Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

October 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin remedy for the offenses since the LNPC was not an "agency" as defined by the statute and therefore " `procedural irregularities' pertaining to LNPC's early meetings were 'not decisions by an agency' " that could be voided under §§ 2-3-114 and -213, MCA. Therefore, the district court held that voiding the entire Plan based upon LNPC's early noncompliance with the open meeting laws was not an available rem- edy under the statutes. The Landowners appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed The Supreme Court of Montana agreed that the LNPC's violations of the open meetings laws did not warrant voiding the Plan because the Landowners were deprived only of information generated during the early exchanges among the members of the LNPC, including discussion and ongoing analysis of possible plan revisions; they were not deprived of "hard data" that was critical to the decision making. The court emphasized the fact that following the open meetings law violations, the public was able to participate for two years of meetings and discus- sions before the County Commissioners finally adopted the Plan. The Landowners had argued that the County Commissioner's adop- tion of the Plan could be voided based on LNPC's noncompliance because the County Commissioners were an "agency" under the statute. The court disagreed with the Landowners. The court noted that the Plan- ning Board was not bound by the LNPC's proposed Plan, but could have rejected it, just as the County Commissioners were not bound to accept the recommendations of the Planning Board. Furthermore, while the court found that the statutes—§ § 2-3-102, -114, and -213, MCA —clearly and expressly stated that an agency de- cision reached in violation of the open meeting laws may be voided, the court agreed with the district court that the LNPC was not an "agency" whose decisions could be voided as a remedy under those statutes. The court explained that under § 2-3-102(1), MCA, an "agency" is defined, with certain inapplicable exceptions, as "any board, bureau, commis- sion, department, authority, or officer of the state or local government authorized by law to make rules, determine contested cases, or enter into contracts . . . ." The court determined that the LNPC was not an agency but rather was an "advisory committee." Consequently, the court concluded that while the open meeting laws applied to the LNPC's proceedings, the statutes pertaining to the voiding of agency decisions had no application to the LNPC. Accordingly, the court concluded that vacating the revised neighbor- hood plan and reinstituting the entire lengthy drafting process was not an appropriate remedy. See also: Common Cause of Montana v. Statutory Committee to Nominate Candidates for Com 'r of Political Practices, 263 Mont. 324, 868 P.2d 604 (1994). 10 © 2013 Thomson Reuters