Title: SONSTELIE v BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-229
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 1983

NO. 82-229 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1983 DORIS SONSTELIE, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, TBE BOARD O F TRUSTEES F O R SCHOOL DISti'RICT NO. LO, Flathead County, Montana, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Flathead, The Honorable Robert M. H o l t e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: B i l l e y & Loring, Great F a l l s , Montana Richard DeJana, I < a l i s p e l l , E'or Respondent : Ted 0. Lympus, County Attorney, KalispeZl, Montana - - - - - Submitted on B r i e f s : November 24, 1982 Decided: February 1 0 , 1983 FEE j . 1583 F i l e d : d S i f Z */ c$lM- - - - Clerk .4r. C h l e t J u s t i c e FranK I. Hasweil delivered t h e Oprnion or t h e Court. D o r i s S o n s t e l i e petitioned t h e F l a t h e a d County D i s - t r i c t Court t o i n v a l i d a t e a d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment. A nonjury t r i a l was h e l d on March 25, 1982. On hay 1 3 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d judgment i n f a v o r of t h e Board of T r u s t e e s . S o n s t e l i e now a p p e a l s . A p p e l l a n t was a nontenured t e a c h e r who had t a u g h t a t t h e Cayuse P r a i r i e School t o r t h e t h r e e s c h o o l y e a r s , 1978- 1981. Cayuse P r a i r i e , School D i s t r i c t No. 10, F l a t h e a d County, is a t h i r d c l a s s d i s t r i c t w i t h fewer t h a n a thousand people l i v i n g i n t h e d i s t r i c t . There a r e t h r e e members on t h e Board of T r u s t e e s . The board meetings t h a t a r e h e l d can b e s t be c h a r a c e e r i z e d a s informal. On Tuesday, March 1 0 , 1981, t h e Board of T r u s t e e s h e l d ~ t s r e g u l a r monthly meeting. A p p e l l a n t was p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e meetlng f o r a l e n g t h y discussion of h e r t e a c h i n g t h a t 1s d e t a i l e d I n t h e minutes of t h a t meeting. She made a s t a t e - ment i n r e g a r d t o h e r r e t e n t i o n a s a t e a c h e r and a number of o t h e r members of t h e p u b l i c voiced t h e i r o p i n i o n s on t h e s i t u a t i o n . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a p p e l l a n t might be f i r e d was c l e a r l y d i s c u s s e d . The chairman of t h e School Board, S t a n P i n e , informed t h e assembly t h a t t h e Board would have u n t i l A p r i l 1 t o i s s u e t e n u r e c o n t r a c t s and u n t i l A p r i l 1 5 t o i s s u e nontenure c o n t r a c t s ; t h a t it had n o t y e t made a d e c i s i o n on r e h i r i n g t e a c h e r s f o r t h e 1981-1982 s c h o o l y e a r ; and t h a t it would c o n s i d e r t h e h i r l n g and make a d e c i s i o n i n e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n a s r e q u i r e d by law. The meeting moved on t o c o n s i d e r o t n e r b u s i n e s s and was adjourned a t 11:16 p.m. A t t h e c l o s e of t h e meeting, a s Board members and members of t h e p u b l i c were g e t t i n g ready t o l e a v e , t h e Board members discussed the c a l l l n g o i a s p e c i a l lneetlny on S a t u r d a y , March 1 4 , 1981, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i n g t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e coming s c h o o l y e a r . No time f o r t h e m e e t i n g was set. On March 1 2 , 1981, P i n e c o n t a c t e d t h e c l e r k o f t h e s c n o o l d i s t r i c t , Bonnie Gagnon, i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s t o i n f o r m h e r t h a t t h e s p e c l a l m e e t i n g would be h e l d a t 9:00 a . m . H e i n s t r u c t e d h e r t o g i v e a p p r o p r i a t e p u b l i c n o t i c e of t h e m e e t l n g . From p a s t e x p e r i e n c e , Gagnon knew t h a t t n e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t l m e f o r t h e n o t i c e t o b e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e l o c a l newspaper. The p a p e r would n o t a c c e p t s u c h n o t i c e s u n l e s s t h e y were d e l i v e r e d a t l e a s t two d a y s p r i o r t o p u b l i - c a t i o n . She t h e r e f o r e c o n t a c t e d two l o c a l r a d i o s t a t i o n s i n K a l i s p e l l , KOFI and KGBZ, between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a . m . o n March 1 2 , and r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e y b r o a d c a s t n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g . No copy o r t r a n s c r i p t of t h e n o t i c e was k e p t by e l t h e r r a d i o s t a t i o n . Gagnon t h e n c o n t a c t e d t h e County Super i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , Wallace C. Vinnedge, t o a s k t h e c o r r e c t method of j l v i n g n o t l c e o f a s p e c i a i b o a r d m e e t i n g and w h e t h e r p o s t i n g of n o t i c e a t t h e s c h o o l would b e s u f f i c i e n t . Vinnedge a d v i s e d h e r t h a t posting n o t i c e a t t h e s c h o o l was n o t s u f f i - c l e n t . H e t o l d h e r t h a t i f t h e r e was n o t enough t i m e t o p u b l l s h t h e n o t l c e , she s h o u l d r e q u e s t t h e l o c a l r