respond, even if the requested documents do not exist or are exempt from disclosure.

Please indicate whether the requested records exist, will be provided, are partially available, or are being denied—along with the specific legal basis for any denial, as required under MCA 2-6-1006(3). I will be available to come to your office to pick up any documents.

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Mt 59912
duane.egan@outlook.com

Mar 5, 2026

This is an update of the Flathead County open (unresolved) zoning violations:

I entered the https://maps.flatheadcounty.gov website and opened the “Flathead County Planning & Zoning Violation Reporter” page. This page contains data showing information about various code violations in Flathead County. The page is not friendly for extracting data and one must copy/paste sections into a Word or Excel file and then do manual counts of the violations. The following are the results of such an extraction:

Violation Type Unresolved Cases

Billboard 2
Community Decay 42
Floodplain 25
Lakeshore 9
Subdivision 2
Zoning 61

Total 141

Oldest case is dated 12/16/2022
Newest case is dated 2/18/2026

Mar 9, 2026

On Mar 5, 2026 I requested of the P&Z Office to provide me with a .csv file of the Flathead County Ordinance Violations database. On Mar 9, 2026 they responded with an email and an Attached .csv file of the requested database records. I converted this to an Excel file and performed some analysis of the records. The counts were very close to what I had obtained manually on Mar 5, 2026 above as shown below:

Billboard 2

Community Decay 44

Floodplain 24

Lakeshore 9

Subdivision 3

Zoning 60

I then created a chart of this data as shown below:

I will try to keep this updated by requesting a csv file from the P&Z Office at the first day of the month for the current database which should allow a chart that shows the cumulative trend of the violations categories as on ongoing bases.

March 28, 2026

I made an interesting finding in the downloaded database cvs record. A violation complaint, record No. FCD-23-23, was filed against a property located at 33 Colter Trail, Kalispell, on May 25, 2023. This violation was submitted by a Mr. Brad Abell, the same Mr. Abell that is the County Commissioner and it was filed from the County Court House at 800 South Main Street, Kalispell. The violation went through the usual notification process, although lengthy, until the property owner failed to respond and the P&Z Office sent a letter to the Flathead County Deputy Attorney Elspeth Cooper, notifying her of the history of the violation and following property owner notifications. One interesting aspect of this letter to Ms. Cooper is that there is no request for any action by the P&Z Department, that is, no request for legal action, etc., just a simple letter of notification, nothing else. This letter to Ms. Cooper was sent on October 16, 2024, and there is no record in the P&Z violation folder of any response from Ms. Cooper. Again, the County Attorney’s Office is notified of a violation and no action is taken by that office.

One has to ask themselves, what was Mr. Abell’s intent in filing such an arbitrary, it seems, violation if not for a test of the violations system tracking and conduct. It appears that Mr. Abell never followed up on the submission since there have been no other communications records filed in the P&Z Office folder for this record since October 16, 2024.

Again, a case of a violation filed, the property owner does not respond, and the county allows the complaint to become dormant. The County Planning & Zoning Department, the County Attorney’s Office, and the County Commissioners Office are all complicit in this breakdown of action. I am going to label this:

Management by Avoidance:

The pattern in which separate government departments, without coordination, independently choose to avoid accountability, avoid citizen/public access, and avoid consequence — each acting in its own interest, producing the same result of obstruction without the necessity of conspiracy.

April 1, 2026

I sent another request for a csv file of the P&Z Violations database into the person at P&Z who last sent me the file on March 9, 2026, above. I will update the “Active Ordinance Violations …” chart shown on March 9, 2026 above.

April 1, 2026

I sent a letter to the Daily Inter Lake newspaper, addressed to the Publisher Anton Kaufer and the Managing Editor Matt Baldwin. This letter requested that they conduct an investigative journalism review of my claims of disfunction at the Flathead County Commissioner’s Office, the Flathead County Attorney’s Office, and the Flathead Planning & Zoning Office based on my website, montanawatchdog.com data.

