"Montana airport authority rescinds confidentiality agreement"

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Airport authority rescinds confidentiality agreement
By PETER JOHNSON 
The Great Falls (MT) Tribune


After a long, spirited discussion, the Great Falls Airport Authority voted
unanimously Tuesday to rescind its controversial confidentiality agreement.

At board member Jim Morin's urging, authority members will work in future
months to develop a bylaw change outlining steps a company seeking to do
business with the airport can take to have trade secrets and other private
information kept confidential.

Board members Jeff Mangan and Susan Humble have insisted that the policy
requiring authority members to agree to not divulge such information about
potential airport business clients violated state open meeting and
right-to-know-laws. 

A majority, including Chairman Ben Ives and member Ed Buttrey, argued that
the airport and community could lose potential businesses and jobs if its
members revealed such information too early.
City and county commissioners previously sent the Airport Authority a letter
questioning the legality of the agreement while the county attorney's office
said the agreement may be illegal and threatened to seek a state attorney
general's opinion on it.

Meanwhile, in a memo to authority members, Airport Director Cynthia Schultz
said city and county governments both belong to groups, such as the Great
Falls Development Authority, that have similar confidentiality pacts.

At Tuesday's meeting, Mangan objected to Schultz's suggestion that the board
rescind the confidentiality agreement and change its development process "to
isolate sensitive information" until a company publicly announces its plans.

There's no blanket right to confidentiality, he said, but the authority
could develop a process by which companies could apply to keep private
certain information covered by state law, such as trade secrets and
proprietary information.

Mangan said he and Airport Authority attorney Mick Taleff already began to
work on ideas for such a bylaw change.

Ives said companies involved in competitive industries oppose premature
release of information and may resist coming here if the news isn't delayed.

Humble said companies aren't entitled to secrecy unless they can explain why
they need it in a written affidavit.

Buttrey said he is tired of a minority of board members continuing to argue
the case after Taleff concluded the agreement is legal.

Schultz estimated that she has had preliminary discussions with 150
companies considering coming to Great Falls in the last two years. She said
she usually isn't provided confidential financial information and sometimes
doesn't even get told the name of the company early on in the process. It
would be inefficient and labor-intensive for every such company to fill out
confidentiality forms, she said.

Taleff said the airport administrator isn't required to divulge information
early in the exploratory process, but companies need to tell more as they
seek formal approval.

Morin urged board members to rescind the confidentiality agreement and
consider the compromise bylaw changes later so they won't get bogged down
anymore on a divisive issue they've been struggling with since February.

Ives said the authority will probably begin discussing the bylaw change
early next year.

Deputy Cascade County Attorney Brian Hopkins said he is pleased the
authority rescinded the agreement and is committed to working out a process
that complies with the state's open-meeting law, including having companies
seek limited privacy exceptions.

He said the county attorney's office delayed its request for an attorney
general's opinion so the authority could reconsider the agreement.

In other matters, the authority: 

Approved bond issue financing of up to $4 million to renovate a second large
hangar and two shelters for use by AvMax, which repairs and paints regional
jets.

Revised the airport lease of Holman Aviation, which is building a
27,500-square-foot hangar to replace two former hangars that it used for
storage but were converted for AvMax.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************