City attorney explains Crismore's removal from council

To the Editor:

In a recent editorial, the editor criticized the members of the city council for removing Stu Crismore from the council. He suggested the council's action was the result of personal bias against Mr. Crismore and had little or nothing to do with his failure to attend meetings. I would like to take issue with the editor and give the citizens of Libby my take on what happened.

Although Stu has, at times, been a thorn in the side of the mayor and members of the council, it is my belief that they have learned to understand and live with Stu. What really bothered them, however, is his failure to attend or hold a high percentage of his committee meetings and his failure to attend council meetings, starting primarily in June. Most of the recent meetings concerned the creation of an annual budget and are, arguably, the most important meetings of the year. At no time did Stu call in advance and say that he could not attend a meeting or call, after missing a meeting, to explain why he missed the meeting or apologize for missing it.

At last Monday's 6 p.m. meeting, Stu appeared after being given notice of the purpose of the meeting. He was given the opportunity to explain his absences and why his position should not be declared vacant. What the council would have liked to have heard from Stu was something in the way of an apology and a commitment to attend meetings more regularly in the future. Instead, Stu blamed the council for not calling him and asking him why he was not attending meetings. He blamed the council for not talking with him about this topic at a special budget meeting he attended at 6 p.m. the week before after being warned about possible actions the council might take because of his absences.

Stu stated that the demands of his work was the reason he could not attend meetings and that summer months were especially difficult. During summer months, he said he could not predict if and when he would be able to attend council meetings. He stated that he had on several occasions told the mayor or council members that he could not attend and it was extremely difficult for him to attend 6 p.m. meetings or Wednesday evening meetings. When asked why he had not attended the last two monthly meetings, which were held at 7 p.m. on Mondays, he said that he had planned to attend the meetings but could not.

When asked if, perhaps, his work requirements were inconsistent with his duties as a council member, he acknowledged that his work was more important and that attendance at council meetings would, in effect, be secondary to his work schedule and play a second fiddle.

In my opinion, it would have been relatively easy for Stu to have avoided being removed from office if he had presented himself in a more reasonable, thoughtful and apologetic manner. I am confident that no one on the council wanted to thwart the will of the public who voted to place Stu on the council. By law, however, the council can declare a position vacant if a council member openly neglects his office.

Although all council members were critical of Stu, either because of his past acts or omissions or because of the way he presented himself at the meeting, three (including Stu) voted against his removal. It was a tough decision, but that is what public officials are sometimes called upon to make. I have no reason to believe that the decision to remove was for any reason other than Stu's failure to attend meetings and properly engage himself in the work of the city, as well as the way he presented himself at Monday's meeting. In other words, I do not believe the council was just looking for an excuse to get rid of Stu.

Charles Evans

City Attorney