Payne's remarks create concern

Remarks by Allan Payne, Libby’s City Attorney, at the Tuesday evening meeting of the Libby City Council created confusion and backlash. Payne, in addition to presenting the routine business of the City Attorney’s Office, seized the opportunity to comment upon legal issues facing Mayor Doug Roll and five current and former council members.

Approximately 100 people attended the meeting held in the Ponderosa Room at Libby City Hall Tuesday evening, the first official meeting of the Libby City Council since Roll abruptly adjourned the meeting amid calls from the public for his resignation. Regular meetings for June 1 and June 15 were also canceled by Roll, leading to the unusual Tuesday evening meeting.

After dispensing of the routine business included in the City Attorney’s report, Payne addressed the sufficiency finding issued by Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices last month. Although he cited a conflict of interest and said he would be representing neither the city nor any of the individuals named in the finding – Mayor Roll, former City Attorney James Reinstma, council members Bill Bischoff, Barbara Desch and Peggy Williams and former council members Vicky Lawrence and Robin Benson – he attempted to minimize the severity of the complaint and the possible ramifications.

“As it turns out, because the sufficiency finding also found that certain council members and the mayor may also have violated certain campaign issues, that creates conflicts for the City Attorney’s Office, so the City Attorney won’t be representing either the city or those council members or the mayor in that,” Payne said.

Payne characterized the complaint as a civil matter and a matter for which the County Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the mayor and other city officials.

“The Commissioner of Political Practices found that there was sufficient evidence to assert a civil claim against the city for violation of certain campaign finance laws,” Payne said. “Now, since that time the County Attorney, who would normally prosecute these kinds of claims, has declined to prosecute it. It’s gone back to the Commissioner of Political Practices and I have not heard whether he intends to pursue it or not. If he does, I think the city has some good legal and factual defenses.”

Motl’s sufficiency finding, however, does not limit the matter to civil prosecution.

“Because there is a finding of violation and a determination that de minimis and excusable neglect theories are not applicable, civil/criminal prosecution and/or a civil fine is justified as well as any other action the commissioner is directed to take,” Motl wrote. “In this matter, that ‘other action’ could include removal of an elected official from office. The commissioner notes that this approach is grounded in law as an elected candidate assumes a public office he or she also assumes the ethics and public trust responsibilities that accompany assumption of a public office.”

Motl said the view Payne presented to the public at the Libby City Council meeting was inaccurate.

“No. It’s not accurate to say that,” Motl said. “We will be presenting a settlement position, and we’re not sure what that settlement position is going to be yet, but his characterization is not accurate.”

Motl also indicated most of the matters referred to various county attorneys by his office are waived back to the commissioner.

“Most of the matters decided by a commissioner and referred to the County Attorney are waived back to the commissioner for his further consideration,” Motl wrote.

Payne then explained his interpretation of the process and potential liability for the city. He said the law allows for a fine of three times the amount of the illegal campaign contribution or $500, whichever is greater. As Reintsma wasn’t paid for filing the lawsuit and the city isn’t charged a filing fee, there was no actual amount illegally contributed.

Payne said, based upon that math, the maximum liability for the city would be $62.50, or one-eighth of the possible $500 fine.

Motl said he has not spoken with Payne about the issue or the potential fines and other penalties which could be imposed.

“I have not spoken with Libby’s City Attorney about this matter. He came up with this himself,” Motl said.

Payne stressed the distinction of money paid for the preparation and filing of the suit, although questioned on the matter by Councilman Allen Olsen. He also made no mention of Reintsma’s $52,000 per year contract with the City of Libby as its attorney, nor did he specify how many hours of that paid time were used by Reintsma to prepare and file the suit.

Olsen referenced two separate votes of the City Council authorizing additional payments to Reintsma, both of which were ostensibly payments for extra work involved with defending the city from Olsen’s counter-claim in the lawsuit. 

Councliman Brent Teske was confused by Payne’s comments and by the potential liability on the part of the city. At issue is not only the additional money paid to Reintsma, which Olsen alleged was $4,000, but also the $49,500 settlement paid by the city in the case. A formal request for documentation of payments from the city to Reintsma was unfulfilled as of press time.

Councilman Teske expressed concern with Payne’s remarks about the case.

“I don’t know if he’s spoken with Commissioner Motl or not,” Teske said. “If he hasn’t, then he’s being awfully presumptuous in pretending to understand what’s going to happen here before it happens.”

Councilman Allen Olsen was also displeased with Payne’s remarks.

“I think it’s just sad that we have a $70,000 City Attorney who is deliberately misleading the public,” he said.

Councilwoman Dejon Raines said she was concerned by the issue, but was going to wait to see how the issue plays out before commenting.