Second petition to recall Libby mayor denied

A second draft petition to recall Libby Mayor Doug Roll was denied by the Lincoln County election administrator on Wednesday for drawing legal conclusions. 

Libby resident and petitioner Tammy Brown had filed the petition with the county Elections Office on April 26, alleging that Roll had violated his oath of office and committed misconduct as mayor. Her first petition was denied for lack of specificity.

Election Administrator Leigh Riggleman rejected the new petition as well, acting upon the advice of Lincoln County Attorney Bernard Cassidy. 

Brown’s second petition listed four examples of how she believes Roll violated his oath of office and committed official misconduct: unilaterally canceling a regularly-scheduled meeting; hiring the city attorney without council consent; canceling meetings called by the council; and conducting a meeting with three council members, allegedly violating the Montana public meeting law.

In a letter to Riggleman, Cassidy said that while the second draft did provide statements of specific fact, the petition also drew legal conclusions, which is done by the court, not the petitioner. 

“In short,” Cassidy wrote, “it is my opinion that the Second Petition is insufficient as to form, although it is an improvement over the first one.”

Brown’s first proposed grounds for recall said that Roll “unilaterally and improperly canceled the meeting of the City Council scheduled for June 1, 2015, in direct violation of Chapter 2.48.010 of Libby’s municipal code.”

“That is a statement of fact,” Cassidy wrote in regard to Roll canceling the meeting. “However, the conclusory allegation that that fact is in direct violation of Chapter 2-48-010 of Libby’s Municipal Code is a legal conclusion. Only the court can decide that question.”

In another of her examples, Brown claimed that Roll denied “express wishes” of the council for a working meeting, violating the charter that requires him to “carry out the policies established by the council.”

In his analysis, Cassidy wrote that Brown did not provide how she knew what the “expressed wishes” of the council were or if those wishes are the “established policies” of the council. 

Regarding both the last two allegations — that Roll had hired the city attorney without council approval and held a meeting violating the Montana public meeting law — Cassidy said again that Brown is drawing legal conclusions.

“There’s a statement of fact that he held a meeting,” Cassidy said, but “whether or not it violates [the law] is a legal conclusion.”

Riggleman said she spoke with Brown on Wednesday to discuss the decision, which echoed the April 21 rejection of the initial petition.

“She will probably file again; that was her indication.” Riggleman said. 

Brown confirmed she was working on a third draft and had a better understanding of the requirements needed to get the petition approved.

“[The second petition] improved significantly,” Brown said. “It’s a very minor issue and it will be returned.”

Riggleman said if she does eventually validate a recall petition, Roll would be able to defend himself in a 200-word response. 

“Every person has that right to stand up and say this is why this shouldn’t be counted,” Riggleman said. “In this case, you can’t make conclusions of law. That’s not for a petitioner to do. It’s for the court system to make conclusions of law.”

The last successful recall of a public official in Lincoln County was in 2012 when a Troy council member’s petition to recall Mayor Donald Banning was approved by voters by a 190-123 margin. 

Council member Fran McCully alleged in the petition that Banning cashed checks for travel expenses and attempted city action without council approval. The special election to recall Banning took place in May 2012.

Brown did not say when she planned to file the third draft petition or what she would change. 

“Only thing I have to say is I’ll turn it in again,” Brown said. 

If the petition is validated, it will be circulated for signatures and must garner the signatures of qualified electors equaling at least 15 percent of the number of persons registered to vote at the preceding county general election. Should the signatures be validated, a recall election would be scheduled, with a simple majority deciding the issue.

Reporter Seaborn Larson may be reached at 758-4441 or by email at slarson@dailyinterlake.com.