A motion filed by Citizens for a Better Flathead for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Lakeside County Water and Sewer District was denied by a Flathead County District Court judge on Aug. 21.  

Watchdog group Citizens for a Better Flathead and district ratepayer Bruce Young are challenging two decisions made by the Lakeside Water and Sewer Board earlier this year. One was an agreement on March 18 to service a deluxe Lakeside resort backed by Discovery Land Company, and another was an approval on April 9 to award a construction bid for Phase I of the district’s wastewater expansion project.  

Plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit filed April 16 that the board failed to give the public meaningful opportunity to comment on both of these decisions. 

They filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the district, asking the court to pause both the wastewater expansion project and the service agreement with Discovery Land Company. Plaintiffs also asked the court to order the district to publish all supporting documents with agenda items for future board meetings.  

The court denied the motion in a ruling released by District Court Judge Paul Sullivan last week. 

“While the District’s policies and actions may not have been optimal, they were statutorily compliant and consistent with existing case law,” Sullivan wrote in his decision. 

The plaintiffs based their argument in “Bryan v. Yellowstone County School,” but Sullivan said it was misplaced. In this lawsuit, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that any decision-making process directly affected by a violation of the public’s right to know or participate can be voided by the court.  

Sullivan said that case, unlike this one, involved affirmative misrepresentations and deliberate concealment. Here, the district responded to the plaintiffs’ requests in an accurate and timely manner, the judge found.  

“Expanding ‘Bryan’ beyond deliberate deception to encompass patterns of technically compliant but frustrating conduct would create new law without clear standards for compliance,” the judge wrote. “Addressing that is a gap is for the legislature, not this Court.” 

While the district’s conduct was imperfect, it did not deliberately conceal requested information, Sullivan concluded.  

The judge also considered the burden of the plaintiffs’ request on the district. He noted this order would require the district to stop work that already had begun and mandate a new administrative procedure. 

Nothing in current state law requires a public entity to publish supporting documentation ahead of a meeting, he said, only the agenda. Sullivan added that the plaintiffs’ requested requirement would create an administrative burden on small, rural governmental entities.  

The district satisfied state statute by making current information available upon request, the judge concluded. He added that it is not the responsibility of the district to follow up on or monitor requests when the information becomes available.  

“The Court is sympathetic to [the plaintiffs’] frustration,” Sullivan wrote. “... However, the legal question before this Court is not whether the District’s practices were optimal or even fair, but whether they violated existing law.” 

Citizens for a Better Flathead stated in a news release it is still reviewing the court’s ruling with the group’s attorney. 

“We are of course very disappointed in this ruling,” the group said in the news release. “[We] are now awaiting a further ruling from the judge on the Writ of Mandamus still before the court on this same issue.” 

Reporter Hannah Shields can be reached at 758-4439 or [email protected].