When the Accountability Process Has No Accountability

Try to separate your feelings about me, the pool, or the future of LFR for a minute and just look at the pattern.

A citizen raises concerns about a City decision and asks whether proper law, policy, or process was followed. Instead of addressing the concern, the focus shifts to the citizen: how they said it, whether they were sufficiently “respectful,” whether they mentioned City Manager Grant Gager, and ultimately whether they should be permitted to continue speaking at all.

This isn't new.

In August 2025, the Livingston Enterprise reported on concerns about this exact dynamic. Former Commissioner Patricia Grabow said she personally wasn't intimidated when commissioners responded from the dais, but warned that an average citizen appearing for the first time might be intimidated when four or five commissioners respond by refuting what that citizen just said. She said citizens should be able to share their thoughts without officials “demeaning or refuting what is being said.”

The same article quoted Montana State Library guidance reminding officials that public comment is not supposed to become a back-and-forth conversation and advising them to “avoid discussion and minimize engagement” during public comment.

That was last year. Now look at the pattern since.

On June 2, I stood at the podium and criticized how Chair Melissa Nootz and City Manager Grant Gager had treated Fire Department leadership. I described their conduct as dismissive, belittling and disrespectful.

Chair Nootz interrupted me. The meeting was recessed. Police became involved, and when I returned I was warned that I could be removed.

Chair Nootz then announced:

“No one will be giving performance reviews of Mr. Gager or department heads or staff tonight. That's off limits.”

Yet she immediately acknowledged:

“The only thing in our jurisdiction is Mr. Gager.”

Exactly. He is in your jurisdiction.

That is precisely why I, or any other citizen, should be able to address the Commission about his official performance.

And it wasn't limited to me.

Minutes later, another citizen tried to explain a very specific problem with Gager's performance: how he responds, or doesn't respond, to questions from citizens.

As the citizen began explaining what happens when members of the public pose questions to the City Manager, Chair Nootz interrupted him. When he protested that he still had time remaining, she told him:

“Don't give us feedback on Mr. Gager.”

Then:

“Please refrain from critiquing Mr. Gager. This is not his evaluation.”

He tried again, this time saying:

“The city manager fails to respond to questions proposed by the members of the public.”

Chair Nootz stopped him again.

At that point he literally asked her:

“Would you tell me…the way you want me to phrase it and I'll phrase it.”

Think about what was actually being criticized there. He wasn't talking about Gager's appearance, his clothes, his family or anything else personal. He was criticizing how the City Manager responds to citizens seeking answers from their government.

Then came September 15.

A citizen attempted to question the process surrounding the pool decision. Her actual words were:

“I have to assume that the city attorney has advised you all that legal authority has been overstepped.”

Chair Nootz immediately stopped her:

“You just accused the city manager of overstepping legal authority.”

The citizen tried to continue, but Chair Nootz ended the comment and asked whether the rest of the Commission wanted to override her ruling.

They declined.

Again, what was the supposed offense?

Questioning whether the legal authority for a government decision had been exceeded.

That is not a personal attack.

“I don't like your shirt” is personal. “I don't like the way you look” is personal.

“Was this decision legal?” is not personal.

“Why doesn't the City Manager respond to citizens?” is not personal.

“Did the City Manager have authority to make this decision?” is not personal.

Those are questions about the performance of a public official and the operation of government.

Yet later that same September 15 meeting, Chair Nootz said there is a process for these concerns and told citizens who want to understand it to “reach out to the city manager.” She concluded:

“It's not at these meetings.”

And there is the absurdity of Livingston's accountability circle:

Have a problem with the City Manager? Ask the City Manager how to address your problem with the City Manager.

Except Livingston's own Handbook says the Commission has direct authority over the City Manager.

So if the Commission meeting isn't the place to discuss his official performance, where exactly is?

And if your concern is about the Commission itself, the circle gets even tighter. Under its Handbook, the Commission itself determines whether there are reasonable grounds to believe one of its own members violated the Code of Conduct.

So the accountability structure starts looking like this:

Problem with Gager? Ask Gager how to complain about Gager.

Problem with the Commission? Ask the Commission to decide whether the Commission did anything wrong.

It's a little like asking a child to decide whether they deserve to spank themselves.

Meanwhile, don't miss something Gager slipped into the official record near the very end of the September 15 meeting. He referred to emergency-services “staffing consolidation” as one of the Commission's “high priorities,” said it had already been discussed “fairly extensively over the last several months,” and then suggested they could “jump start that conversation with the community.”

It was easy to miss more than four hours into the meeting, but don't lose track of it. It is another example of the pattern that concerns me: substantial conversations about the future of a public service appear to be well underway before the public conversation begins.

The pool and LFR are very different issues, but the process looks increasingly familiar: develop the direction first, involve the public later.

The issue isn't whether government is allowed to consider change. Of course it is. The issue is whether the public gets to meaningfully participate while those choices are still choices, rather than being invited into the conversation after the direction has already taken shape.

And when citizens do participate, “decorum” cannot become a shield protecting Chair Nootz's most favorite person in the entire world from any negative commentary about his official performance or decisions.

There is a difference between personally attacking Grant Gager and criticizing City Manager Grant Gager's decisions, conduct, responsiveness to citizens, implementation of policy, or exercise of governmental authority.

Protecting him from that criticism is not Chair Nootz's job.

Oversight is.

And Chair Nootz is absolutely sending a message to the public about participating in Commission meetings. I just don't think it is the message she thinks she is sending.

A year ago, Patricia Grabow warned that an ordinary citizen could be intimidated from speaking when commissioners use the dais to refute what that citizen has said. Since then, I have been interrupted and faced police involvement after criticizing Gager's official conduct. Another citizen was repeatedly stopped for trying to say that Gager doesn't respond to citizens' questions. And now another citizen has been stopped for questioning whether legal authority was overstepped in a City decision.

What message does that send to the ordinary resident sitting at home who has never walked up to that podium before?

Come participate, but be careful what you say. Ask questions, but apparently not those questions. Criticize government, but don't criticize Chair Nootz's favorite person. And if you cross that invisible line, you may be interrupted, publicly corrected, silenced, or told this isn't the place for your concern.

That doesn't encourage public participation. It teaches people that speaking critically about City leadership may make them the problem.

And that brings us right back to the accountability circle.

Have a problem with the City Manager? Ask the City Manager how to address your problem with the City Manager.

Have a problem with the Commission? Ask the Commission to decide whether the Commission did anything wrong.

At some point, when the Chair repeatedly shields the City Manager's official conduct from public criticism and every accountability road leads right back to the same people, it starts looking less like representative government and more like the king and queen of Livingston holding court while everyone else is instructed on what they may say before the throne.

That's sarcastic. The underlying problem isn't.

Who holds the people in power accountable when the only answer is the people in power?

Chair Melissa Nootz says, “There's a process for it.”

Okay. Show us.

Because sending citizens around in a circle until they stop asking questions isn't accountability.

For me, after watching this pattern continue from last year through June and now September, I think it is time to start the recall process for Chair Melissa Nootz.