Chickens on the Ballot-For Real This Time

The Glasgow City Council voted unanimously—with four members present—to approve the ballot language that will appear on November’s ballot asking if residents want to allow a household to own up to six female chickens inside city limits. The vote, which occurred on Aug. 12, is the final step in presenting the question to the public.

The ballot language will read: Do you support allowing property owners to maintain six (6) domestic chicken hens, within the incorporated Glasgow City limits, subject to the regulation by the Official Code of the City of Glasgow?

□ Yes

□ No

The council had previously passed the same resolution, but was forced to re-address the measure to include the actual ballot language. The previous resolution had included the ordinance details, which was modeled after a 2018 ordinance failed to pass the city council. At that time only one council member—Stan Ozark—voted in favor of the ordinance after dozens of community members came out against the ordinance at the ordinance’s second reading.

During comment at Wednesday’s meeting Shirley Siefert, an outspoken opponent of allowing chickens, said she was fine with the ballot language and allowing Glasgow residents to have an opportunity to vote either for or against the ordinance, but she was concerned with the process and her perceived lack of transparency. Siefert said that in 2018, the ordinance’s organizer Madelyn House said she would respect the council’s vote and Ozark said a revisit of the ordinance would require a petition to put the issue to voters.

Siefert said she was concerned that all of a sudden the resolution to put the issue on the ballot had been passed with little warning to the public and that—had it not been for the ballot language—there would have been little opportunity for the public to engage in the process. Seifert pointed to the fact that the meeting had not been advertised or posted in the Courier, on the radio station or anywhere else.

The meetings in question had in fact been posted at the Post Office, the Library and the County Courthouse the required three days prior to the meeting dates, but Seifert pointed out that with COVID-19 restrictions, access and foot traffic to those areas has been limited and people did not likely see them.

Mayor Becky Erickson pushed back on the idea that the process has not been transparent. She explained that the council posts all their meetings to the public, runs the minutes on the website and that news articles are often produced about those meetings.

“We’ve never hidden a meeting,” said the Mayor, “and I take affront to the notion that this process has not been transparent. I, for one, hate to see the issue of chickens divide our community.”

Council member Ozark echoed the Mayor’s assertions that the process has been open and fair. He pointed that the radio station had been running news stories on their website about the issue as far back as June. “No one is trying to sneak this out,” said Ozark, adding that, in hindsight, the process probably should have utilized the petition, but that this was an avenue allowed by Montana law.

The driving force behind the ordinance and the organizer of the “Peck Yes—A Chicken Campaign,” House, said she was obviously in support of chickens and that she wants the opportunity to raise them in her yard. She also expressed her hope that it would be a positive addition to the community, allowing youth to raise chickens and providing food and enjoyment.

“I want chickens,” said House, “they are lovely pets. I don’t have dogs. I don’t want dogs.” She also pointed out that she believed allowing chickens would be a benefit to Glasgow’s public image and would be “an opportunity for the community to attract other people.”

House’s husband, Dr. Andrew Fahlgren, said he was disappointed by the reception to the chicken ordinance and said it ran counter to his perception of Glasgow’s ethos of being open to letting people live their lives unencumbered by outside influence. He also said that as a doctor he was unaware of risks to public health due to “disease burden” that would come from allowing chickens in city limits.

Others opposed the ordinance for a variety of other reasons. Candy Lagerquist said she had been opposed to the idea from the beginning but her daughters had called her out for being too quick to judge. So her and her daughters raised chickens for 4-H and according to Lagerquist the plan actually backfired on the girls who are now—alongside their mother—opposed to allowing chickens in city limits.

Jan Swanson opposed the ordinance, not specifically because of chickens themselves, but because she sees this as one more ordinance the city will not enforce properly and, as a result, will be a detriment in the long run.

“If passed how can we be assured that [the ordinance] will be enforced,” asked Swanson, adding that she believes no one will be held to a standard and that “we (the City of Glasgow) have no ordinance enforcement.”

Mayor Erickson pushed back on the notion that there is no enforcement in the city. She cited the recent addition of an assistant to the director of public works that deals specifically with ordinance enforcement among other duties. She also highlighted enforcement efforts for nuisance and weedy lots undertaken by the city and city attorney that had seen a broad response to bringing properties into compliance with city ordinances.

In response, Swanson stated, “I want to know that it will be held up [and] the way it will be enforced, because I do not trust that somebody will do the right thing.”

Former Glasgow School Board member Suzanne Billingsley also spoke during public comment but neither for or against the ballot issue. Instead, Billingsley said she was there to support the council as a governing body. She cited her experience on the school board to show that she understood how difficult governing could be.

“I don’t live in the city,” said Billingsley, “but as someone who has sat on boards, I am here to support the board.” She said she had “heard there was a lack of civility at the last meeting” and she wanted to be there to support the board and make sure that did not happen again.

Just before the council voted, Seifert added that she supports the language being on the ballot and she felt it was clear and easy to understand. She also supports letting voters decide on the issue directly. She reiterated however, that she would like to see more transparency in the processes used by the city council to govern their residents.

“I do not object to having this language on the ballot,” explained Siefert, “I was against the way it got on there.” She also issued a warning to the council saying they need to be prepared with the precedent they set in placing chickens on the ballot in November and that they may one day find themselves in a position of adding “therapy pigs and therapy donkeys” to the ballot because, “chickens will just lead the parade.”

In prepared remarks before the comment period, Mayor Erickson summed up what the day’s meeting and what placing chickens on the ballot in November was really all about from her perspective. She said, “The Council members that voted for this issue to be placed on the ballot felt that all city residents should have an opportunity to state their opinion whether to, or not to, have chickens within the city limits. I, myself, believe all people should have the opportunity to make their voice heard, whether at the voting polls or in person—everyone should have that right.”