April 14, 2026

I attended the County Commissioners public meeting today, in their public conference room on the third floor of the County Courthouse. I presented them with a letter titled: “Re: Statutory Supervisory Duty of the Board of County Commissioners Over All County Officers, including the County Attorney; and the Five-Year Non-Resolution of Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26.” The full content of this letter is contained in this website page titled “Reference Documents.” In summary, the letter refutes Commissioner Brad Abell’s claim that the commissioners do not have the authority to supervise the conduct of the Flathead County Attorney in county administration business. The letter provides clear statements of Montana state laws, Montana Code Annotated 7-4-2110, that explicitly direct the County Commissioners to supervise the County Attorney involving county business and administration activities.

Furthermore, the letter requests the Board of Commissioners to formally acknowledge this condition, give the County Attorney specific instructions to address the lapse of resolution of FCD-21-26, and to provide me with a response to this effect within 10 days.

I also informed the commissioners that I may take certain other actions available to me, as a citizen, if I find their response unacceptable. This could include filing a complaint against them with the state Attorney General’s office which, in worst case, could remove them from office for Official Misconduct.

April 27, 2026

Today I filed, via USPS Certified Mail, a Complaint to the Montana Attorney General’s Office. This complaint contained a cover letter, a main-body complaint document, and a set of Exhibits supporting the main-body. The cover letter and the main complaint document have been copied to the Page titled “Reference Documents” under the date section “April 27, 2026. The Exhibits document is lengthy and is an itemized repeat of letters and email found in various places on “The Story” page of this website.

I have also created a document titled “Stonewalled At The Flathead County Courthouse” which I intend to distribute to various individuals that may be interested in supporting this cause. This document is as follows:

STONEWALLED AT THE FLATHEAD COUNTY COURTHOUSE
A Five-Year Public Record of Silence, Deflection, and Probable Violation of Montana Law
By Duane Egan · MontanaWatchdog.com · April 22, 2026

The Accusation, Stated Plainly
For nearly five years, I have attempted — through every proper, lawful, and respectful channel available to a Montana citizen — to obtain a decision on a single Community Decay Violation Complaint, FCD-21-26, from the Flathead County Courthouse.

In that time, seven elected and appointed Flathead County officials have refused to respond, refused a meeting, refused a hearing, or passed the file to someone else who also refuses to respond.

Not one denial on the merits. Not one written finding. Not one hearing. Just silence — passed from office to office like a hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops.

This is not a personal grievance. It is a documented pattern of conduct that, on its face, appears to violate Article II, §§ 8 and 9 of the Montana Constitution, MCA § 2-3-103 (Public Participation in Governmental Operations), and MCA § 7-4-2110 (the non-delegable duty of the Board of County Commissioners to supervise county officers).
I am putting this record in front of the public because the officials named below have made it clear they will not answer to me. They will have to answer to their constituents.

The Timeline: Five Years of Non-Response

Date – What I Did – What They Did

July 7, 2021 Filed Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26 with Flathead County Planning & Zoning. Complaint accepted.
Mid-2023 — P&Z improperly closed the complaint without resolution.
Feb. 20, 2024 Refiled the same violation. Complaint re-accepted. Nothing else happened.
June 13, 2025 Emailed Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder, identifying specific misapplication of Community Decay Ordinance No. 6. No response.
July 15, 2025 Sent follow-up email to Mr. Schroeder requesting a meeting. Mr. Schroeder replied that the file had been “referred to the County Attorney’s Office.”
Aug. 13, 2025 Wrote to Commissioners Pamela Holmquist, Randy Brodehl, and Brad Abell asking for a meeting. No response.
Sept. 2, 2025 Appeared in person at the Commissioners’ public meeting. Spoke for 7 minutes. Identified a probable violation of MCA § 7-4-2110. No response.
Nov. 20, 2025 Wrote P&Z Director Erik Mack requesting status. Mr. Mack replied: “the case file has been forwarded to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office for further action.”
Nov. 20, 2025 Wrote County Attorney Travis Ahner directly, asking only for status and expected timeline. No response. None. To this day.
Jan. 25, 2026 Wrote County Administrator Pete Melnick requesting a spot on the Commissioners’ public agenda.
Jan. 27, 2026 — Mr. Melnick sent a letter denying me access to the public agenda.
Feb. 2, 2026 Emailed Mr. Melnick refuting his denial. No response. The gatekeeper had locked the gate.
Feb. 10, 2026 Wrote Mr. Mack again offering a solution that “would satisfy everyone.” Mr. Mack replied he could not discuss the matter because the County Attorney has it — and the County Attorney, as noted, does not respond.

