by NBC Montana Staff
Wednesday, November 6th 2019
https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/judge-lifts-stay-in-case-over-spending-on-water-company-condemnation
​
MISSOULA, Mont. — New information in our fight to track how our local government spends your money.
We’ve never been able to give you a detailed accounting of over $9 million taxpayers spent on attorney fees to take over Missoula’s privately owned water company from its former owner, the Carlyle Group. The city says it’s confidential information.
Now a Missoula County District Court judge has ruled Quentin Rhoades, a Missoula attorney representing NBC Montana in this case, can finally argue it in court.
Last year, the same judge put a hold on our case until Judge Karen Townsend ruled on attorney’s fees and the city’s claims the Carlyle Group charged too much. She did in August.
​

In September, attorney Quentin Rhoades filed another motion asking the judge to let our case be heard in court.
Wednesday, Judge Dusty Deschamps lifted his stay. In his order he writes, “the controversy before this Court involves a constitutional right of the public to know how its tax dollars are being spent.”
The mayor said initially he thought the bill to condemn Mountain Water would be about $400,000.
Throughout the entire condemnation process we asked for invoices, billing statements and expert witness fees paid by taxpayers to private law firms hired by the city. The city denied our requests.
Attorneys for the city and for NBC Montana will now schedule hearings and proceed with the litigation.
We will continue to work for you and let you know what happens next.

BY: SEABORN LARSON
seaborn.larson@missoulian.com​ Sep 17, 2019

https://missoulian.com/news/local/former-undersheriff-sues-missoula-county-for-internal-documents/article_7fd70416-6d21-551c-8ff1-1b92b8d17c9a.html
​
​Former Missoula County Undersheriff Josh Clark, who has long had a contentious relationship with the current Sheriff T.J. McDermott — including twice unsuccessfully opposing him for the sheriff's job — has sued the county for the release of internal documents related to a captain's off-duty conduct. 
Clark's lawsuit, dated Aug. 22, seeks the release of all emails, text messages and written communications between county officials regarding Missoula Sheriff's Captain of Training Bill Burt, the use of alcohol and county vehicles. The lawsuit does not detail specific events.
"He's got a special interest in the integrity of the the police in general, and the sheriff's office in particular," said attorney Quentin Rhoades, who represents Clark.


In a closed administrative meeting on Tuesday, the Missoula County Board of Commissioners decided to hire outside counsel in Missoula attorney Steve Carey.
Reached by the Missoulian on Tuesday, Carey said the county will abide by the request, but a Missoula judge's previous ruling on the release of that same information has caused confusion. That ruling came in a case in which the Missoulian requested the release of documents related to Burt, the use of alcohol and the use of county vehicles. Nearly a year ago, Judge Robert "Dusty" Deschamps ruled the documents should be withheld while the 2018 election was underway. 
In July, Deschamps said in an order "the issues in this matter are Moot," and closed the case. Because Deschamps' order was ambiguous to the parties involved, the Missoulian has appealed the matter to the state Supreme Court. 
"Missoula County intends to comply with the law," Carey said on Tuesday. "Missoula County complied with the law (in 2018) by withholding the information pursuant to a court order. Now, there is some confusion surrounding the court's ultimate ruling. We will get that sorted out and provide this information if allowed."


Clark's August complaint alleges he requested the documents from the county in September and November in 2018, and again in February, with no response. 
"We tried to resolve it in an informal matter so we'll have to follow a more formal route," Rhoades said.
However, McDermott on Tuesday provided the Missoulian with a copy of his response to Clark's request, dated Oct. 8, 2018, in which the request is denied while the matter was under Deschamps' review. The letter also states that McDermott is unaware of any existing emails or text messages that his request would produce. 
"The letter points out the pending District Court action and the considerable cost associated with an overly broad request," McDermott said in an email late Tuesday.
Rhoades also represents Clark is his 2015 lawsuit alleging discrimination by McDermott. That case, which follows a decision by the Montana Human Rights Bureau that McDermott did not discriminate against Clark after McDermott's election in 2014, is ongoing. Clark lost to McDermott in the 2014 sheriff's election, and again in the 2018 primary. 