a d i o s t a t i o n s t o b r o a d c a s t n o t i c e . The Board m e t on S a t u r d a y . Only t h e t h r e e t r u s t e e s , t h e s c h o o l c l e r k , and t h e head t e a c h e r a t t e n d e d t h e m e e t i n g . The m i n u t e s of t h e meeting r e t l e c t t h a t " t h e board went i n t o e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n t o d i s c u s s and r e v i e w t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e 1961-1982 s c h o o l y e a r . " Another s p e c l a l m e e t i n g was h e l a 011 F r l d a y , A p r i l 1 0 , 1981, t o d i s c i p l i n e s i x t e a c h e r s who had r e f u s e d t o d i s t r i b u t e a l e t t e r from t h e School Board t o t h e p a r e n t s . The l e t t e r d i s c u s s e d t e a c h e r s ' s a l a r i e s and b e n e f i t s . The minutes of t h i s meeting r e f l e c t t h a t t h e Board d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s c u s s t h e d e c i s i o n on renewal of a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t r a c t . On A p r i l 1 3 , 1981, chairman P i n e n o t i f i e d a p p e l l a n t of t h e d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment. The n e x t r e g u l a r s c h o o l board meeting was h e l d on t h e f o l l o w i n g day. A t t h a t time, t h e Board was asked t o r e c o n s i d e r its d e c i s i o n n o t t o renew a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t r a c t . The m a t t e r was d i s c u s s e d p u b l i c l y and t h e Board a c c e p t e d i n p u t from members of t h e p u b l i c . Following t h a t d i s c u s s i o n , t h e Board a g a i n v o t e d n o t t o renew a p p e l l a n t ' s t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 1981-1982 s c h o o l y e a r . On A p r i l 1 3 , 1981, a p p e l l a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o d e c l a r e t h e March 14 d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e employment void because t h e meeting was h e l d w i t h o u t ade- q u a t e n o t i c e and was c l o s e d . W e n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o d e l i n e a t e i s s u e s and a l l t h e f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s i n h e r b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o Rule 23, M.R.App.Civ.P. See, School D i s t . No. 1 v. D r i s c o l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 176 Mont. 555, 568 P.2d 149. W e summarize t h e t h r u s t of a p p e l l a n t ' s argument i n two i s s u e s : (1) Whether t h e School D i s t r i c t complied w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e P u b l i c Meeting and dpen Meeting A c t s ; and ( 2 ) Whether t h e March 1 4 s p e c i a l m e e t i n g was improperly c l o s e d . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e School District f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e P u b l i c Meeting A c t and t h a t t h e i n a d e q u a t e n o t i c e v i o l a t e d Mon- t a n a ' s Open Meeting Law. W e d i s a g r e e . The 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 r e s p e c t i v e l y , g u a r a n t e e s c i t i z e n s t h e r i g h t of p a r t i - c i p a t i o n i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of government a g e n c i e s p r i o r t o t h e making of a f i n a l d e c i s i o n and p r o t e c t s t h e r i g h t t o observe d e l i b e r a t i o n s of p u b l i c b o d i e s " e x c e p t i n c a s e s i n which t h e demand of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y c l e a r l y exceeds t h e m e r i t s of p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . " The Montana P u b l i c Meeting A c t , s e c t i o n 2-3-101 e t s e q . , MCA, and t h e Montana Open Meeting A c t , s e c t i o n 2-3-201 e t s e q . , MCA, p r o v i d e t h e s t a t u t o r y g u i d e l i n e s t o p r o t e c t t h o s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s . A p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h e School D i s t r i c t f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e s e A c t s . The Board is an agency p u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana P u b l i c Meeting Act and t h e Montana Open Meeting A c t , s e c t i o n 2-3- 1 0 2 ( 1 ) , PICA. The P u b l i c Meeting A c t r e q u i r e s a g e n c i e s t o d e v e l o p g u i d e l i n e s t o p e r m i t and encourage p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a - t i o n i n agency d e c i s i o n s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . S e c t i o n 2-3- 103, MCA. The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s A c t a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o have been complied w i t h where: " ( 4 ) a newspaper of g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n w i t h i n t h e a r e a t o be a f f e c t e d by a d e c i s i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t t o t h e p u b l i c h a s c a r r i e d a news s t o r y o r adver- t i s e m e n t concerning t h e d e c i s i o n s u f f i - c i e n t l y p r i o r t o a f i n a l d e c i s i o n t o p e r m i t p u b l i c comment on t h e m a t t e r . " S e c t i o n 2-3-104(4), MCA. T h i s A c t a l s o a l l o w s supplemental n o t i c e t o be g i v e n by r a d i o o r