Five years. Three commissioners. One county administrator. One county attorney. One P&Z director. One code compliance technician. Zero decisions. Zero hearings. Zero answers.

What The Law Actually Requires
The officials named below are not operating in a gray area. Montana law — constitutional, statutory, and long-settled in case law — is unusually clear on every one of the points they have ignored.

Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution — Right of Participation. Every Montanan has a constitutional right to a “reasonable opportunity” to participate in the operations of government prior to final decisions. The Montana Supreme Court has held that this right is not satisfied by an “uninformed opportunity to speak.” It requires meaningful engagement. A five-year file-shuffle is not meaningful engagement. It is the opposite.
Article II, § 9 — Right to Know. I have a right to examine the documents and observe the deliberations of the agencies handling my complaint. When the Commissioners will not put the matter on their agenda, when the County Attorney will not write back, and when P&Z points at the County Attorney who points at no one, the Right to Know is being functionally nullified.
MCA § 2-3-103 — Public Participation. The statute requires that the agenda of every public meeting “must include an item allowing public comment on any public matter that is not on the agenda of the meeting and that is within the jurisdiction of the agency.” Community Decay complaints are indisputably within the Commissioners’ jurisdiction. The County Administrator does not have statutory authority to deny a citizen access to that public comment function — yet that is exactly what Mr. Melnick’s January 27, 2026 letter did.
MCA § 7-4-2110 — Supervision of County and Other Officers. This is the central legal problem, and it is why the Commissioners cannot hide behind the County Attorney. Section 7-4-2110 places a non-delegable statutory duty on the Board of County Commissioners to supervise the conduct of county officers. When a complaint sits unresolved for nearly five years, when a citizen is denied agenda access by a subordinate employee, and when the Commissioners themselves refuse to meet or respond — the Board is not supervising anyone. They are abdicating the very duty the legislature assigned to them.
MCA § 2-3-114 and § 2-3-221 — The Citizen Remedy. Montana law provides a right of action in district court for violations of the participation statutes, and the prevailing citizen may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees. The legislature anticipated exactly this kind of bureaucratic stonewalling and created a remedy for it.

The Practical Meaning: A Law That Is Not Enforced Is Not a Law
Flathead County has a Community Decay Ordinance on its books. It has a complaint form. It has a Code Compliance Technician whose job, by title, is to enforce it. It has a Planning & Zoning Director who supervises that technician. It has a County Attorney empowered to pursue enforcement. It has a Board of Commissioners with statutory authority under MCA § 7-4-2110 to supervise all of them.

And yet: after nearly five years, seven officials, a dozen pieces of written correspondence, and in-person public testimony, Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26 has produced no decision, no hearing, and no enforcement action.

I submit, as a citizen of Flathead County, that an ordinance which cannot produce a result when a complainant follows every prescribed channel for nearly five years is — in every sense that matters to the public it is supposed to protect — effectively lawless. The text of the ordinance is not the ordinance. The ordinance is what actually happens when a citizen files a complaint under it. In my case, what actually happened was: nothing.

If this is the experience of one documented, persistent complainant, how many other Flathead County residents have filed, waited, and given up before reaching the point of documenting it? The county’s own Planning & Zoning records reflect a violation-resolution rate that is, by any reasonable measure, consistent with an enforcement system that has ceased to function as intended.

A law that is not enforced against anyone is, in practical effect, no law at all. That is the condition of Community Decay Ordinance No. 6 today.

