Debate over seating newly elected directors continues

SEELEY LAKE – The issue of when directors terms end and when to seat newly elected directors reared its head again in a special meeting May 21 that was held ahead of the regular meeting and also spilled into the regular meeting.

The special meeting had just one item, litigation strategy, under new business on the agenda. Director Beth Hutchinson questioned how the meeting was scheduled on 48 hours notice explaining that the by-laws require 80 percent of the directors to agree to it. She said she was not asked.

District Manager Jean Curtiss explained that, at request of President Pat Goodover, the secretary started contacting directors until she had 80 percent who agreed to the meeting. That concurrence came from Goodover, Vice President Walt Hill and directors Davy Good and Mike Boltz, therefore, she didn’t need to contact Hutchinson.

Hutchinson argued that at least one, if not both, of the newly elected directors Tom Morris and Jason Gilpin have been certified as elected and done their Oath of Offices. Her interpretation of state law (Montana Code Annotated 7-13-2234) was that once the election was certified and the new directors’ oaths were done, the terms of Boltz and Good ended.

Curtiss said that even if they followed the by-laws, the new directors would not be seated until the regular meeting scheduled an hour later.

Hutchinson said it didn’t matter when they seated the new directors, the old directors’ terms have expired and therefore they could not have agreed to a special meeting.

District Attorney Jon Beal recommended that the board continue with the meeting. He stated that if people choose to contest it then they could ask a judge to advise the Board on it but in the meantime the Board has a “fiduciary duty to the District to move this matter forward.”

Goodover agreed with Beal and continued the meeting asking for a motion to close the meeting. Hill moved and the motion passed with Hutchinson abstaining, restating that she felt the meeting was being held illegally.

The public was asked to leave.

Curtiss asked Beal if Morris and Gilpin needed to leave as well and he said they should.

“Just for the record so it’s clear, they’re prospective board members whether or not they’re board members for certain purposes has yet to be determined by the court,” said Beal.

The remainder of the meeting was closed.

During public comment of the regular meeting, the Pathfinder asked Beal to explain his comment about the newly elected directors being “prospective directors.”

Beal said that he wanted to be clear that Morris and Gilpin are not directors until June 15 based on his interpretation of MCA 7-13-2271.

Another issue Beal raised is that Morris is a plaintiff in two different lawsuits, one directly against the District and the other trying to invalidate two lawful resolutions of the District. This creates the several conflicts of interest between Morris and Gilpin, who is Morris’s son-in-law, and the Board.

“You have in essence, Mr. Morris being a plaintiff and a defendant in the same case. So that is what I meant when I said there’s a question about what the impact of his actions have on him being seated on the board and the impact of his ability to act in compliance with the board resolutions and the Board’s by-laws,” said Beal.

Morris is one of approximately 50 landowners and residents within the District who joined Don Larson’s 2018 lawsuit as plaintiffs. Morris and Larson have also filed a second lawsuit in 2020 against the Missoula County Elections Administrator seeking to allow two citizens initiative petitions to be circulated for signatures.

The petitions seek to repeal two of the Sewer District’s resolutions by a vote of the electorate. One resolution deals with the authorization of bonds to pay for construction and the other is the mandating of landowners to connect to the system once it is constructed.

When asked if he was suggesting that Morris wouldn’t be seated at the June 15 meeting, Beal said he was not suggesting anything. He was just stating the facts that exist.

Goodover said he fully expects that they will be seated at the June 15 meeting.

Goodover questioned how Morris would handle the potential conflict of interest regarding that he is on the Board but also being involved in the two lawsuits.

“In the case of any conflict of interest, I would recuse myself from the vote,” said Morris.

Morris added that the attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the District asked the judge to remove him as a plaintiff but Beal opposed it. The other lawsuit was against the former Elections Administrator not the District.

Editor’s note: While it was not discussed or even mentioned during the open parts of either the special meeting or the regular meeting on May 21, the judge threw out Larson’s 2018 lawsuit against the District that day. See article on this page.