Senator Jennifer Fielder's Doublespeak
SJ 15 Draft Bill - "So I don't see this bill as a movement to transfer lands." - JF
As a result of some of the evidental screenshots of presentations, blog and sites, I have had to utilize a large format page to save you clicking to open larger views, instead of my normal website layout.
Doublespeak is defined as, "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language." Or, a lie by any other name ...
Below is a summary of:
At the recent MT Republican Party Convention (6/21/2014), which Senator Jennifer Fielder was the Vice Chair of, they passed a Montana Republican Party Resolution Supporting Granting Federally Managed Public Lands To The States (This is a theft, modern day neo-carpetbaggers of our Public Trust).
As a result of the ensuing controversy Montana Republican Party Resolution, this Party Platform subject was brought up at the June 26th EQC SJ15 meeting by Rep. Leiser and Sen. Bradley Hamlett. Audio found here. (audio actually begins about the 10:32 mark so I would suggest moving the slider over rather than wait 10 minutes). This SJ15 work group has largely focused on Federal Lands Transfer, pushed by Sen. Jennifer Fielder. In response, Sen. Fielder lied, "So I don't see this bill as a movement to transfer lands". Hogwash. Her own blog, facebook page and website speak loudly to the contrary. She has repeatedly associated the SJ15 work group with transfer of federal public lands, which is documented in screen shots below.
Fielder is elected to the Montana Senate in November 6, 2012, then gets appointed to the Senate Fish and Game Committe, as well as the Natural Resources Committee.
As a newly elected month old senator, Fielder submitted the draft of the bill that created this interim work group on December 5, 2012 - Interim study on public land management Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJ15).
This work group was supposed to be about - A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA REQUESTING AN INTERIM STUDY EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS, ASSESSING RISKS, AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS. But what it has turned into is an opportunity to push a Montana version of the Federal Public Land Grab which is trying to gain a foothold in the West, creating a bill to make this work group a permanent subcommittee to further the federal public land grab agenda.
Senator Jennifer Fielder is a member of the Environmental Quality Council, where she was appointed the Chair of the EQC SJ15 Work Group. She is using this vehicle to advance her agenda of public land theft.
April 2014 - Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover - Sen. Jennifer Fielder not only participated, but helped organize the meeting in Utah.
"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."
June 26th EQC SJ15 Meeting
Rep. Ed Leiser stated that through Tim Baker, Governor Bullock has plans to address this situation, the bill they have been discussing (SJ15 creating a permanent subcommittee to address federal land management) would be redundant. "In light of developments in regard to the Republican Party Platform unanimously agreeing to pursue transfer of federal lands as a part of their platform", he expressed concern that the proposed committee would be 1. redundant with what the Governor is proposing and 2. would turn into a forum for transfering federal lands. "At this point I am going to say I am not going to support this committee.
Sen. Bradley Hamlett brings up a news article in which 2 Republicans stated that the Republican Party resolution on Federal Public Lands Transfer was not unanimous, Hamlett stating that Sen Jennifer Feilder was there and could verify that. She stated, "Yes, I could verify that, but I don't know what that has to do with this bill draft."
15:10, Hamlett continues, "What it has to do, I think, what I hear from Rep. Leiser, he is concerned about intent. I guess we should flesh that out if we can.
15:22, Sen. Fielder replies, "Well, the Republican Party did unanimously pass the support to develop a plan for timely and successful acquisition and management of the public lands in Montana. And it was unanimous, that's actually part of the language that's in the Resolution itself. In fact there was a motion to spell 'unanimously' correctly. So I'm not sure where Rep. Connell is coming from, but it was unanimous. There's a lot of support for that because we see it as the really only long term way to correct the problems that we're seeing on these lands that are managed by a very distant federal government that is out of touch with the people of Montana and have priorities that are opposite to good land management.
That being said, that is something I have studied quite a bit, looked into quite a bit, I do believe that placing the lands in the hands of Montanans would allow Montanans to care for these lands better than Congress is doing.
16:20 (Fielder cont.), But this bill draft here is not about that. It's my interpretation from our discussion and my participation in it is genuine that this extension of the committee is an effort to continue what we have been doing and that is exploring, identifying the problem, facilitating communication and exploring the solutions. Now this bill here, this draft is pretty heavily weighted with an awful lot of representatives from the federal government (EMWH note: actually, those proposed members are considered non-voting representatives.), in fact there would be more of them than there would Republican legislators on the committee. So if it's up to the committee, if you want to keep this effort, if you think there's value to it, I found great value in it, I think the transfer of public lands is one of the areas that could be looked at, but there are numerous ways that we can work on compelling management improvements on these public lands. As I've said all along, I'm interested in anything that we can do to make sure that we are reducing the fire hazard, and we're getting people back to work, we're taking better care of our environment, were being wise stewards of these lands, which right now is not going on for a variety of reasons driven from the federal level. So I don't see this bill as a movement to transfer lands. This bill is an effort to continue working towards solutions in any way we can. I think it's a pretty good example of cooperative effort."
36:27, Rep. Leiser reiterates his concerns, "lingering in the background, I gotta tell you, is this concern that committee is going to go down a path that is not prudent, so if there is a way that we can meet the needs of the counties and the citizens of Montana under existing authority and with the governors support ahd his staff, then I think that's prudent."
38:00, Sen. Hamlett expressed, "I think that plank in the Grand Old Party's platform is causing concern. And I think we need to understand a couple things here and that is if, say tomorrow the Federal Government gave Montana a quick claim deed to the whole thing, Montana could actually go bankrupt the first time we started to have a big fire because then we would have to take over all those responsibilities and things like that. There's a lot of pieces and parts to what would go on here that could actually bankrupt the state and as a legislator I have to look at that."
41:05 Hamlett speaks about the influence of the party plank platform, that it is a political party issue, not the legislature. "The message has been sent clearly from the Governors office, any proposal to take over the Federal land, he'll probably veto. It's virtually impossible to override a veto. So then it begs the question, 'Is this a move to get soemthing on the ballot for political advantage?' I don't care what party you're in this things volatile." Hamlett also suggested that whatever vote the EQC give on this subject, it shouldn't be by a simple majority, but by a 3/4's majority.