Management By Avoidance
I have a name for what this is. I call it Management by Avoidance — the governing pattern in which separate public offices each independently avoid accountability, citizen access, and consequence, without any coordination required among them, and with the cumulative effect of making redress impossible.
● P&Z points at the County Attorney.
● The County Attorney does not answer his mail.
● The Commissioners point at the County Administrator.
● The County Administrator denies access to the Commissioners.
● The Code Compliance Technician does not reply.
● The P&Z Director cannot discuss the matter because the County Attorney has the file.
● And the citizen is told, in effect, to go away.
No single official has to commit an obvious violation. The violation is emergent. It is the system.
That is not democratic self-government. That is an administrative maze designed to exhaust the complainant.

The Officials Who Will Not Respond
Every one of the following public officials has been contacted, in writing, on the public record, in connection with FCD-21-26, and has failed or refused to provide a substantive response:
● Commissioner Pamela Holmquist
● Commissioner Randy Brodehl
● Commissioner Brad Abell
● County Administrator Pete Melnick
● County Attorney Travis Ahner
● Planning & Zoning Director Erik Mack
● Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder

If any of the above believes this record is inaccurate, the cure is simple: respond. Respond to FCD-21-26, in writing, on the merits. The public is watching, and a correction to this record would be welcomed — in fact, it would be the first correction offered in nearly five years.

What I Am Asking Of The Public
● Read the complete record at MontanaWatchdog.com/The-Story. Every letter, every email, every denial.
● Ask your own questions. If a single citizen with one complaint has been stonewalled for five years, how many others have given up before reaching year one?
● Tell your neighbors. A Commissioner who will not respond to a constituent in writing cannot credibly claim to represent that constituent at the ballot box.
● Bring it up at the next public meeting. MCA § 2-3-103 guarantees you the right to speak on any matter within the Commissioners’ jurisdiction. This is within their jurisdiction.

This is not about one junk-vehicle complaint. It is about whether the people of Flathead County still have a functioning local government that answers its mail.
Based on five years of evidence, I submit that we do not — and that the officials listed above owe the public an explanation that they have so far declined to provide.

Duane Egan
Columbia Falls, Montana
Duane.egan@outlook.com
MontanaWatchdog.com

This statement may be freely reproduced, forwarded, and reprinted in whole or in part. The underlying correspondence is available on request and is published at MontanaWatchdog.com.

May 5, 2026

In reference to the April 27, 2026 item above, I received the following email from the Montana Attorney General’s Office:

“Contact DOJ

contactdoj@mt.gov

You
Dear Mr. Egan,

As per your request, we are notifying you that your document was received in our office, scanned and forwarded to our civil division for review and response on Wednesday April 29, 2026. Due to the amount of documents received, please allow ample time for your submission to be reviewed.

Regards,

ContactDOJ@mt.gov

Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Montana Department of Justice”

May 24, 2026

Today I sent the following email letter to Mr. Pete Melnick, Flathead County Administrator with CC to the three Flathead County Commissioners.

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3621
duane.egan@outlook.com

May 23, 2026

Mr. Pete Melnick
County Administrator
Flathead County Commissioners Office
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901

cc: Commissioner Brad Abell
cc: Commissioner Pamela Holmquist
cc: Commissioner Randy Brodehl

Re: Request — Three General Policy Questions on the Administration of Community Decay Ordinance No. 6 (General; No Specific Case)

Dear Mr. Melnick,

I am requesting a brief question-and-answer opportunity with the Board of County Commissioners at one of their public meetings to ask three general questions about how Community Decay Ordinance No. 6 is administered. This is a question-and-answer request, not a listening session: I am asking for answers, or a discussion, on the record.

This request references no specific complaint, case number, property, or property owner. It concerns only how the County’s process is designed to work for any complaint. Because the questions are purely about general policy, they involve no active enforcement matter, no attorney-client privilege, and no investigation — so the rationale stated in your January 27, 2026 letter does not apply here.

My three questions are:

1. Is the Planning and Zoning Department responsible for determining when a property owner is noncompliant with Community Decay Ordinance No. 6?

2. What specific section or sections of Ordinance No. 6 apply when determining corrective action (abatement) in the event of noncompliance?

