Revised petition to recall Libby mayor filed

Libby resident Tammy Brown has resubmitted the draft petition requesting the recall of Libby Mayor Doug Roll to the Lincoln County elections office for validation. The new petition was submitted Wednesday, April 27.

At the request of the elections office, after review by the Lincoln County Attorney’s Office, Brown changed the statement of grounds for a recall to include specific instances in which she felt the mayor violated his oath of office and committed official misconduct. She listed four specific violations.

“Ms. Riggleman gave me a letter explaining what I needed to do with the petition to meet the legal requirements,” Brown said. “So I resubmitted it, listing four of the things he’s done that meet the grounds for a recall. I don’t want this to get into personalities or personal attacks, it’s about Doug Roll’s performance as mayor of Libby.”

First, she alleged Roll violated his oath of office by failing to perform his duties under the Libby City Charter when he canceled a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Libby City Council on June 1, 2015. 

Libby’s municipal code requires the city council to meet at 7 p.m. on the first Monday of every month.

“2.48.010. Hereafter all regular meetings of the city council shall be held once every month, on the first Monday of each month at the hour of 7 p.m. at the City Hall in the city. On reasonable notice thereof given by the city clerk or given by the mayor, or any two aldermen, the time may be changed to any other hour or place for a particular meeting.”

The notice of the meeting’s cancellation was sent by email to all members of the city council at 4:23 p.m. on Friday, May 29, 2016, by then-City Clerk/Treasurer Glena Hook.

“Monday’s meeting June 1, 2015 has been canceled and will be rescheduled for a later date,” Hook wrote in the email message.

The second allegation is related to the hiring of David Tennant as Libby City Attorney. Brown alleged Roll violated the city charter by hiring Tennant to represent the city without the consent of the city council. Tennant was offered a contract by Roll on Feb. 3, 2016, and sworn in on Feb. 11. He wasn’t confirmed by the city council until April 18, 2016, at a special meeting. 

“The mayor had several chances to bring the new attorney before the council and let them interview him,” Brown said. “He was at one meeting, but there was no discussion on the agenda. He’s been in town for court several times, but no special meeting was called until April 18. The mayor is telling people Tennant wasn’t named city attorney until April 18, but the documents say otherwise. He was sworn in as city attorney. He signed court documents as the Libby City Attorney. He told the newspaper he had a valid appointment. All of this happened without the city council’s consent.”

At the April 4, 2016, meeting of the city council Roll denied the allegation. “He has to be sworn in order to do the job in front of him, but he is not the City Attorney,” Roll said.

Brown’s third allegation is that Roll has violated the city charter, and hence his oath of office, by refusing to call meetings requested by council. Several members of the city council have repeatedly asked the mayor for a second meeting, or even just a working session in addition to the regular first meeting of the month. A working meeting was scheduled for March 21, but Roll canceled the meeting, warning council members that attendance at any meeting not sanctioned by the mayor could be considered a violation of both the city charter and Montana law.

“I would remind council that by City Charter and Montana Code, the Mayor is the only authority that can call a council meeting, (meeting defined by MCA 2-3-202 a quorum of council, 4 or more council members in our case,will hear, discuss or act upon issues that it has jurisdiction over),” Roll wrote in an email time-stamped 1:32 p.m. March 21, 2016. “No council member has authority to call a meeting of a quorum, no matter their title ( Council President in this case ). Council President, by City Charter’s only power is to chair council meetings if the Mayor is absent. Your attendance at tonight’s meeting is your choice, keeping in mind that it would be contrary to City Charter and Montana Code.”

Section 3.04, paragraph 4, of the Libby City Charter requires the mayor to “carry out the policies established by the council.”

Brown said the mayor’s refusal to schedule meetings requested by the council is just another example of his refusal to perform his duties as required by law.

“It doesn’t matter if the mayor doesn’t want to meet,” she said. “The city council is elected to make those decisions, and if they want to meet he is obligated to schedule the meeting and arrange the agenda as they’ve requested. He can participate in the discussion, he can even vote to break ties, but he can’t hold the council and the entire city hostage to his own agenda. That’s against the law, as specified in the city charter. It’s an abuse of power and it’s keeping our city council people from doing the jobs we’ve elected them to do.”

Brown’s fourth allegation is that Roll committed official misconduct under Montana law when he conducted a meeting between himself and three members of the Libby City Council. The meeting, held April 1, included Roll and council members Brian Zimmerman, Dejon Raines and Peggy Williams, along with city administrator Jim Hammons.

Montana law defines a public meeting as any meeting that includes the quorum of a public body. 

“2-3-202. Meeting defined. As used in this part, “meeting” means the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public agency or association described in 2-3-203, whether corporal or by means of electronic equipment, to hear, discuss, or act upon a matter over which the agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.

2-3-203. Meetings of public agencies and certain associations of public agencies to be open to public – exceptions. (1) All meetings of public or governmental bodies, boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies of the state, or any political subdivision of the state or organizations or agencies supported in whole or in part by public funds or expending public funds, including the supreme court, must be open to the public.”

Roll, in letters to the editor to two area media outlets, denied the illegality of the meeting, arguing three members of council don’t constitute a quorum, and as such, the meeting was legal and public notice and participation were not required.

Mike Meloy, an attorney with the Freedom of Information Hotline, disagreed with Roll’s interpretation of the law. Meloy said because Roll has a vote in council, even though it is limited to breaking a tie, he counts as a member of the body under law.

“The law is patently clear,” he said. “Whenever a quorum of a public body meets to discuss any official business it constitutes a ‘meeting’ and triggers agenda, advanced notice, right to participate and open meeting requirements. A quorum in a seven-person body is four.”

The elections office now has another week to review the petition and either accept or reject it. Should it be accepted, Brown said she will immediately begin circulating the petition for signatures. 

In order for the issue to go to the voters, signatures totaling 20 percent of the number of registered voters during the last municipal election are required. According to statistics provided by Riggleman’s office, there were 1,645 registered voters within city limits at the time of the 2015 municipal election, meaning 329 signatures will be required to place the question of recall on a ballot for the voters of Libby.

Brown said she doesn’t think acquiring the required number of signatures will pose a problem.

“This isn’t the work of a small handful of people,” she said. “I’ve had hundreds of people ask when they can sign the petition. People have called and emailed and sent me messages on Facebook expressing their support. If even half of those people sign the petition we’ll have more than enough people to push this through and start to get Libby back on the right track.”