NO. 82-229
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1983
D O R I S SONSTELIE,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
TBE BOARD O TRUSTEES FOR SCHOOL
F
DISti'RICT NO. L O , F l a t h e a d County,
Montana,
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
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 o f F l a t h e a d , The H o n o r a b l e
R o b e r t M. H o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
B i l l e y & L o r i n g , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
R i c h a r d DeJana, I < a l i s p e l l ,
E'or Respondent :
Ted 0 . Lympus, County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e Z l ,
Montana
- -
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : November 2 4 , 1982
Decided: F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1983
FEE j
. 1583
Filed:
SifZ c$lM- */ Clerk
d
--
-
.4r. C h l e t J u s t i c e FranK I. H a s w e i l delivered t h e O p r n i o n o r
t h e Court.
Doris Sonstelie petitioned the Flathead County D i s -
trict Court to invalidate a decision to terminate her
employment. A n o n j u r y t r i a l was h e l d on March 2 5 , 1982. On
hay 1 3 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment i n favor
o f 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 n o n t e n u r e d 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 Prairie, School District No. 10, Flathead
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 the d i s t r i c t . T h e r e a r e t h r e e members on
t h e Board o f T r u s t e e s . The b o a r d m e e t i n g s t h a t a r e h e l d c a n
b e s t be c h a r a c e e r i z e d a s informal.
On T u e s d a y , March 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e Board o f T r u s t e e s h e l d
~ t r e g u l a r monthly meeting.
s 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 m e e t l n g f o r a l e n g t h y discussion o f 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. S h e 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 o f
other members of t h e p u b l i c voiced their o p i n i o n s on the
situation. The p o s s i b i l i t y that a p p e l l a n t might be fired
was c l e a r l y d i s c u s s e d . The c h a i r m a n o f t h e School Board,
Stan Pine, i n f o r m e d t h e a s s e m b l y t h a t t h e Board would h a v e
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 contracts; that i t 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 i t would c o n s i d e r t h e h i r l n g a n d 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 l a w . The m e e t i n g 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 a n d was a d j o u r n e d a t 1 1 : 1 6 p.m.
At the close of the meeting, as Board members and
members o f t h e p u b l i c w e r e g e t t i n g r e a d y t o l e a v e , t h e Board
members discussed the calllng oi a special lneetlny on
Saturday, March 14, 1981, for the purpose of discussing
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 s e t .
On March 12, 1981, Pine contacted the clerk of the
scnool 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 w o u l d be h e l d a t 9 : 0 0
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 meetlng. 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 w o u l d not accept such notices
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 -
cation. S h e 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 , K O F I a n d KGBZ, b e t w e e n 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a . m . on
March 1 2 , and r e q u e s t e d that they broadcast n o t i c e of the
meeting. No c o p y o r t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e n o t i c e was k e p t by
elther radio station.
Gagnon then contacted the County Super i ntendent of
S c h o o l s , W a l l a c e 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 of a s p e c i a i board meeting and whether p o s t i n g
of notice at the school would be sufficient. 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 w a s n o t s u f f i -
clent. He told her that if t h e r e was n o t e n o u g h t i m e t o
publlsh the notlce, she should request the local radio
stations t o broadcast notice.
The B o a r d m e t o n 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 m e e t i n g r e t l e c t t h a t " t h e b o a r d w e n t i n t o
executive session t o d i s c u s s and review teacher contracts
f o r t h e 1961-1982 s c h o o l y e a r . " A n o t h e r s p e c l a l m e e t i n g was
hela 011 Frlday, April 10, 1981, t o discipline six teachers
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 f r o m t h e S c h o o l Board
t o the parents. 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 a n d
benefits. The minutes of this meeting reflect that the
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 r e n e w a l
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 , 1 9 8 1 , c h a i r m a n P i n e n o t i f i e d a p p e l l a n t o f
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 b o a r d m e e t i n g was h e l d on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y . At that
time, t h e Board was a s k e d t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s d e c i s i o n n o t t o
renew appellant's contract. The matter was discussed
publicly a n d t h e Board a c c e p t e d i n p u t f r o m members o f the
public. Following t h a t d i s c u s s i o n , t h e Board again voted
n o t t o r e n e w 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
school year. On A p r i l 13, 1981, appellant petitioned the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e c l a r e t h e March 1 4 d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e
employment v o i d because t h e m e e t i n g was held without ade-
q u a t e n o t i c e and was c l o s e d .