3. Which County department makes the corrective action (abatement) decision?

These are general administrative-policy questions within the Board’s jurisdiction, and consistent with the “policy and general direction” role you identified in your January 27, 2026 letter as the Board’s proper function. Under MCA § 2-3-103, the agenda of a public meeting must include an item allowing public comment on any matter within the agency’s jurisdiction. I am requesting only that my questions receive an answer or discussion on the record, rather than being received in silence.

So that this can move forward in an orderly way, please do one of the following:

(a) Place me on the agenda for a short Q&A — I would limit myself to the three questions above and brief follow-up — at the next available public meeting; or

(b) Provide written answers to the three questions above, with citations to the applicable sections of Ordinance No. 6; or

(c) State in writing that the County has no written policy governing how noncompliance is determined and how abatement decisions are made.

Any one of these three is an acceptable response. I would ask only that the County select one of them, so that I may understand the County’s enforcement process as it actually stands.

Please provide written confirmation of the scheduled meeting date, or the County’s written answers, within 10 business days. Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully,

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3621
duane.egan@outlook.com

May 24, 2026

I sent the following “Letter to the Editor” to the Daily Inter Lake and the Flathead Beacon today. We will see if it is published.

Oversight, Oversight, Oversight – that is the refrain used by investigators and legislators when speaking of the fraud happening now in Minnesota and California. Their claim is that state and local governments have not conducted the proper oversight of their office thereby allowing fraudulent and costly waste of taxpayer’s money, in the millions and billions of dollars.

Here in Flathead County, I am pleased to observe, we have nothing so dramatic. No missing millions, no federal raids, no ICE agents at the courthouse door. What we have is humbler: a Community Decay code-enforcement complaint, FCD-21-26 — one of many — that has been “under review” for nearly five years — a pace at which the nearby glaciers are, frankly, more active than our local government.

The mechanism is elegant. Planning & Zoning explains the matter is referred to the County Attorney. The County Attorney does not answer letters of inquiry regarding status. The County Commissioners, supervising both, supervise neither — and will not answer letters of inquiry either. This is called “Management by Avoidance” and our county officials have refined it to an art. The documented timeline — every unanswered letter, every stonewalling response, every attempt to get information — is available for inspection at MontanaWatchdog.com, for readers who appreciate a true and accurate paper trail.

This is not fraud. Nobody pocketed a dime. But this is how public trust erodes. It is something quieter — the gentle establishment of a principle that ordinances are merely suggestions, and that officials who ignore them may do so indefinitely, and without penalty.

Minnesota’s millions did not vanish overnight. The dysfunction began, there and here, with modest assumptions: rules need not be enforced, no one is really watching, silence carries no cost. Oversight is a discipline. Once a government loses the habit, the neglect compounds and shows up somewhere else, spreading like a cancer.

To the Flathead County administrators: Enforce the ordinances while it is still merely embarrassing.

May 26, 2026

I received an email letter from Mr. Erik Mack,, Director, Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department, as follows:

Erik Mack emack@flatheadcounty.gov
You
Compliance

Thank you for your message. The Commissioners’ Office forwarded your questions to me, and I am happy to provide the following responses.

The Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office (FCPZ), through the Zoning Administrator, is responsible for the enforcement of Flathead County’s Ordinance #6: Control of Community Decay.
Section 6 (Abatement) of Ordinance No. 6 governs all corrective action.

Section 6(a): Zoning Administrator initiates abatement.

Section 6(b): Inspection to determine the violation.

Section 6(c): Written notice of violation and 30‑day abatement order.

Section 6(d): Owner may submit an abatement plan.

Section 6(e): Appeal to Board of Commissioners.

Section 6(f): Zoning Administrator and/or agent(s) may enter the property to abate or shield the violation.

The word “may” in Section 6(f) is intentional. It means the County is authorized but not required to perform abatement. This gives the County discretion to determine the most appropriate enforcement path, whether that is County‑performed abatement, voluntary compliance, referral for prosecution, or other available remedies. The ordinance is structured this way because County‑led abatement could be impractical or dangerous, and may not always be the best enforcement option. This discretion is reinforced in FCPZ’s Enforcement Policy, which notes that FCPZ has the authority to prioritize enforcement actions and allocate resources as appropriate.

