Volume XXI, Number 6

Wednesday, September 8, 2005

Page One News at a Glance

No funds slated for Hamilton Study Commission

New attendance policy at Stevi High School

Stevi PUD gets recommendation of approval

No funds slated for Hamilton Study Commission

By Michael Howell

The Hamilton City Council, which has been at odds with members of the Hamilton City Government Study Commission since its inception, has refused to pay the legal bills incurred by the Study Commission in defending itself against a lawsuit filed against the commission by two of its own members. Now, the City Council is considering a budget for the next fiscal year that does not include any funds for the study group. Consideration of that budget is on the agenda for Tuesday, September 6, too late for publication in this week's Bitterroot Star.

Study Commission Chairman Bob Frost believes that the city is required by law to include the funding for the Study Commission in its budget. The Study Commission was established by a public vote in last November's election. The voters were asked specifically, in a separate ballot question, whether they wanted to fund the Study Commission or not. The voters approved funding it.

The purpose of the Study Commission, as defined by state law, is to study the existing form and powers of a local government, as well as the procedures for delivery of local government services, and then to compare them with other forms available under state law. Then it is the Study Commission's responsibility to issue a tentative report, solicit public comment and then submit a final report recommending either no change, an amendment to the existing form, or an alternative to the existing form of government.

Tension between the Study Commission and city government officials was evident at the outset and soon became rancorous. Two members of the Study Commission have existing lawsuits against the City for personal reasons. The Study Commission has been critical of the local government operations, but considers this to be their job. Meanwhile, some city officials feel like they are being attacked by a group that had a pre-formed agenda.

Just prior to the release of the first Tentative Report this summer, the Study Commission was sued by two of its own members.

On May 13, Commission member Dan Rothlisberger and ex-officio member Pat Sanders filed a lawsuit seeking a restraining order and an injunction against the Study Commission to prevent it from accelerating the time schedule to get recommendations on the next ballot and from issuing a final report. The two charged the Commission with violating the state's open meeting laws. They claimed to be excluded from the process and that the Commission failed to make the decision to hold the May 2, 2005 Public Hearing at an open meeting. They claimed that the Commission did not hold a public hearing to change the timetable.

Judge John Larson of Missoula allowed the Study Commission to proceed with its temporary report, but restrained the Commission from publishing a Final Report.

The Commission claimed that it properly advertised and held meetings but conceded that the decision to accelerate the timetable was not made at a public hearing. They argued that it did not need to be made at a public hearing because it is a "ministerial act," that is an act required by law that does not require any judgment on the part of the official.

In his Final Order in the case, Larson ruled on July 11 in favor of the Study Commission, deciding that it acted within its power when it set a date for a public hearing outside of a meeting open to the public.

Rothlisberger and Sanders wrote a Minority Report published along with the Study Commission's Tentative Report, but have subsequently resigned from the Study Commission siting as their reasons many of the same complaints mentioned in their unsuccessful lawsuit.

The Hamilton City Council then refused to pay the legal costs incurred by the Study Commission to defend itself against the charges. City Administrator Colleen Miller informed the Study Commission of the City's refusal in a letter citing failure on their part to consult with the City's insurer or the City Attorney and claimed that the Study Commission was already over budget.

Since then, at Miller's request, the city's insurer, the Montana Municipal Insurance Authority, has informed them that the Government Study Commission is a covered party under their insurance policy, but that in this instance, since there were no monetary damages sought in the suit, the Study Commission's legal expenses are not covered due to an exclusion.

That leaves only the City to cover the Study Commission's legal costs, and so far it has refused.

Now, it appears, the City is considering a 2005-2006 budget that includes no funds at all for the Study Commission. It is sure to be a hotly debated topic when the budget is considered at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, September, 6.

The Commission's Final Report recommends keeping the current "council-mayor" form of government with some structural changes "to balance the powers of the executive and legislative branches." Expressing an initial inclination to endorse a Charter form of Government with self-governing powers, the Final Report makes no such recommendation, but states instead that, "we have not seen any demonstration of the level of accountability that would be required with self-governing powers."

The Study Commission also recommends that the Mayor not preside over the City Council meeting as he currently does. Although presiding over the meeting, the mayor may not vote except to break a tie between the six Council members. The Commission claims that Mayor Joe Petrusaitis has broken ties 12 times in the course of six months and that this gives the executive branch too much power over the legislative branch. The Commission recommends that the Council President be the presiding officer and also retain the power to vote. And in a separate but connected recommendation it endorses increasing Council member numbers from six to seven.

The Study Commission also adamantly endorses having an elected treasurer or finance officer. It claims that the current practice of having the finance officer appointed by the mayor is illegal, since the only ratified form of City government calls for an elected finance officer.

The Study Commission recommends that the Administrative Assistant position be "secretarial in nature only, with no supervisory or policy making authority." It also recommends the establishment of a Community Council to aid the City Council in its work.

The amended form of government proposed by the Local Government Study Commission will be submitted to the voters of Hamilton at a special election to be held with the general election on November 8, 2005.

A copy of the Study Commission's Final Report and the answers to the public questionnaire distributed by the Commission are available for review at the Hamilton City Hall.

New attendance policy at Stevi High School

By Michael Howell

The Stevensville High School will be implementing a new attendance policy for the 2005-2006 school year. The new policy limits students to a maximum of eight absences per class per semester.

Parents will be notified by mail when a student has accumulated four absences. There will be a meeting between the student and vice-principal after the sixth absence. At this time, the student will receive an Attendance Contract. The parent will be given five days or until the student reaches eight absences to return the Attendance Contract.

Absences that count toward the maximum of eight include excused absences, unexcused absences, truancy, and absences due to a funeral or illness. Absences that do not count toward the limit include curricular absences, court, medical and administrative waivers, in-house and pre-planned absences, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and snow days.

For more details about the policy interested persons may call Vice Principal Robert DoBell at 777-5481, extension 129.

Stevi PUD gets recommendation of approval

By Michael Howell

The Stevensville Planning and Zoning Board gave a unanimous recommendation for approval last week for a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the south side of Stevensville. Former Mayor Pat Groninger has proposed to build eight units on two and one-quarter acres that he owns along Middle Burnt Fork Road.

The object of a PUD, according to Planning and Zoning Board Chairman Ben Longbottom, is to better utilize space by relaxing some normal requirements to increase the amount of open space in the development. In this case that means relaxing the restrictions on lot size, set-back requirements and height restrictions.

According to Longbottom, about half a dozen people attended the meeting. He said that they had questions about the proposal, and while some spoke specifically in favor of the development, none spoke in opposition. Longbottom said that, given the fact that there is currently no building inspector, a number of conditions were placed upon the approval detailing requirements for the infrastructure. He said that the Town's engineer, Tom Hanson of Professional Consultants Incorporated, is also working on a road plan, and some conditions regarding a road easement to accommodate future extension of the subdivision road to the north were also included.

The Board voted unanimously for a recommendation of approval. The Town Council will take up the matter at its next scheduled meeting and may accept the Board's recommendation, modify it, or reject it, as well as accepting, denying or adding to or changing the recommended conditions of approval. The next Council meeting is set for Monday, September 12 , at the Town Hall at 7:30 p.m.