t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t where an o f f i c i a l of t h e s t a t e o r any of its p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s " i s r e q u i r e d by law t o p u b l i s h any n o t i c e . " S e c t i o n 2-3-105(1), MCA. I n t h a t e v e n t , t h e r a d i o o r t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n b r o a d c a s t i n g t h e n o t i c e is r e q u i r e d t o keep a copy of t h e n o t i c e and t o pro- v i d e a proof of p u b l i c a t i o n by b r o a d c a s t . These p r o v i s i o n s do n o t mandate, a s a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s , t h a t n o t i c e must be p u b l i s h e d f o r a l l p u b l i c meetings and t h a t proof of p u b l i c a - t i o n by b r o a d c a s t and a copy of t h e b r o a d c a s t be r e t a i n e d . R a t h e r , these s t a t u t e s e s t a b l i s h a presumption t h a t a d e q u a t e n o t i c e was g i v e n where t h o s e e v e n t s occur. The o n l y s p e c i f i c n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r c a l l i n g a s p e c i a l s c h o o l board meeting is t h a t t r u s t e e s must be g i v e n 48-hour w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e meeting. S e c t i o n 20- 3-322(3), MCA. A s c h o o l d i s t r i c t is n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e d by law t o p u b l i s h n o t i c e of t h e meeting. T h a t d o e s n o t r e l e a s e t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t of t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n board d e c i s i o n s b e f o r e f i n a l board a c t i o n is taken. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e p u b l i c was p r e s e n t e d w i t h such o p p o r t u n i t y . During both r e g u l a r m e e t i n g s , h e l d March 10 and A p r i l 1 4 , t n e Board f o r m a l l y opened t h e m e e t i n g s f o r d i s c u s s i o n by members of t h e p u b l i c . The minutes of t h o s e m e e t i n g s r e f l e c t t h a t e x t e n s i v e comments were made by a p p e l l a n t and o t n e r s r e g a r d i n g n e r r e t e n t i o n a s a Cayuse P r a i r i e t e a c h e r . Ample e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Board complied w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Montana P u b l i c Meeting A c t . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t inadequake n o t i c e of t h e March 14 s p e c i a l meeting v i o l a t e d t h e Montana Open Meeting Act. She contends t h a t t h e n o t i c e g i v e n by t h e s c h o o l c l e r k was i n a d e q u a t e n o t i c e t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . T h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n is t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w a s it f i n d s it. I n t h e M a t t e r o f t h e Estate of B a i e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 396, 4 0 1 , 567 P.2d 943, 946. W e may n o t i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA; Chennault v. Sager (1980) I Mont . , 610 P.2d 173, 176, 37 St.Rep. 857, 861. The Montana Open Meeting A c t d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y mandate n o t i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t formu- l a t e such a requirement. W e have noted t h a t " [w] i t h o u t p u b l i c n o t i c e , an open meeting is open i n t h e o r y o n l y , n o t i n p r a c t i c e , " and t h a t a c l a n d e s t i n e meeting " v i o l a t e s t h e s p i r i t and t h e l e t t e r of t h e Montana Open Meeting Law." Board of T r u s t e e s , Huntley P r o j e c t School D i s t . No. 24, Worden v. Board of County C o m i s s i o n e r s of Yellowstone County ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. I 6U6 P.2d 1069, 1073, 37 St.Rep. 175, 179, 180. I n Board of T r u s t e e s , t h e c o u n t y commissioners argued t h a t a newspaper a r t i c l e c o n c e r n i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t of a proposed s u b d i v i - s i o n t h a t was p r i n t e d i n a c o u n t y newspaper c o n s t i t u t e d a d e q u a t e p u b l i c n o t i c e . The a r t i c l e d i d n o t p r o v i d e s u f f i - c i e n t f a c t s on t h e time and p l a c e of t h e meeting " t o inform t h e p u b l i c s u f f i c i e n t l y p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n t o p e r m i t f u r t h e r p u b l i c comment on t h e m a t t e r .'I 606 P.2d a t 1073, 37 St.Rep. a t 180. Nor d i d t h e p u b l i c have an oppor- t u n i t y t o a t t e n d t h e meeting i n which t h e d e c i s i o n was made. I t was c o n d u c t e d by t e l e p h o n e a n d o n e of t h e c o u n t y commissioners was a l s o excluded from t h e v o t e . T h a t is n o t t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t heard testimony from t h e s c h o o l c l e r k , t h e news d i r e c t o r s of b o t h r a d i o s t a t i o n s , t h e t h r e e t r u s t e e s , a p a r e n t , and t h e c i t y e d i t o r f o r t h e l o c a l newspaper, t h e D a i l y I n t e r Lake. The s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e school c l e r k con- t a c t e d t h e r a d i o s t a t i o n s t o r e q u e s t n o t i c e be given. Both r a d i o s t a t i o n s ' news d i r e c t o r s t e s t