The legal wrangling over planning control of the two-mile “doughnut” area around Whitefish took another twist on Thursday when the city of Whitefish asked the court to take action that would allow Whitefish to retain control of the doughnut.

 Specifically, Whitefish has asked Flathead District Judge David Ortley to stay his July 8 ruling that returned planning control of the doughnut to Flathead County, pending the city’s appeal of that decision.

The Whitefish City Council plans to meet in a closed session Monday evening to decide whether or not to appeal Ortley’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court.

The city also wants the judge to restore the District Court’s February 2012 injunction that stopped the county from applying interim zoning in areas of the doughnut where no county zoning exists.

The city maintains it should be entitled to a stay order pending appeal because the Montana Supreme Court, in an earlier Whitefish doughnut decision, had warned parties that it must take “the necessary steps to protect the status quo and avoid the danger of mootness until such time as a ruling on the merits may be appropriately obtained.”

Four Whitefish-area residents — who sued the county over the validity of a referendum passed by voters that repealed a 2010 planning agreement for the doughnut — responded to the city’s latest motion by filing their own motion asking the court to declare that the city violated Montana’s open meetings law when the city decided to request the stay and restore the injunction.

In addition, the four plaintiffs — Lyle Phillips, Anne Dee Reno, Turner Askew and Ben Whitten — have asked the court to set aside Whitefish’s motion for a stay and restoration of the injunction.

Kalispell attorney Duncan Scott, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel, noted in the motion he can’t find any evidence that Whitefish made its decision to seek reinstatement of the injunction in a public meeting with prior notice.

“Despite the enormity of this request and its countywide impact, it appears that Whitefish made this decision in secret behind closed doors,” he said.

Scott pointed out that the state open meetings law specifically prohibits closed meetings when public bodies discuss litigation against other public bodies.