Formal Rebuttal, Library Land Proposal Public Comment from Brad Wright1
Aimee Brunckhorst
From:Brad Wright <bradwright@bullittmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 22, 2026 10:52 AM
To:Teri Dugan
Cc:Gallus, Chris J.; Lad; Hon. Kristen Juras; Austin Knudsen; Travis Ahner; Johnna Preble; Kalispell
Meetings Public Comment
Subject:EXTERNAL FORMAL REBUTTAL: Misrepresentations and Notice of Referral regarding Library Land
Proposal
Attachments:FORMAL REBUTTAL_ Misrepresentations, Breaches of Transparency, and Notice of Referral.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
[NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the
content is safe.]
Dear Trustee Wheeler and Director Dugan,
Attached, please find a formal rebuttal to the representations made regarding the proposed
Library Mall project and the ongoing land negotiations with SHOP Development.
Given the fiduciary and ethical concerns detailed in this rebuttal, I am formally demanding an
immediate cessation of all votes and negotiations regarding the SHOP proposal until a full,
independent review is conducted.
Please note that this matter is being referred to the Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP)
and the Montana Legislative Audit Division for further investigation into potential fiduciary
misconduct.
Sincerely,
Brad Wright
Subject: FORMAL REBUTTAL: Misrepresentations and Breaches of Transparency
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
● Mandate Violation: The current Library Mall proposal deviates from the Board-mandated
2.0-acre buildable footprint, reducing it to a functional ~1.2 acres through unauthorized
"parking pivots." This reduction results in an estimated $2M loss in public land value without a
corresponding increase in purchase price or public benefit.
● Transparency Breach: Negotiations have shifted from public sessions to private,
"informational" meetings, bypassing Open Meeting Laws and standard oversight protocols.
● Notice of Action: This document serves as a formal notice that any move to ratify a new Letter
of Intent (LOI) under these terms will be referred to the State for a full investigation into fiduciary
misconduct.
To: Jane Wheeler, Trustee, Flathead County Library Board; Teri Dugan, Library Director
Dear Trustee Wheeler and Director Dugan,
As shown in Appendix A, Wheeler’s letter (dated March 18, 2026, is factually inconsistent with signed
agreements and public records. As a taxpayer and the complainant in this matter, I find your
characterization of these events wholly inadequate and intentionally misleading. I am formally
submitting this rebuttal to highlight critical areas where you are failing your fiduciary and ethical
obligations, and to provide notice of further regulatory escalation:
1. Misrepresentation of Land Value and Footprint
Your claim that the property size is "in flux" ignores the legally significant April 2025 Letter of Intent
(LOI) signed by Chair Ingram on behalf of the Board. That document explicitly mandated 2.0 buildable
acres and independent parking.
The most egregious discrepancy remains the bait-and-switch regarding the project’s buildable footprint.
The April 2025 LOI explicitly required a 2.0-acre buildable area. One month later, the May 2025
Buy/Sell Draft was reduced to 1.71 total acres. When you deduct the ~0.5-acre unbuildable area
containing the ROW easement, the functional footprint is a mere ~1.2 acres. This represents a greater
than 40% loss of public land value—especially when considering an awkwardly shaped parcel in a
less visible and desirable location—a deficit that cannot be justified to the taxpayers.
As shown in Appendix B, the 2.0-acre requirement was established to protect public value by
excluding unbuildable ROW easements. Furthermore, the pivot from independent parking (highlighted
in red letters in the LOI) to a shared parking configuration, has never been brought forth publicly. The
functional reality of 'shared parking' in the SHOP proposal is that it encumbers the title and limits the
future utility of this public asset. If the Library District ever needs to expand its physical footprint or
eventually sell its portion of the land, its value is dictated by what can be built without a
neighbor ’s permission By entertaining the current SHOP proposal, which re-includes those
easements and reduces the buildable footprint, you are presiding over an approximate $2 million loss
in public value. By reducing the independent buildable acreage, you are effectively handing over the
Library’s future autonomy and $2M in market value to a private developer.
2. Misleading Characterization of Public Meetings
Characterizing your February meeting with the mayor as merely "informational" is a direct contradiction
of your own recorded statements. Audio from the February 26 Board Meeting proves that specific
discussions regarding parking lots and TIF (Tax Increment Financing) allocations occurred. You
stated that the Mayor supported TIF funds for the library, but the reality is those funds would benefit the
developer because the library would share the parking with the developer, rather than own that parking
outright. This pattern of making substantive changes to a public project outside of transparent channels
is a flagrant violation of the other trustee’s and public’s right to know.
3. Violations of Board Directives Regarding the Foundation
While I may have been mistaken regarding the specific identity of the Foundation members in
attendance in your meeting on February 25, the underlying violation remains: the Trustees previously
issued a clear demand that the Foundation be excluded from land negotiations. Your own
statements during the February 26 Board Meeting confirm that representatives of the Foundation were
present for discussions involving "parking lots" and "TIF money." This unauthorized involvement in
public land negotiations is a direct breach of the Board’s own internal controls and stated protocols.