Clark's requests for the information on Burt, which Rhoades said Clark obtained from sources inside the sheriff's office, dates back to the 2018 election of which Deschamps was wary in his ruling. Asked Tuesday about Clark's intentions, Rhoades said his client considers himself a "watchdog" for the public. 
"He does have an agenda, it's integrity in law enforcement," Rhoades said. "That's what he has been pursuing and that's what I expect him to continue to pursue."

BY MARTIN KIDSTON
https://www.missoulacurrent.com/government/2019/08/gop-firearms-debate/
​A number of Republican lawmakers from across the state are pushing to preserve a ballot statement prepared by Montana Attorney General Tim Fox explaining a contentious referendum heading to voters next year.
But opponents believe the statement fails to inform voters of the full impacts of the measure, known as Legislative Referendum 130, which would strip a local government’s authority to regulate the carry and possession of firearms under most circumstances.
As proposed, the referendum would prevent local governments from closing loopholes in the federal background check system. It would also strip a city of its ability to prevent “convicted felons, illegal aliens, adjudicated mental incompetents and minors” from possessing a gun.
It would also prevent cities and towns from regulating firearms at public assemblies, parks and schools, though the latter may be open for interpretation and lies at the heart of the debate.
“These opponents are asking the court to alter the attorney general’s ballot statement,” said Quentin Rhoades, a Missoula attorney representing the Republican legislators. “They’re afraid it’s going to pass, and they want to include the idea that this referendum will prevent schools from being able to regulate firearms on their campus.”
The city of Missoula, along with the Montana Federation of Public Employees, the Montana School Boards Association and the Montana League of Cities and Towns, among others, have asked the court to find the ballot statement “legally insufficient” under state law.
They’re fighting the statement on a number of fronts, saying it intentionally excludes key words that “would give the elector serious grounds for reflection.”
Among them, they suggest the statement fails to define school districts as a local government. That’s something they believe voters should consider before stripping a local government of its authority to regulate the wider carry and possession of firearms.
In their petition to the Montana Supreme Court, opponents also argue that the ballot language fails to include key words such as “public assembly,” “park” or “school.” Under the measure, local governments would be stripped of their authority to regulate firearms in such locations.
“The (referendum) strikes and removes an affected local government’s specific authority to regulate any carrying of weapons at a ‘public assembly,’ ‘park’ or ‘school,’ ” opponents wrote in their brief. “Astoundingly, the words “public assembly,” “park” and “school” … do not appear in the (referendum’s) ballot statement.”
Opponents also believe the statement fails to be “true and impartial,” since it doesn’t note the referendum’s primary goal of preventing a local government from requiring background checks on all gun sales.
The city of Missoula acted four years ago to close the so-called “loophole” in federal law by enacting an ordinance requiring background checks on all gun sales and transfers within city limits. A District Court judge upheld the city’s ordinance, though Fox is now challenging it before the state Supreme Court.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association has referred to the referendum as the “fix Missoula bill,” something Fox’s ballot statement fails to mention, opponents argue.
“Not a word of this explicit intent, nor (the referendum’s) attempt to repeal statutory language relied upon by the District Court in upholding Missoula’s background check ordinance, is mentioned in the ballot statement,” opponents contend. “Without it, the statement of purpose is neither ‘true’ nor ‘impartial,’ and a voter is prevented ‘from casting an intelligent and informed ballot.’ ”
In their own brief filed before the state Supreme Court, the 50 legislators contend that the ballot statement prepared by Fox is adequate. They’re fighting to keep key words, such as school districts, public assemblies, parks and schools, off the statement.
If the court deems it otherwise, “the Montana legislators wish to suggest their own alternative language.”
“Their position is that the attorney general’s description is sufficient, it complies with the statute and serves as a fair representation of the plain language of the referendum,” Rhoades said. “They think if (schools) are on the ballot description, it will be less popular.”
Rhodes said state law allowing trustees to regulate firearms on their campuses falls under a different state statute. As a result, he said, the language additions sought by opponents doesn’t apply.
“This ballot measure does not affect that state statute that gives the trustees those rights,” said Rhoades. “That’s the politically hot part of the fight. If the ballot statement says this repeals the ability of schools to regulate guns on their campuses, it’s going to be a lot easier to beat than if it doesn’t.”

