North Fork Compact

Minutes of the 2005 Annual Meeting of The North Fork Compact

The meeting was called to order at 8 PM by chairman Don Sullivan. Members present: Margaret Foreman Cohn, Jason Cohn, Don Sullivan, Sue Sullivan, John Frederick, Alan McNeil, Edward McNeil, Cecily McNeil, Larry Wilson. Guests: Carol Vuchetich, Lois Walter, William Walker, Bruce McNeil.
The minutes of the previous meeting (August, 2004) were read by the secretary, and were approved as read. The treasurer's report was given by the Treasurer, Sue Sullivan. Our balance as of 8 PM this evening was $740.23. The report was approved as read.

Old Business

1) The BC coal mine. In a follow -up to concerns which surfaced last year, our chairman reported about his letters on our behalf to Montana representatives in Congress, and to the Premier of British Columbia. John Frederick said that it appears the B.C. mine is on hold for now, perhaps because the Cline mine management is waiting for reaction in the US. John stressed that now is the time to make a fuss with the USA Congress about relations with the BC government on this issue, and warned that the BC. government is unlikely to do anything on our behalf.
It was agreed that immediate monitoring of North Fork river water is essential. Peggy Cohn suggested that we take steps to ensure that some trained students monitor the water on a continuous basis.
Larry Wilson volunteered to talk to Rich Moy about sending volunteers to the NF to take samples of the river water. (Moy is chair of the Water Management Bureau of the Montana Dept of Natural Resources.)
Peggy Cohn suggested that inquiries from Senators from various states, not just MT, would be helpful in contacting the U.S. State Department to urge the activation of the International Joint Commission (IJC) to mediate between the US and Canadian interests in the matter of the Folsey Creek Coal Mine in the Canadian North Fork. Jason Cohn stressed that letters from organizations are important.
Technicalities of water sampling were discussed. Peggy Cohn, a biologist by profession, mentioned the importance of "plankton tow" -- a form of plankton sampling. No plankton, no fish. Peggy offered to write to her homestate (Ohio) senators asking them to contact the State Department about the IJC. Peggy also volunteered to find out precisely what tests are required for coalmine pollutants.
Don Sullivan asked Larry Wilson to keep him informed of relevant events in the Flathead which pertain to the coal mine issue north of the border. It was moved and seconded that Larry contact Rich Moy on behalf of the Compact,. to ask for monitors of the water of the North Fork river -- and soon, as time is of the essence.
2) Land Use Planning. John Frederick reported on the status of the North Fork Neighborhood Plan. He said that it is near completion and thus far seems to be favorably regarded by the county authorities. Larry Wilson added that certain obstructive members of the County Planning Board are no longer in office. Jason Cohn suggested that on our new website, the Compact list the e-mail addresses of US Senators and Representatives to help to members contact them. He volunteered to set up this list.
3) Mission Statement. Chairman Don Sullivan read a proposed mission statement for the Compact. (This was felt to be important in the hope of clarifying our goals for the public, especially in view of the fact that we have for decades played a role in community land planning and in the exchange of information at the Interlocal meetings.)
The mission statement: The purpose of the North Fork Compact is to ensure the protection of the environment, the land, and the culture of the North Fork Valley (see also page 3 of the Compact itself) and to do this by the maintaining of and the expansion of covenants (protecting private lands from over-development). To this end the Compact supports and is a voice for wise land use and stewardship in the North Fork Valley.
This mission statement was approved by voice vote.
The question of our tax-free status was raised. If we are 501 C 3, we cannot lobby politicians. (After research, Cecily believes that an attorney should be consulted about this. We were told by a local IRS official in 1999 to forget about tax status.)
Larry Wilson suggested that we form a partnership with the Flathead Land Trust. He pointed out that the monitoring of easements or legal restrictions on development rights is a vital part of preservation.
Cecily McNeil warned that we must consult an attorney before making any major changes to our organization, to make sure that we are not jeopardizing the legality of the Compact document. She recognized that the Compact has two functions: maintenance of the Compact as a valid land covenant, and our role in the NF community (Interlocal meetings, NF Land Use Planning Committee).

New Business

1) Membership. John Frederick reported that Annemarie Harrod (a Compact member) suggested that membership be open to all N.F. landowners. Peggy Cohn suggested that we write to all non-members and urge them to join, and that our letters refer to our new website: <www.northforkcompact.org> .
Jason Cohn added that our members need not be resident on the NF to communicate, and John Frederick reminded that e-mail addresses are not difficult to obtain.
Chairman Don Sullivan told us that he proposes to send out a letter giving the history and purpose of the Compact and inviting NF landowners to join. Larry Wilson suggested that it is all very well to open membership to all landowners but that actual membership means putting restrictions on your land via the Compact covenant.
Ed McNeil wondered about the cost incurred by the landowner in putting land under the Compact. It was estimated by the group to run to about 60 dollars each piece.
Jason suggested that we find an attorney to assist prospective members. Alan McNeil offered the name of a local attorney. We discussed the notion of inviting this person to speak about covenants at a public meeting on the NF.
A dilemma was felt at this point: how to attract and include NF landowners who might be interested in the purpose of the Compact, but perhaps not ready to join? How to maintain the legal integrity of the North Fork Compact and yet serve the deeper purpose for which it was formed?
Edward McNeil then proposed a solution: two classes or categories of membership: 1)Voting members -- Signatories of the Compact document and as such legally bound by its terms. 2) Associate or non-voting members -- non-signatory, not bound by the terms of the Compact. "Could speak up and make suggestions but not vote or be on the Board of the Compact."
This motion was approved.
2) 20-acre minimum revisited. There has been for some time a hope to bring our covenant into conformity with the present county zoning limit of minimum sale to 20 acres, unless acreage was "grandfathered in." Peggy Cohn moved that we increase our minimum subdivison (sale of acreage) to 20 acres from our present five acres. This motion was voted and approved.
Larry informed us that 20 acres was in fact our original intent. It was dropped to five acres as a courtesy to an active and interested participant at that time.
(This change means alteration to the our legal requirements, and requires a canvas of the membership, with a 75 percent yes vote. We tried this before, in the early 1990's, and failed by two votes. A motion to canvas the membership again on the acreage issue was approved.)
3) Election of Officers and Board. We voted to retain the present officers and Board members. Our secretary is to prepare a schedule of terms of office of the Board Members, terms rotated or staggered in time, so as to prevent overlap. This schedule aims to remedy the gap caused by lack of quorum in 2002 and cancellation of our annual meeting due to Wedge Fire in 2003.
Finally, Larry Wilson volunteered to attend the winter Interlocal and speak up forcefully for the Compact.
The Compact will host next summer's Interlocal Meeting. Date to be announced this winter.
John Frederick suggested increasing our dues to $5.00 next year. And wondered if that meant a change in the by-laws. (Answer is yes, a simple majority of eligible votes are required for this change.)
After a long, lively, and informative meeting, we adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Cecily McNeil, Secretary
Posted on this website on 17 September 2005.