We note a t the outset that appellant has failed to
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
her brief p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 23, M.R.App.Civ.P. See, School
Dist. No. 1 v. D r i s c o l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 5 5 5 , 568 P.2d 149.
We summarize the thrust of appellant's argument in two
issues :
(1) Whether the School District complied with the
notice provisions of the Public Meeting and dpen Meeting
Acts; and
(2) Whether the March 14 special meeting was
improperly closed.
Appellant contends 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 Act and that the inadequate notice violated Mon-
t a n a ' s Open M e e t i n g Law. W disagree.
e
The 1 9 7 2 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 o f p a r t i -
cipation in 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 to
t h e making o f a f i n a l decision and p r o t e c t s the right to
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
w h i c h t h e demand o f individual privacy c l e a r l y exceeds t h e
merits of public disclosure." The Montana P u b l i c M e e t i n g
Act, section 2-3-101 et seq., MCA, and the Montana Open
Meeting Act, section 2-3-201 et seq., MCA, provide the
statutory guidelines to protect those constitutional
guarantees. Appellant contends that the School District
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 o f t h e s e A c t s .
The Board i s a n a g e n c y p u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana P u b l i c
M e e t i n g A c t and t h e Montana Open M e e t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 2-3-
1 0 2 ( 1 ) , PICA. The P u b l i c M e e t i n g 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 e n c o u r a g e 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-
1 0 3 , MCA. The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f 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 n e w s p a p e r 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 b e 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 a d v e r -
tisement concerning t h e decision s u f f i -
ciently prior t o a f i n a l decision 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 - 1 0 4 ( 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 radio or t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t where a n o f f i c i a l of the
s t a t e o r a n y of i t s 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. In
t h a t event, the radio or television s t a t i o n broadcasting the
n o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d t o k e e p a c o p y o f t h e n o t i c e and t o p r o -
v i d e a p r o o f 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 appellant contends, 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 m e e t i n g s 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 c o p y o f t h e b r o a d c a s t b e 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 p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a d e q u a t e
n o t i c e was g i v e n w h e r e t h o s e e v e n t s o c c u r .
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
b e g i v e n 48-hour w r i t t e n n o t i c e of t h e meeting. S e c t i o n 20-
3-322(3), MCA. A school district is not specifically
r e q u i r e d by l a w t o p u b l i s h n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g . That does
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
that the public has ample opportunity to participate in
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 C o u r t f o u n d 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 .
D u r i n g b o t h r e g u l a r m e e t i n g s , h e l d March 1 0 and A p r i l
1 4 , t n e Board f o r m a l l y o p e n e d 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 the public. The minutes of those meetings
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 a n d
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 evidence supports t h e D i s t r i c t Court's finding that
t h e Board c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 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 i n a d e q u a k e 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 M e e t i n g A c t .
S h e c o n t e n d s 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
inadequate notice t o t h e general public.
This Court's function is t o construe the law as it
f i n d s it. I n t h e Matter o f t h e Estate of Baier (1977), 173
Mont. 396, 401, 567 P.2d 943, 946. W may n o t i n s e r t w h a t
e
h a s been o m i t t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA; C h e n n a u l t v. Sager
(1980)I Mont . , 610 P.2d 1 7 3 , 1 7 6 , 37 S t . R e p . 857,
861. The Montana Open M e e t i n g A c t d o e s n o t specifically
m a n d a t e 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 that " [w] i t h o u t p u b l i c n o t i c e , a n o p e n
m e e t i n g is o p e n 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 , " a n d 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 o f
t h e Montana Open M e e t i n g Law." B o a r d of Trustees, Huntley
Project School Dist. 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
6 U 6 P.2d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 175, 179, 180. I n Board o f
Trustees, t h e c o u n t y commissioners argued t h a t a newspaper
a r t i c l e concerning a p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t of a proposed subdivi-
sion that was printed in a county newspaper constituted
adequate public notice. 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 a n d p l a c e o f t h e m e e t i n g " t o i n f o r m
the public sufficiently prior to the final decision to
p e r m i t f u r t h e r p u b l i c comment o n t h e m a t t e r .'I 606 P.2d at
1 0 7 3 , 37 S t . R e p . a t 180. Nor d i d t h e p u b l i c h a v e a n o p p o r -
t u n i t y t o a t t e n d t h e m e e t i n g i n w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was made.
