There are lessons to be learned in monument squabble

It took a while, but Libby’s elected officials finally got it right last week when they presented the Lincoln County Veterans Memorial Foundation with a contract to place a monument at Riverfront Park. 

The contract, if the veterans sign it, would conclude a four-month skirmish between the city and a group of veterans who requested permission in October to erect a war memorial at Libby’s most visible public park. 

At this point, it’s obvious that neither side will get exactly what it wanted. But the contract includes several reasonable solutions to the problems that arose when the city imposed a new set of restrictions on donated monuments, just as the veterans were seeking approval for their $100,000 project. 

Here are the highlights of the agreement as it stands now:

• The veterans will be allowed to place a monument on a circular section of grassy land at the southwest corner of Riverfront Park. It’s an attractive piece of land, although it’s not exactly what the veterans had in mind when they announced their plans. Initially, they hoped the city would offer some land near the center of the park or near the waterfront. 

• The city backed away from its demand that the veterans purchase an insurance policy to cover liability of the monument in perpetuity. Instead, the city has agreed to include the veterans memorial on the city’s existing insurance policy, which will save the veterans group more than $700 per year. The city’s insurance costs will not go up, as the policy already covers as many as 10 memorials without additional charge. 

• The veterans will be required to purchase an insurance policy to cover liability during construction of the monument. 

• The city will allow the veterans to build the memorial as it was originally designed. At a public meeting in November, members of the Libby Parks Committee surprised the veterans foundation by presenting a new design for the memorial, which the veterans rejected immediately. The city dropped the issue after paying more than $500 for architectural drawings that were never used. 

• The veterans will be required to hire an engineer to make sure the memorial is situated properly. The veterans said they found an engineer who has agreed to do the work at no charge. 

• The veterans will be responsible for maintenance at the memorial site, as well as some costs of preparing the ground for the memorial. 

In some respects, the tentative agreement between the city and the veterans represents the success of democracy: Both sides had to give up something they wanted in order to get what they needed. And the public, ultimately, should benefit from the compromise.  

However, the entire, messy process may have revealed several shortcomings at City Hall. The effort to place a memorial in a city park – a donated memorial – did not have to become as controversial as it did. 

City officials should have reached out to the veterans group soon after the memorial project was announced to let the veterans know that the city really does appreciate the offer to donate a memorial. Instead, the veterans got the impression that city officials were unsupportive of the project. 

Better communication in the early stages of the project may have eliminated much of the veterans’ confusion and frustration as they tried to keep up with the new rules the city was setting along the way. Instead, the veterans were already deeply into the planning phase when the city decided to chime in. 

Simply asking the veterans if they wanted the city’s help to redesign the memorial would have saved taxpayers several hundred dollars. Instead, veterans were offended that the city initiated a redesign without their input. 

The city should have created a formal policy to guide the process of accepting donated monuments and limit the public liability for such projects. Instead, city officials opened themselves to criticism of unfairness by informally adopting a set of new, stricter rules several weeks after the veterans submitted their proposal.

Lastly, the city should have recognized that the veterans memorial was an opportunity to build a partnership with an important group of people in our community. Instead, some city officials may be suffering from an unfortunate win/lose mentality with regard to community projects that they, personally, might not see as a high priority.

As the veterans review the city’s contract, let’s hope they stay focused on the goal instead of getting distracted by all the obstacles that were put in their way. If they can muster the humility and courage to finish the battle, their memorial will stand for generations in one of the most beautiful settings in the county. 

Let’s also hope the city learned a few things from all of this. First, government is supposed to work for the people, not against it. Second, it’s always a bad idea to change the rules in the middle of the game. And, third, it’s a public relations nightmare to engage in a political firefight with veterans.  

 (Matt Bunk is publisher of The Western News. His column appears weekly.)