Lakeside plan a step closer to implementation

A lawsuit challenging the Lakeside neighborhood planning process won’t go to trial in December as previously expected, based on a judge’s rulings in the case.

Flathead County District Judge Stewart Stadler on Tuesday ruled on several motions for summary judgement by both parties in the lawsuit filed against the county and Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee by a group of Lakeside area property owners.

The lawsuit brings into question a members-only Yahoo group website the Lakeside committee used to conduct business as the planning process progressed. Plaintiffs allege the county and the Lakeside committee violated open meeting laws.

Stadler’s action last week doesn’t lift the preliminary injunction currently in place that prohibits implementation of the Lakeside Neighborhood Plan. The county has filed a motion to have that injunction lifted and intends to file new paperwork related to the injunction this week, Deputy Flathead County Attorney Tara Fugina said.

The judge’s rulings mean the case is no longer set for a December trial, Deputy Flathead County Attorney Paul Nicol said.

“The way I look at it, this is a big victory for the community of Lakeside,” said Keith Brown, chairman of the Lakeside Community Council. “This is a judgement in our favor and it went the right way. We did the right thing and the right thing happened.”

Stadler deferred ruling on the county’s motion that injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs related to holding public meetings in private homes is moot because the planning committee no longer holds meetings in private residences.

The plaintiffs claimed those meeting accommodations violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since then, the county has issued a memo to land use and community committee members explaining the requirements associated with conducting open, accessible meetings.

But Stadler said because the plaintiffs haven’t had an opportunity to provide proof that a given situation is capable of repetition, he’d allow time for responses to be filed by both parties on the issue.

Noah Bodman of the Fisher Law firm, the plaintiffs’ attorney, complimented the county for taking steps to educate committee members about open meetings laws, but he counters that policy change doesn’t undo the fact that actions were taken at meetings that violated those laws. And those actions led to the creation of the Lakeside plan, he said.

“What the county is doing is admirable,” he said. “But I don’t think that remedies past problems. Meetings were held that the public couldn’t attend.”

Stadler agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that meetings and procedural irregularities cited in the complaint were not decisions of an agency, which would have meant a lawsuit had to be filed within 30 days of a decision. The county had filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, claiming that the lawsuit had been filed too late.

The judge wrote that there was no evidence that the neighborhood planning committee was authorized to make rules, determine contested cases or enter into contracts and “was thus not an agency.”

State law refers to decisions made by an agency related to the statute of limitations.

The judge wrote that “the record contains undisputed evidence that the (neighborhood planning committee) convened at least some meetings that were less than open in violation of” state laws.

But, whether those violations must result in the judge declaring the plan void, he chose to address as part of his response to the summary judgment motion. In that order, Stadler said the plaintiffs’ request that the neighborhood plan be declared void was not an option for him because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their conclusion.

“To me, the Lakeside Community Council worked very hard on the plan and was very good at dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s,” Brown said. “This was a big victory for the community of Lakeside. Rather than letting years of work go down the drain just because a few people wanted to file a lawsuit that wasn’t in-line with the community as a whole we are able to go forward with the work we have done.”

Bodman said the judge’s response to the allegations that the Lakeside committee violated the public’s constitutional right to know is a key part of the lawsuit.

While Judge Stadler found constitutional violations occurred, he didn’t offer a remedy for those violations, Bodman said. And, Bodman says, the Montana Supreme Court has said that constitutional violations must be remedied.

Stadler did not grant the county’s motion for summary judgment related to the deletion of some information from the Yahoo group website.

“There is thus evidence that the (neighborhood planning committee) may have violated” a section of state law which prevents destruction or disposal of public records, Stadler’s order states.

He pointed out that Bodman’s argument that emails that the neighborhood committee secretary says may been deleted are public record and must be kept was correct.

The judge granted the county’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the neighborhood planning group’s use of a Yahoo work group and holding meetings in private residences deprived the plaintiffs of their rights.

Stadler wrote that no laws prevent public meetings in private homes. He also said there was undisputed evidence “that a quorum did not and could not convene” via the Yahoo group.

In response to the plaintiffs’ assertion that the county commissioners didn’t grant the Lakeside Community Council authority to appoint subcommittees or additional boards and that the community council is invalid because the county resolution which created it lacked specificity, the judge wrote that the council was created validly, siding with the county’s position.

The judge also agreed with the county’s position that the bylaws of the community council do not require additional language requiring that all members of the neighborhood planning committee also be members of the community council, as the plaintiffs had argued.

“I’ve felt this was a frivolous lawsuit from the beginning and never really about the process or content of the plan, the process we followed all along was one of inclusion not delusion,” Brown said.

Addressing the issue of whether the neighborhood group violated either the neighborhood plan or the county growth policy regarding amending the plan, the judge again sided with the county.

He wrote that under provisions of state laws, growth policies are not regulatory documents. No particular process must be followed to revise a neighborhood plan, Stadler said.

“I look forward to getting all of this behind us and moving forward with the new plan in place,” Brown said. “We can see the light at the end of the tunnel now. I feel like we won one and we can finally getting on to the business of doing work for Lakeside. I would like to thank the county attorney’s office for putting the needed resources on this lawsuit to defend the Lakeside plan”

Jordan Dawson of the West Shore News contributed to this article.