Crismore back on council - for now

By BRENT SHRUM Western News Reporter

Stu Crismore is back on the Libby City Council at least temporarily pending a court ruling on the council's vote last month to remove him on the grounds of "open neglect or refusal to discharge duties."

Crismore was removed from the council by a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Tony Berget serving as tie-breaker. Council members Lee Bothman, Doug Roll and Charlene Leckrone voted in favor of removing Crismore while Bill Bischoff and Wally McElmurry, along with Crismore himself, voted against.

The vote to remove Crismore arose out of concerns by council members and the mayor over his failure to attend a number of recent meetings during the annual budgeting process. City attorney Charles Evans noted that Crismore had missed eight of the last 12 scheduled meetings and that the council could deem that to be neglect of his duties, which is one of a number of reasons listed in a section of state law dealing with the dismissal of municipal officers.

Crismore said he had been unable to attend the meetings because of conflicts with his job. He said he had been unable to call anyone to inform them he wouldn't be making a meeting and added that no one on the council had called him about the issue.

Last week Crismore filed for and received a court order from District Judge Michael Prezeau temporarily reinstating him on the council pending further review. Crismore held in an affidavit supporting his application for the order that he had not been willfully neglectful of his duties and that he had never received a formal warning or notice that his actions were considered willful misconduct. Prior to his removal from office being placed on the council's agenda, he was not afforded the opportunity to address the charges, he said.

Crismore also argued that state law requires a two-thirds vote to expel a council member, not just a simple majority.

Prezeau granted Crismore's request last Friday and gave the city until Sept. 20 to respond. In a response filed later the same day, Evans explained that the council had taken action because of Crismore's failure to attend meetings and argued that the section of law requiring a two-thirds majority did not apply. The section under which the council took action makes no mention of a two-thirds vote, he said.

Evans also said that the council planned to vote again on the issue at its regular monthly meeting on Monday, Sept. 11, and that it was expected that at least four council members would vote in favor of Crismore's removal.

At Monday's meeting, however — with Crismore present and seated with the council — Evans announced that the council would be taking no action pending the outcome of court proceedings.

Crismore was elected to the council in November 2003.