2014 MT 5
Mont.2014Background
- Jefferson High School District established a three-member budget subcommittee to study budget issues and report to the full Board.
- The July 10, 2012 Board meeting discussed four principal candidates; the subcommittee was asked to meet July 13 to assess potential salary savings.
- Public notice for the July 13 subcommittee meeting stated no decisions would be made by a subcommittee unless authorized by the full Board.
- The Boulder Monitor learned of the subcommittee’s context and decided not to cover July 13 since it was not noticed as a full Board meeting; it nonetheless attended prior relevant meetings.
- Three designated subcommittee members met July 13 to set salaries for the principal and a part-time athletic director, considering benefits; a fourth board member attended in the audience and asked questions.
- Jan Anderson of the Monitor sued, alleging the subcommittee meeting violated open meeting and public participation requirements and seeking declarations, voiding of any actions, and fees; the district court granted summary judgment to the Monitor, concluding the critical facts were undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment given disputed material facts. | Monitor asserts undisputed facts show a quorum attended and acted, violating open meetings. | District disputes that a quorum convened or that the subcommittee acted to reduce candidates; argues contested facts preclude summary judgment. | No; genuine issues of material fact existed; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether the July 13, 2012 subcommittee meeting was a meeting of a quorum of the School Board. | Monitor contends a quorum attended, constituting a Board meeting. | District contends only subcommittee members convened and no quorum constitutes a Board meeting. | The meeting was not a properly noticed Board meeting; but factual disputes remain. |
| Whether the public notice for July 13 adequately disclosed the potential for Board-level actions. | Notice failed to disclose subcommittee could reduce candidate roster and take budget actions. | Notice reasonably informed about budget discussion; actions were within subcommittee scope. | Notice inadequacy remains an issue; requires further proceedings. |
| Whether the fourth board member’s participation converted the subcommittee gathering into a Board meeting for open meetings purposes. | Presence and participation by a fourth member, who was a Board member, transformed the meeting. | Participation by a non-designated member does not automatically convert to a Board meeting. | Legal question unresolved on summary judgment; requires trial before resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Common Cause of Montana v. Statutory Committee to Nominate Candidates, 868 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1994) (liberally construed open-meeting provisions; public bodies must be open to the public)
- Associated Press v. Crofts, 89 P.3d 971 (Mont. 2004) (quorum presence triggers open-meeting obligations; purpose is openness of deliberations)
- Bd. of Trustees v. Bd. of Co. Commrs., 606 P.2d 1069 (Mont. 1980) (open meetings principles and public scrutiny)
- Great Falls Tribune Co. v. Great Falls Pub. Schs., 841 P.2d 502 (Mont. 1992) (constitutional right to know; openness of deliberations)
- Great Falls Pub. Schs. v. Day, 959 P.2d 508 (Mont. 1998) (liberal construction of open-meeting provisions; public access to deliberations)