Olsen resolution causes confusion

Libby City Councilman Allen Olsen is crying foul after the passage of a recent council resolution supporting the declaratory action filed by City Attorney Jim Reinstma to determine Olsen’s residency.

During a February meeting, a 4-2 vote passed Resolution 1845, stating “the city’s support” of Reintsma’s actions. Claims by Olsen and former city councilman D.C. Orr have suggested the council was out-of-line to vote on the resolution during the same meeting it was presented.

However, a look at the council’s rules of procedure indicate the council is in fact allowed to pass the resolution during its first reading, but may not have followed another requirement.

Part X of the council’s rules of procedure addresses ordinances and resolutions. Section 1 states “no ordinance or resolution shall be prepared for presentation to the council unless ordered by a majority vote of the council or requested by the mayor.”

Reintsma said Mayor Doug Roll did not request the resolution. Councilwoman Robin Benson, Reintsma and Olsen all said they do not recall a vote requesting presentation of the resolution. However, Reintsma said he was asked, not by vote, to draft the resolution by at least four council members in November. The drafted resolution was then sent to Benson for review by outside legal counsel.

No public vote requested the presentation of the resolution, and during the Februrary meeting, Benson said she was unsure why the resolution was presented. Councilman and County Administrator Bill Bischoff said the resolution was presented in response to Olsen’s attorneys requesting information.

“That is not out of the normal procedure,” Reintsma said.

As for passing a resolution during its first reading, Section 3 of Part X requires only that ordinances undergo a first and second reading before final adoption. The key is that ordinances are legally binding, while resolutions are less formal and simply a statement of council members’ opinions. Montana Code Annotated 7-5-121 states “resolutions may be submitted and adopted at a single meeting.”

Still, Olsen, is not pleased.

“I still think this was jammed down our throats,” Olsen said. “I don’t believe the resolution met our policies. I’m dealing with a bunch of liars that can’t keep all their lies straight.”

Olsen has sued Reintsma, alleging abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The claims stem from Reintsma’s decision to file a summons, a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and restraining order 12 days before the 2013 mayoral election, which Olsen lost to Roll by 13 votes. The restraining order, which would have delayed the count of mayoral votes, was withdrawn six days before the election.