Council rejects Payne's 2016 contract

The Libby City Council voted Monday night to not renew the city’s contract with Doney Crowley P.C. for 2016. The motion, proposed by Councilman Gary Neff and seconded by Councilman Allen Olsen, also received the vote of Councilman Brent Teske. Council members Barb Desch, Peggy Williams and Dejon Raines voted against the motion. Mayor Doug Roll, who is only allowed to vote in the case of a tie, cast the deciding vote against the contract.

The vote does not mean the firm will not represent the city in 2016, but only that a new contract must be negotiated. The current contract, which was rejected, is set to expire Dec. 31, 2015.

“As I said, I’m not going to sign this contract again anyway,” Allan Payne said after the vote. Payne is the named representative of Doney Crowley P.C. on the contract between the firm and the City of Libby.

Councilman Neff brought up several concerns with the contract during the discussion.

His first concern was that the contract was a violation of state law. Montana law specifies the term of a city attorney is two years, but the contract between Doney Crowley and the city was for only the time period of Jan. 1, 2015 until Dec. 31, 2015. Both Payne and Roll addressed the issue, stating Payne is appointed through the end of 2016, but the contract will require renegotiation at the end of 2015.

Neff also questioned the firm’s loyalty to the city, as there is an escape clause written into the contract which allows the firm to terminate the relationship should there be a change in city administration or the mayor.

“The duty and fidelity of everyone at this table has got to be to the city, not to us as individuals,” Neff said. “And that is not what Doney has done here.”

Payne said the reason for the clause is to protect himself and the firm from the necessity of representing a client he doesn’t respect.

The final concern brought up by Neff in his opening was the possibility of a conflict of interest based upon the firm’s representation of the Lincoln County Port Authority and Lincoln County in various matters. One clause of the contract allows the firm to decline representation of the city if a conflict with an existing client materializes and places the financial burden of hiring outside representation for that matter onto the city, even though the firm is paid a flat fee to represent the city, with a billing provision that allows for additional payments for non-standard work. No such clause protects the city for work the firm cannot or will not perform.

Payne said it was his responsibility to his firm to negotiate a deal that is in the firm’s best interest, as a business.

“I’m going to try to get the best contract terms for my firm as I can,” he said. “And I’m not going to apologize for that.”

Payne told the council at that point he was unsure of whether or not he would sign the contract, as currently written, again.

“I think the City of Troy has a hell of a lot better deal than I do,” he said. “But everybody else here doesn’t think that. Maybe the solution is that I take the City of Troy contract and maybe that will be the next contract. Maybe everybody will be happy then.”

Payne went on to explain that the bulk of the city attorney’s work, he said 90 percent, is prosecution in city court, leaving little time to address the civil issues the city council members seemed to want to discuss. He said the city court matters have a six-month timeline attached in order to ensure the consitutional rights of the accused are protected. As such, those matters are a higher priority for the firm.

Councilman Brent Teske focused in on the firm’s work in city court, asking Chief of Police Terry Watson for his impression of the firm’s work.

“This law firm is awesome for us,” Watson replied.

Councilman Olsen turned the discussion to what he perceived as a conflict of interest with Payne, citing a deposition in which Mayor Roll stated he received free legal advice from Payne prior to his firm being awarded the city attorney contract.

Payne denied the allegation.

“You keep saying that,” Payne said. “But by repeating it, it doesn’t make it true.”

Olsen responded that he wasn’t the one who kept saying it, but that it was written in Roll’s sworn deposition.

“Doug is not necessarily conversant in what is or is not legal advice,” Payne said. “I can tell you I’ve never given Doug personal legal advice in my life.”

In the deposition, given during the lawsuit filed by the city in an attempt to have Olsen stricken from the 2013 mayoral ballot, Roll referenced a “gentleman’s agreement” between him and Payne, and that Payne provided legal advice, “both personally and otherwise.”

Neff made a motion to not renew the contract and to open the search for a new city attorney. It was seconded by Olsen.

“I do not believe this contract is good for the city,” Neff said.

The council members were visibly confused about the impact of the motion, questioning whether or not it would preclude the city from even considering the firm. The motion was withdrawn, with substitute motions made, several times before Neff made the final motion: “That the current contract not be renewed.”

The motion passed with Mayor Roll’s tie-breaking vote, with Council members Raines, Williams and Desch dissenting.