4. Ethical Conflicts and Professional Standards (Wendy Brown)
Regarding Realtor Wendy Brown, the April 2025 LOI explicitly documents a "separate agreement"
between Ms. Brown and the seller (SHOP). This dual-interest arrangement is a textbook conflict of
interest that appears to violate the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Code of Ethics. Your
refusal to address this, citing mere "confidence" in her character, is a failure of professional standards
that places taxpayer interests at risk.
5. Systematic Violations of Open Meeting Laws & Chair Overreach
Your conduct suggests a pattern of bypassing public transparency in favor of private, unilateral
negotiations led by you.
● Unauthorized Policy Pivots: The shift from the independent parking plan to a shared
garage—a change that fundamentally alters the project’s scope—was never deliberated in a
noticed public meeting.
● Refuted Records: Describing the February meeting with the mayor as "informational" is directly
refuted by the February 26 Board Meeting audio. The recording proves that substantive
discussions on TIF allocations and land configurations occurred, which legally mandates a
public forum.
● Siloed Information and Unauthorized "Unofficial" Meetings: The role of the Kalispell City
Manager and Mayor in arranging private meetings between Wheeler, Dugan and city
interests—outside the purview of the full Library Board and the City Council—is highly irregular.
Trustee Wheeler ’s characterization of this as "not an official meeting" is a distinction without a
difference. Public business regarding the disposal of a multi-million-dollar public asset was
the sole subject. Labeling such a gathering "unofficial" to circumvent public notice requirements
merely confirms a coordinated effort to bypass transparency protocols.
● Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The continued reliance on Wendy Brown to conduct land
negotiations behind closed doors prevents fellow trustees from exercising their fiduciary duties.
This has allowed private actors to prioritize a diminished 1.2-acre SHOP proposal over the
Board-mandated 2.0-acre requirement, placing taxpayer interests at risk.
6. Failure of the County Attorney to Protect Taxpayer Interests
The claim that the County Attorney’s office has been "consulted in all cases" is not a defense; it is a
confession of systemic negligence.
● Sanctioning the 40% Land Loss: If the County Attorney reviewed and approved a proposal
that secretly strips 0.8 acres of buildable land from the public, they have fundamentally
breached their fiduciary duty to the library and the taxpayers.
● Shielding Misconduct: If the County Attorney was provided with sanitized facts or was
unaware of the unauthorized "parking pivots" and the ~1.2-acre buildable reality, then your
"consultation" is a fraudulent attempt to use the legal department as a shield for official
misconduct.
● Malpractice of Oversight: A County Attorney acting in the interest of the public would have
halted these negotiations the moment the April 2025 LOI mandates were abandoned in the
May 2025 Buy/Sell Draft. Their continued silence suggests they are either being misled by you
or are complicit in the devaluation of county assets.
Closing Demand
The evidence suggests a calculated effort to devalue public assets through undisclosed negotiations
and a total breakdown of legal and oversight protocols. I demand an immediate cessation of all votes
and negotiations regarding the SHOP proposal, and a formal accounting of why you, the City Manager,
the Mayor and the County Attorney’s Office are actively negotiating against the Board’s own
established requirements to the detriment of the public. No further action should be taken until:
1. An immediate cessation of any negotiations until the deficits are publicly addressed and the
2.0-acre buildable mandate is restored.
2. A full, independent review is conducted regarding the role of the Wendy Brown in negotiating
terms that contradict Board-approved directives.
3. A formal disclosure is issued regarding all "unofficial" or "informational" meetings arranged by
the Mayor's office or Library Administration that excluded the full Board of Trustees.
4. The County Attorney provides a signed, written justification for the proposed loss of public
land value and confirms their awareness of these private negotiations.
NOTICE OF INTENDED OVERSIGHT
The acceptance of a new LOI that results in a significant reduction of buildable acreage—and a
corresponding loss of public land value—would be inconsistent with the Board’s duty to protect
taxpayer assets. Should this proposal be ratified in its current form, I will be compelled to seek formal
administrative review and oversight to ensure that the public interest is fully protected and that the
resulting valuation discrepancy is thoroughly investigated by the appropriate state authorities.
Furthermore, I reserve the right to pursue all available remedies to ensure the public interest is
protected and the taxpayer is made whole for any loss of asset value resulting from this
transaction.
Sincerely,
Brad Wright
Appendix A: Wheeler Response to Complaint
Appendix B: Flathead County GIS Measurement/Architect’s Sketch
cc:
● Chris Gallus, Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP)
● Angus Maciver, Legislative Auditor, Montana Legislative Audit Division
● Kristen Juras, Lieutenant Governor of Montana
● Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General
● Travis Ahner, Flathead County Attorney
● Johnna Preble, Kalispell City Attorney
● Flathead County Library Board of Trustees
● Kalispell City Council
● Montana Transparency Project
Appendix A: Wheeler Response to Complaint
Appendix B: Flathead County GIS Measurement/Architect’s Sketch