The Enforcement Policy also states that, when compliance is not achieved, FCPZ may refer violations to the County Attorney for criminal prosecution.

The Zoning Administrator makes the initial corrective action decisions, including issuing the Notice of Violation, setting the abatement requirements, and approving or rejecting an abatement plan.

If the property owner appeals, the Flathead County Board of Commissioners makes the final decision.

Ordinance No. 6: the Board “may determine that a violation exists and order abatement… or determine that no violation exists.”

Please reach out if you have any additional questions or would like further clarification on this matter.

Erik K. Mack, AICP

Planning Director & Floodplain Administrator

Flathead County Planning and Zoning

40 11th Street W. Ste. 220

Kalispell, MT 59901

May 27, 2026

I responded to the above email with an email back to Mr. Mack with the following letter:

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3621
duane.egan@outlook.com

May 26, 2026

Mr. Erik K. Mack, AICP
Planning Director & Floodplain Administrator
Flathead County Planning & Zoning
40 11th Street W., Ste. 220
Kalispell, MT 59901

Re: Public Records Request under MCA § 2-6-1006 — FCPZ Enforcement Policy and Referral Records (General; No Specific Case)

Dear Mr. Mack,

Thank you for your May 26, 2026 email responding to my three general questions about the administration of Community Decay Ordinance No. 6. Your response was helpful and is appreciated.

Before the public records request below, I have one clarification question. In your May 26, 2026 email, you copied “Compliance@flatheadcounty.gov.” Would you mind telling me who or what “Compliance” is — for example, an individual, a list of individuals, or an office?

In your email you also referred twice to an “FCPZ Enforcement Policy.” You wrote that this policy “notes that FCPZ has the authority to prioritize enforcement actions and allocate resources as appropriate,” and that it “states that, when compliance is not achieved, FCPZ may refer violations to the County Attorney for criminal prosecution.” I would like to review that document.

Pursuant to the Montana Public Records statute, MCA § 2-6-1006, I request copies of the following public records. This request concerns general policy and procedure only; it references no specific complaint, case number, property, or property owner.

The “FCPZ Enforcement Policy” referenced in your May 26, 2026 email, in whatever form it exists (manual, memorandum, written policy, or other document), including any version in effect from 2021 to the present.
Any written policy, procedure, or guidance describing how and in what form the Planning & Zoning Office refers a community decay matter to the County Attorney’s Office — for example, whether such referrals are required to be made in writing.
Any written communication from the Planning & Zoning Office to the County Attorney’s Office, from 2021 to the present, that refers or transmits a community decay matter to that office for review, action, or prosecution. (If responsive records exist for specific cases, a representative example, or a log or index of such referrals, would be sufficient for the purpose of understanding the office’s general practice.)

If any portion of a responsive record is considered exempt or confidential, MCA § 2-6-1006(3) requires that the response identify the record and state the specific legal basis for any withholding or redaction. If no record responsive to any item above exists, I would ask that this be stated in writing, as the statute contemplates a response even when the requested documents do not exist.

I am happy to come to your office to pick up documents or receive them by email, whichever is more convenient. I understand the County may charge a reasonable fee for fulfilling the request; please advise me of any cost before it is incurred. I would appreciate a response within a reasonable time as required by the statute. Thank you.

Once I have a response to the above questions, I will be able to comment fully on your response to my original letter.

Respectfully,

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3621
duane.egan@outlook.com

This is an ongoing dialog …

Legal Disclaimer: This page presents a chronological account of my experience attempting to resolve a community decay complaint in Flathead County, Montana. It includes my personal interpretations of events, excerpts from correspondence I sent and received, and my lay understanding of whether certain procedures were followed under Montana law and county ordinances.
References to Montana Code Annotated (MCA) statutes represent questions I raised with authorities about potential non-compliance—not legal conclusions. I am not an attorney, and nothing on this page should be construed as a definitive legal determination or an assertion that any individual has committed a crime.
All statements are based on documents I possess or communications I participated in. Readers are encouraged to review cited documents and reach their own conclusions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply