Libby resident not done battling county in open meeting law case

Contrary to some reports, a recent court ruling in the case involving a Libby resident and the Lincoln County Port Authority is not the end of story.

Fifth Judicial District Court Judge Luke Berger issued an order Friday, July 18 denying John Torgison’s motion for preliminary injunction.

But one week later, on July 25, Torgison’s attorney, Amy Guth, filed an appeal directly to the Montana Supreme Court. The appeal is not subject to the mediation process required by statute because it does not involve a money judgement.

While Berger’s written order primarily discussed Torgison’s efforts to halt further dealings or nullify previous decisions between county officials and developer Chris Noble, Torgison’s appeal to the state’s high court mainly references open meeting law violations.

In the reply to objections by the county to amend the complaint, Guth cites case law dating to 1921 regarding open meeting laws and that four newspaper articles in three years and an appearance by former county commissioner Jerry Bennett at a Libby City Council meeting in 2023 are hardly substitutes for the timely notice of an agenda to participate in the decision making process.

“As the newspaper accounts failed to identify a proposed action prior to implementation, the reporting did nothing to ensure public participation in the decision making process, which includes the right to know the proposed  governmental act, or in advance, the right to observe deliberations, the right to give public comment and the right to object,” Guth argued in the court filing. “It has been the law in Montana since 1921 that when government prescribes the method for notifying the public that method must be strictly enforced.”

On June 20, Berger first heard arguments from attorneys, county officials and residents about Torgison’s efforts to stop further business dealings or nullify decisions made between May 2022 and April 2025 involving Port Authority land and the alleged violation of the right of public participation and open meeting laws.

In Berger’s order, he said the landowners, Noble Investment Properties among them, are not parties to the litigation. 

“The real request here in the injunction is to invalidate the prior contracts entered into for the sale of the Port Authority land stopping those owners, who are not parties to this litigation, from use of their land, and invalidating other contracts or agreements,” Berger wrote. “Torgison testified at the hearing he does not believe the prior sales, which came to light 1 1/2 to 2                                                                         years ago, were done correctly and he believes not only should any future sales stop, but everything should revert back to before the sales.

“He feels the citizens lost out on both the ability to purchase the property and the ultimate purchaser, Chris Noble, received a benefit from the purchase price.”

Berger also cited the amount of work that Noble did on Port Authority land as well as the agreements that were made with other entities. He also noted Torgison was aware of the sale for about two years and took no action.

“If the Court granted an injunction to enforce compliance with the open meeting laws and additionally enjoined the county and the Port to take no further action on any of the contracts previously entered into, there would be little change or action because open meeting laws must be followed and the county and Port have no involvement as the contracts in question have already been fulfilled on their part,” Berger wrote. “Thus, the true question is the requested next step after these two questions are answered. Therefore the focus of this order will be on this issue, which is not an ultimate agreement with the plaintiff (Torgison) the open meeting laws were violated or that the county was involved.”

Judge Berger also wrote about what has occurred at the Port since Noble bought 105 acres.

“Here substantial clean up, construction and infrastructure has been changed. Leases and contracts have been signed between Noble and other parties. This is not as straight forward as voiding a contract and returning nearly the exact same land as Noble purchased back to the Port Authority,” Berger wrote.

During Noble’s testimony June 20, he said his company removed 100,000 yards of sawdust and 12,000 yards of concrete removed from the property. He also explained he has already sold some of the property to others, built a new facility for Fed-Ex and has additional developments lined up for the future, including a new hotel.

Berger determined any “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs is far removed from where, “we are at this point.”

“While Torgison may have concerns Noble is benefitting greater than he should for land originally purchased from the Port, Noble himself has done a substantial amount of work for the betterment of the land.”

Returning to the matter of public participation, Guth further argued the Port Authority refused the public the right to participate in the decision making process.

“Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the open meeting law is not intended solely to assure that the public is informed as to the affairs of the government. The open meeting law is to ensure the public has the opportunity to participate in the affairs of the government.”

The court filing also argues the county violated Resolution 999 following its passage in early 2019 until it was changed earlier this month. The resolution mandates all three county commissioners were to serve on the Port Authority Board.

“Accordingly, every meeting of the Port Authority was a meeting of the county commissioners. As the county maintains an official website and has since prior to 2019, there is no excuse for the county to not post the agendas and minutes of the Port Authority, or at the very least, the correct location of the meetings,” Guth wrote. “It is not contested that between May 2022 and July 2025, only one commissioner sat on the Port Authority board.

“During that time, the Board acted without authority or jurisdiction. Actions taken without jurisdiction are void ab initio.”

Void ab initio is a legal term meaning, “void from the beginning.”

Guth also argued that Torgison’s amendment suit naming Bennett and Brent Teske was proper.

“Torgison recognizes that the Court has not determined that the Port Authority violated the open meeting law. However, Teske and Bennett confessed in the injunction hearing that they violated the open meeting law. Thus the finding is inevitable,” Guth wrote.

June 25, Guth filed two motions - one to have the affidavit of Vivian Grosch admitted to the case file and another to amend the complaint and add three other parties to it. For the plaintiffs, Darrel D.C. Orr was added. For the defendants, Bennett and Teske were added.

Port Authority officials and their attorneys argued Torgison was on a “fishing” expedition and hadn’t identified the actions taken by the county and the Port Authority when they allegedly operated in violation of open meeting law.

In an attempt to find information that supported his argument, Torgison filed discovery requests, which were very extensive. Guth then hired Grosch, an intern, to review the Port Authority minutes and outline the actions taken by the Port Authority between May 2022 to April 2025.

Guth sought admittance of the affidavit into evidence that Berger will also examine to determine if county officials and Port Authority members violated open meeting laws.

Berger had set a June 27 deadline for the parties to amend their respective complaints. Despite opposition from the county, he granted Torgison’s request to amend the complaint and add the aforementioned parties.

In the first amended complaint, Torgison alleges that Bennett, a member of the Port Authority, and Teske, also a Port Authority member and current county commissioner, failed to comply with open meeting mandates and committed acts that would be considered obstructing justice. State code addresses public servants knowingly conducting a meeting of a public agency without public participation.

A public servant convicted of the offense of official misconduct shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed six months or both.

Torgison asserts that Bennett and Teske do not qualify for immunity and may not be defended by the county or the Port Authority for their alleged wrongful conduct.