City leaders mum on residency verdict

Days after the news of Judge James Wheelis dismissing the City of Libby’s lawsuit against City Councilman Allen Olsen, the key players remained reticent.

Olsen, a council member since 2011, is pursuing a countersuit which will next be heard Dec. 11.

The counterclaim brings up the intentions of the city council in bringing up Olsen’s residency in the first place. The dismissed claim alleged Olsen did not live in Libby’s city limits and as such was not eligible to be on the city council.

Wheelis said the city did not meet the burden of proof. Court documents stated Olsen had maintained a residence in city limits for 60 days before the election and had not abandoned his residence, thus making him eligible for election. If Olsen wins his countersuit, he could get all his lawyer fees reimbursed by the city, as well as opening up city council members to individual suits.

Despite the news, only one of Olsen’s most outspoken supporters took the public stand at the end of Tuesday’s city council meeting. “I would like the council to consider terminating the city attorney’s contract immediately, and to consider censuring the mayor,” said Arlen Magill, former candidate for city council.”

Magill called the Olsen case a debacle, and said City Attorney Jim Reintsma and Libby Mayor Doug Roll should be punished for extra-judicious behavior.

Roll said he tries to let the attacks roll off his back.

“I try not to pay attention to things like that,” he said. “Arlen got up and read a piece of paper. I wonder who gave him that piece of paper?”

Roll refused to comment on the verdict in the case against Olsen.

Reintsma was similarly dismissive of Magill’s comments, saying his past opinions stand in stark contradiction of those read at the meeting.

“When Allen was elected in 2011, Arlen has comments on the record bringing up (Olsen’s) residency,” Reintsma said. “I think he needs to reflect on his own feelings and not everyone else’s.”

Reintsma also refused to comment on the Olsen ruling.

As for Olsen, the relief was palpable, but he was reluctant to speak about the results.

“I think it’s in my best interest to keep quiet for now,” he said. “At least until December.”

Olsen said the city’s lawsuit was the reason he lost the 2013 mayoral election to Roll by 14 votes. The city’s lawsuit was filed just weeks prior to the day of the election.

Magill also made a point to bring up the closely contested mayor’s race.

“What Jim Reintsma has done is affected the election,” he said. “If Allen wasn’t dealing with the suit, would we have a different mayor today? It’s worth thinking about.”

Wheelis’ decision nearly closed a conflict that has taken years to work itself out in court. The December hearing could determine who will pay for the nearly $150,000 in lawyer fees the saga has racked up. 

“I try not to pay attention to things like that,” he said. “Arlen got up and read a piece of paper. I wonder who gave him that piece of paper?”

Roll refused to comment on the verdict in the case against Olsen.

Reintsma was similarly dismissive of Magill’s comments, saying his past opinions stand in stark contradiction of those read at the meeting.

“When Allen was elected in 2011, Arlen has comments on the record bringing up (Olsen’s) residency,” Reintsma said. “I think he needs to reflect on his own feelings and not everyone else’s.”

Reintsma also refused to comment on the Olsen ruling.

As for Olsen, the relief was palpable, but he was reluctant to speak about the results.

“I think it’s in my best interest to keep quiet for now,” he said. “At least until December.”

Olsen said the city’s lawsuit was the reason he lost the 2013 mayoral election to Roll by 14 votes. The city’s lawsuit was filed just weeks prior to the day of the election.

Magill also made a point to bring up the closely contested mayor’s race.

“What Jim Reintsma has done is affected the election,” he said. “If Allen wasn’t dealing with the suit, would we have a different mayor today? It’s worth thinking about.”

Wheelis’ decision nearly closed a conflict that has taken years to work itself out in court. The December hearing could determine who will pay for the nearly $150,000 in lawyer fees the saga has racked up.