University of Montana faculty member sues union for discrimination; investigation shows lack of evidence

• KEILA SZPALLER keila.szpaller@missoulian.com Dec 23, 2018

A longtime lecturer at the University of Montana has sued the faculty union, alleging discrimination based on his Arabic ethnicity and Islamic faith — but he failed to produce a key document to support his claim in an earlier human rights investigation.
Samir Bitar, who has worked at UM in various capacities, filed the complaint against the University Faculty Association, a labor organization representing UM faculty members.
The Montana Human Rights Bureau investigated the complaint before it was filed in Missoula County District Court and found "the allegations of the complaint were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence," according to its final report. The report also said Bitar did not produce evidence to support his claims.
The documents filed in Missoula County District Court show the dispute is related to the faculty's collective bargaining agreement with UM.
***
In the complaint filed in September, Bitar alleges the faculty union failed to file a grievance on his behalf in 2015 when he said the university violated the collective bargaining agreement.
He said UM informed him in August 2015 it would not award him an annual contract for the upcoming academic year, 2015-2016, according to the complaint. He said the contract offered to him — which he never produced to the Human Rights Bureau — was for only one semester, contrary to the union's agreement with UM to hire lecturers "for a full academic year rather than on a semester-to-semester basis."
Bitar "immediately brought the violation to the attention of his UFA representative" and asked if a grievance could be filed, the complaint said. But the complaint said UFA representative John Bardsley "refused to pursue a grievance for UM's violation."
However, in August 2017, UM sent a similar notice to all its lecturers about not hiring them for the spring 2018 semester, according to the court document.
"In response to the 2017 letter, the UFA immediately filed a grievance, complaining that UM's decision was a violation (of) the collective bargaining agreement with UM, as well as UM policy and past practice," the complaint said.
In declining to file a grievance on his behalf, Bitar alleges the faculty union discriminated against him on the basis of ethnicity, national origin and religion. The complaint said he "discovered this discriminatory intent only in August 2017, when the UFA filed a grievance in the face of the exact same treatment of the rest of the UM lecturers."
In its response, the faculty union notes it declined to pursue a grievance on Bitar's behalf in 2015, but it did so for legitimate reasons.
The faculty union said UM had offered Bitar a contract for the entire year, but with fewer hours, according to the Human Rights Bureau investigation. The report said Bardsley told Bitar he did not believe a violation of the collective bargaining agreement had occurred, but he proceeded to advocate for Bitar's employment with UM officials.
"As a result, Bitar ended up working 0.93 FTE (full time equivalent) that year," the report said.
In court documents, the faculty union argues it made decisions based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The faculty union also noted its officers knew Bitar was an Arabic speaker and Arabic in ethnicity, but the union representatives didn't know about his faith.
"The Association's officers and officials who dealt with Bitar had no direct knowledge of and never inquired as to Bitar's religious beliefs," the court document said.
The report from the Human Rights Bureau notes Bitar was included in the grievance the faculty union filed in 2017. Additionally, the report notes Bitar was not the only lecturer to have his hours reduced as student enrollment dropped.
The report noted Bardsley provided "credible witness testimony" that he received several complaints from faculty union members about UM's actions, but he "commonly refused to file grievances … when those complaints were not based on a violation."
In the court complaint, Bitar asks for an award for lost income and job opportunities, and damages for humiliation and emotional distress. He also asks for costs and attorneys' fees.
In the response filed late last month, the faculty union asks the complaint to be dismissed and the court to award reasonable attorneys' fees.
Bitar's lawyer, Quentin Rhoades of Rhoades, Siefert and Erickson, could not be reached by press time about the precise status of Bitar's current employment with the university. UM's human resources office also could not be reached late last week about his status.....

Quentin Rhoades, an attorney for the Montana Green Party, addresses the court in Helena in April.
​Photo by Thom Bridge, thom.bridge@helenair.com

Missoula Independent article by Susan Elizabeth Shepard