i f i e d t o t h e i r r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e s i n running p u b l i c s e r v i c e announcements. Such testimony is a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o Rule 406, Iviont.R.Evid. The c i t y e d i t o r of t h e D a i l y I n t e r Lake t e s t i f i e d t h a t p u b l i c s e r v i c e n o t i c e s a r e o f t e n n o t run even when d e l i v e r e d w i t h more than f o r t y - e i g h t hours n o t i c e because p a i d adver- t i s e m e n t s and n o t i c e s a r e g i v e n a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y f o r space. A s e a r c h of i s s u e s of t h e D a i l y I n t e r Lake f a i l e d t o l o c a t e n o t i c e s of o t h e r s p e c i a l meetings t h a t had been d e l i v e r e d t o t h e paper more t h a n two days p r i o r t o p u b l i c a - t i o n . The p a r e n t who t e s t i f i e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had t a k e n p a r t i n t h e g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n a f t e r t h e March 10 meeting on t h e time and s u b s t a n c e of t h e s p e c i a l meeting t o be h e l d on March 14. F i n a l l y , t h e chairman of t h e School Board t o l d t h e members of t h e p u b l i c p r e s e n t a t t h e March 10 meeting t h a t d e c i s i o n s f o r c o n t r a c t s f o r t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s and nontenured t e a c h e r s had t o be made by A p r i l 1 and A p r i l 1 5 r e s p e c t i v e l y and t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s had n o t y e t been made. The n e x t r e g u l a r meeting was scheduled f o r A p r i l 14. Ample e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t adequate n o t i c e was g i v e n and t h a t t h e March 14 meeting was open. A p p e l l a n t f i n a l l y a r g u e s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l meeting was i l l e g a l l y c l o s e d i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e Open Meeting A c t . T h i s c o n t e n t i o n is w i t h o u t m e r i t . The minutes of t h e meeting r e f l e c t t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s went i n t o e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n " t o d i s c u s s and review t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e 1981-82 s c h o o l y e a r . " When asked on d i r e c t examination why t h e Board went i n t o e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n , chairman P i n e r e p l i e d t h a t " t h e r e was a l o t of t h i n g s t h a t could come up of a p e r s o n a l n a t u r e and p r i v a c y of t h e m a t t e r s could g e t r e a l l y touchy and would r e a l l y outweigh t h e p u b l i c need t o hear what was s a i d . " The Open Meeting Act a l l o w s a p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r t o c l o s e t h e meeting "during t h e t i m e t h e d i s c u s s i o n r e l a t e s t o a m a t t e r of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y " where t h e o f f i c e r h a s determined t h a t " t h e demands of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y c l e a r l y exceed t h e m e r i t s of p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . " That r i g h t of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y may be waived "by t h e i n d i v i d u a l about whom t h e d i s c u s s i o n per- t a i n s " and t h e meeting must t h e n remain open. S e c t i o n 2-3- 2 0 3 ( 2 ) , MCA. A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e chairman of t h e Board d i d n o t f i r s t make such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n because it is n o t r e f l e c t e d i n t h e minutes (which must r e f l e c t " t h e s u b s t a n c e of a l l m a t t e r s proposed, d i s c u s s e d , o r d e c i d e d " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 2-3-212, MCA). She o b j e c t s t o testimony by P i n e on t h e Board's r e a s o n s f o r c l o s i n g t h e meeting and contends t h a t it amounts t o p a r o l evidence t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s t h e w r i t t e n r e c o r d t h e Board is r e q u i r e d by law t o keep. These arguments f a i l . A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t e d no evidence t h a t such a determina- t i o n was n o t made. Wor is t h e p a r o l evidence i n a d m i s s i b l e h e r e . I t does n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e o f f i c i a l minutes of t h e meeting a s it d i d i n t h e c a s e of Eastman v. School D i s t . No. 1 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 1 2 0 Mont. 63, 180 P.2d 472 ( o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r grounds, 128 Mont. 368, 275 P.2d 2 1 7 ) , on which a p p e l l a n t r e l i e s . Rather, t h e p a r o l evidence merely c l a r i f i e s what occurred a t t h e meeting. A p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o prove her a s s e r t i o n s . She h a s a l s o f a i l e d t o demonstrate p r e j u d i c e . I t 1s clear from the record that ample public participation took place i n regard t o renewal of her contract. Adequate notice was given of the special meeting. Affirmed. 'p.44, ~ & & Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: / - x + ' J u s t i c e s