Supreme Court: Crismore vs. city case not over yet

By BRENT SHRUM Western News Editor

The Montana Supreme Court has overturned a decision by District Judge Michael Prezeau upholding the Libby City Council's removal last August of Councilman Stu Crismore.

In an decision issued last week, the Supreme Court found that Prezeau - who had initially put a hold on the city's action pending further review - erred when he decided in favor of the city council without first holding a hearing to resolve factual issues presented by Crismore and contested by the city. The Supreme Court ordered Prezeau to "immediately reinstate" the initial writ prohibiting the council from removing Crismore and to bar the council from taking action on the issue pending further proceedings.

The council voted 4-3 to remove Crismore on the grounds - cited in state law - of "open neglect or refusal to discharge duties." The six-member council's vote had been tied, and Mayor Tony Berget cast the deciding vote.

At issue was Crismore's failure to attend a number of recent council meetings, particularly during the annual budget process. Crismore told the council he had been unable to attend the meetings because of conflicts with his job.

In taking the case to court, Crismore cited a section of Montana law that says a city council "may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for improper conduct, and expel any member for the same by a two-thirds vote of the members elected." Evans countered on the city's behalf by pointing to another statute listing a number of reasons for which a municipal office may be declared vacant but making no mention of a two-thirds vote.

Prezeau ruled that a two-thirds majority is needed only when there is an allegation of improper conduct not listed in the law the council relied on to make its decision.

The Supreme Court noted in its decision that Prezeau did not address the factual issues of how many meetings Crismore missed, whether he received due process prior to the council's vote to remove him, and whether he actually neglected his office or refused to perform his duties.