By Michael Howell
Prior to taking up with the agenda at last week’s special meeting of the Town Council, Stevensville Mayor Gene Mim Mack addressed allegations made by Councilor Jim Crews and former councilor Clayton Floyd that the meeting was illegal because it contained two agenda items. Both men had e-mailed Town Clerk Stacy Bartlett claiming that state law limited the number of agenda items for a special meeting to one item. After checking the law Bartlett responded, saying that, in her interpretation of the law, the number of items was not limited to just one.
Floyd responded, saying that although the law did not say “one” specifically, it did say “the Mayor must state by message the object of the meeting, and the business must be restricted to the object stated.” Floyd said that this implied the town council should have been informed and he notes that the word “object” is singular, otherwise it would have said “objects.” Bartlett responded that she was forwarding his complaint to the mayor. She also forwarded the message from Crews to the mayor.
Floyd sent a final e-mail on the issue to the Clerk, stating that his questioning of the process was “not personal towards you or the Mayor,” and then stating later, “When violation of a law or Council Rules occurs it would be irresponsible knowing different and not to raise the issue. So please understand that I like you and the job you are doing. I understand often you are just doing what you are told, but that does not make it right or legal. It would be a shame to land in the middle of litigation because you blindly followed someone who really demonstrates a lack of caring about the law.”
Mayor Mim Mack presented a letter from Town Attorney Brian West in which the attorney found “no support for the position that in calling a special meeting the agenda is limited to a single issue.”
“I would interpret ‘object’ to require the purpose of the meeting to be properly and publicly noticed and that the primary restriction is that at a special meeting only matters properly noticed beforehand may be addressed,” he wrote, adding, “The purpose may include multiple items because under Montana Code, as a general definitional rule, ‘[t]he singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.”
West notes that the alternative interpretation would promote calling multiple special meetings if warranted, requiring multiple notices and holding one right after the other.
“A reasonable interpretation of the statute permits multiple, properly noticed agenda items – and only those items – to be the purpose of the special meeting,” concludes West.
Mim Mack said the issue raised considerable stress at the Clerk’s level and he strongly rebuked Floyd for the language he used in his final communication with the Clerk. He said it was one thing to raise issues concerning the law and the interpretation of the law and to question the Mayor’s actions in that regard, but that Floyd’s comments in his last e-mail to the Clerk, were for him personally, “over the line, inappropriate and unacceptable.” He said legitimate questions could be raised without implying, “or as in this case directly threatening a public servant and officer of the town with the possibility of being subject to litigation if she continued doing her job.”
Mim Mack stated that state law in fact protects public servants from being sued for doing their job, even if it turns out to be wrong.
“They can make mistakes, so to suggest that she could be subject to litigation is just false,” said Mim Mack. He also objected to the implication that the Clerk was “blindly following the direction of the Mayor.” He said her job duties and her oath of office require her to question the Mayor according to process when necessary and that she does it and he appreciates and encourages it.
He cautioned Floyd about taking his right to free speech beyond the legal limits and noted that making intimidating or threatening remarks to a public servant to influence a decision was illegal.
Mim Mack noted that anyone can make a mistake.
“Sometimes we are wrong and we owe it to the public to apologize for the mistakes and correct them” said Mim Mack. “I expect no less from citizens who put themselves forward as spokespeople and actually express that they know they are right when, as in this case, they are clearly wrong. I hope that Mr. Floyd will keep that in mind going forward. I think that’s what the public employee deserves and I think that’s what the public deserves.”
The special meeting had two items on the agenda and both were unanimously approved.
The first item involved approving a loan application to the Department of Commerce through the Community Development Block Grant program to be used by BE Forest Products to purchase the building which it currently leases along the Eastside Highway on the north end of town.
The building is currently owned by Jim Edinger who is also a partner, along with Lindsey and Nathan Bean, in BE Forest Products. The building will be purchased for $900,000. The plan calls for a private bank loan of $426,000 combined with the potential CDBG loan of $384,000 at 2% interest over 20 years. BE Forest Products was already the recipient of a grant from the Big Sky Trust Fund in 2014 to expand the business. A portion of the grant money will be awarded for each new hire that the company makes in its expansion efforts.
The second item approved at the meeting was the award of a $3,510,850 contract with Williams Brothers Construction for Phase II of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project.