It was conducted by telephone and one of the county
c o m m i s s i o n e r s was a l s o e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e v o t e .
That is n o t t h e i n s t a n t case. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court
h e a r d t e s t i m o n y f r o m 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 o f
both radio s t a t i o n s , the three trustees, a parent, and t h e
city editor for 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 that the 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 g i v e n . Both
radio stations' news d i r e c t o r s testified to their routine
practices in running public service announcements. Such
t e s t i m o n y i s a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 406, Iviont.R.Evid.
The city editor of the D a i l y I n t e r Lake testified that
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 r u n e v e n when d e l i v e r e d
w i t h more t h a n f o r t y - e i g h t hours n o t i c e because paid 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 s p a c e .
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
locate notices of other special meetings that had been
d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p a p e r more t h a n two d a y s p r i o r t o p u b l i c a -
tion. 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 h e 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 1 0 m e e t i n g o n
t h e t i m e and s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s p e c i a l m e e t i n g t o be h e l d on
March 1 4 . Finally, t h e chairman of t h e S c h o o l Board t o l d
t h e members o f t h e p u b l i c p r e s e n t a t t h e March 1 0 m e e t i n g
that decisions for contracts for tenured teachers and
n o n t e n u r e d 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 h a d n o t y e t b e e n made.
The n e x t r e g u l a r m e e t i n g was s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 1 4 . Ample
evidence supports the District Court's conclusion t h a t
a d e q u a t e n o t i c e was g i v e n and t h a t t h e March 1 4 m e e t i n g 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 m e e t i n g 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 M e e t i n g A c t . This
contention is w i t h o u t m e r i t . The m i n u t e s of t h e meeting
reflect that the 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 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 1981-82 s c h o o l
year." When a s k e d on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n why t h e Board w e n t
i n t o executive session, chairman Pine replied that "there
was a l o t of t h i n g s t h a t c o u l d come u p o f 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 c o u l d g e t r e a l l y t o u c h y and would
r e a l l y o u t w e i g h t h e p u b l i c need t o h e a r what was s a i d . " The
Open M e e t i n g A c t allows a presiding officer to close the
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 d e t e r m i n e d 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 e x c e e d 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 . " T h a t r i g h t o f i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y may
be w a i v e d "by t h e i n d i v i d u a l a b o u t whom t h e d i s c u s s i o n p e r -
t a i n s " and t h e m e e t i n g m u s t t h e n r e m a i n o p e n . S e c t i o n 2-3-
2 0 3 ( 2 ) , MCA.
Appellant a s s e r t s t h a t t h e chairman of t h e Board d i d
not first make such a determination because it is not
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 p r o p o s e d , discussed, or decided" pursuant t o
s e c t i o n 2-3-212, MCA). She o b j e c t s t o t e s t i m o n y by P i n e on
the Board's reasons for closing t h e meeting and contends
that it amounts to parol evidence that contradicts the
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 l a w t o k e e p . 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 e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h a d e t e r m i n a -
t i o n was n o t made. Wor i s t h e p a r o l e v i d e n c e i n a d m i s s i b l e
here. 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 the
m e e t i n g a s i t d i d i n t h e c a s e of Eastman v. S c h o o l 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, 1 2 8 Mont. 368, 275 P.2d 2 1 7 ) , o n which a p p e l l a n t
relies. Rather, the parol evidence merely c l a r i f i e s what
occurred a t the meeting. Appellant has f a i l e d t o prove her
assertions. She h a s a l s o f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e p r e j u d i c e .
I t 1s c l e a r from t h e record t h a t ample p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n
took p l a c e i n regard t o renewal of her c o n t r a c t . Adequate
n o t i c e was given of t h e s p e c i a l meeting.
Affirmed.
'p.44,~ & &
Chief J u s t i c e
W concur:
e
x
+
-'
Justices
/