Judge: council violated rules in removing Crismore

By BRENT SHRUM Western News Editor

Libby City Council violated its own rules in removing Councilman Stu Crismore from office last August, District Judge Michael Prezeau has determined.

In a ruling issued last week, Prezeau found that council disregarded a rule requiring an affirmative vote from four council members to pass any measure. The vote to remove Crismore - taken under a state law allowing the removal of municipal officers for neglect or refusal to discharge duties - resulted in a 3-3 tie, with Mayor Tony Berget casting the deciding vote.

The council rules are included in a nine-page packet given to council members. Several months prior to Crismore's removal for failure to attend meetings, the council had discussed the issue of the four-vote rule with Crismore - ironically, Prezeau noted - arguing that the rule be amended to allow measures to be passed by a simple majority vote when a quorum is present.

Councilman Doug Roll had argued in favor of retaining the four-vote rule on the grounds that it prevented a minority of the council from exerting control. Roll pointed out that in the event that only four council members were present at a meeting, two council members could pass a measure with a tie-breaking vote from the mayor, who under state law only votes in cases of a tie.

In an April 9, 2006, opinion letter to the council, City Attorney Charles Evans said he interpreted the rule to mean that four council members must always vote in favor of any motion, resolution, ordinance or other measure before it could be passed.

Evans' letter was submitted as evidence at a Jan. 25 hearing on the issue. Crismore, Roll, Berget and Evans testified.

Prezeau found that council had violated the four-vote rule along with Crismore's rights to due process.

"At the very minimum, due process requires that a city council must follow its own rules of procedure when attempting to expel a member," Prezeau concluded.

The city had argued that the council had not consistently followed the four-vote rule and that procedural rules were trumped by the city charter, which gives the mayor the power to break ties.

Prezeau called the first argument "an admission, not a defense" and said the second "might seem like a clever argument to a layperson, but it has no legal efficacy."

In addition to restoring Crismore to the council, Prezeau awarded him costs and attorney's fees.

Last September, Prezeau temporarily barred the council from removing Crismore but declined to make the order permanent after determining the council had followed the law. Crismore appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, which ordered Prezeau to review the case and determine how many meetings Crismore had missed, whether he had received due process, and if he had in fact neglected his office or refuse to perform his duties.

Crismore testified during the Jan. 25 hearing that he had missed a number meetings last spring and summer due to conflicts with his job with his own construction and logging company. Prezeau said in his ruling that because he was concluding that the city had violated Crismore's due process rights, it would be improper to speculate on whether Crismore did or did not neglect his office or refuse to perform his duties.

Crismore was elected to the council in November 2003. His term expires this year.