The reservations were many, the report was incomplete and some said it operated illegally, but the City of Libby Government Study Commission’s recommendations will be on the ballot in the November general election.

It took two votes by council, but Libby residents will get a chance to amend the city charter, which has been in place since 1990. Of note, one recommendation would allow for partisan elections for city councilors and the mayor.

Another notable amendment would add a transparency and accountability committee (TAC) to the city charter. It would “review complaints of ethics violations and mismanagement by city officials and employees.”

The three-person commission, consisting of chair D.C. Orr, John Beebe and Vince Backen, presented a written report at the July 6 city council meeting.

Backen was not physically present at the meeting, but council heard from Orr and Beebe.

“The new charter reflects changes recommended in function and plan,” Orr wrote in the final report. “The study has indicated some discrepancies, inconsistencies and shortcomings in providing for constitutional civil rights and required Montana code. Specifically, the rights of the citizens to the redress of grievances. Currently, there is no established and adopted procedure or system to address citizen or employee complaints or concerns."

Orr also spoke at the July meeting.

"We came up with what is best for the people of Libby. The people of Libby asked for this. We sought out all their information. We put it together using their information and we kind of expect you guys (council) to look out for the people of Libby," Orr said.

Beebe presented what he termed a “minority report” because he voted against the recommendations to amend the city charter that Orr and Backen did OK.

“When considering the entirety of the circumstances involved throughout this local government study, it is my opinion that it is likely as not that the most well-intentioned changes and recommendations could have unintended consequences,” Beebe wrote in his minority report. 

He also said during the study process he observed that public interest and participation was disappointing and indicated the absence of public support.

Councilor Gail Burger was the first to voice her opposition to the commission’s recommendations.

“The document is incomplete,” she said. “My concern is that this is not a finished product and there are things in there that shouldn’t be.”

Burger said there were required certifications that should have been part of the report.

Bebee said he was working on getting the necessary certifications that were missing from the report.

Mayor Hugh Taylor was in agreement about the certifications needing to be included. He also had a problem with the provision about mismanagement and ethics violations.

“But it’s my understanding council can’t stand in the way of allowing these recommendations to be on the ballot in November,” Taylor said.

City attorney Dean Chisholm backed Taylor.

“Our job tonight is to push this forward,” Chisholm said. “There may be legal challenges in the future, but council shouldn’t address it tonight.”

Councilor Brian Crompton asked why the report wasn’t complete.

“It was mostly because Backen was absent because he was working abroad,” Beebe said. 

Beebe further indicated his disappointment in the lack of public participation despite what he described as the commission’s substantial efforts.

“The commission conducted three advertised town hall meetings, 65 publicly posted regular and working public meetings, attended three well established public events, provided an information booth at four advertised farmers markets,” Beebe wrote. “I submit to you all that if the local government form, function and plan were so in need of revision and replacement, public participation and interest would have demanded it.”

The commission’s transparency and accountability committee (TAC) ran afoul of Lincoln County’s lead law enforcement official.

County attorney Marcia Boris said the TAC was not compliant with state law.

That led to a public apology by Backen at a study commission meeting this spring.

“Good evening. I’d like to publicly apologize to Ms. Boris. I mis-stated her legal opinion regarding the study commission’s authority,” Backen said. “She advised only that the study commission could recommend to the city that it form an ethics committee; she never suggested the study commission itself had the power to create one. That distinction matters and I’m sorry for the confusion and any harm this caused to her reputation.”

Boris advised the study commission it could recommend the city form an ethics committee, not that the study commission had any authority to do so itself.

“Section 2-2-144 (of Montana Code Annotated), makes it clear that such a committee may only be established by a local government. A study commission is not a local government,” Boris said.

A few other possible changes recommended by the study commission include:

- The mayor may veto ordinances and resolutions, but four councilors affirmative votes can override a veto. The mayor could no longer deliver a tie-breaking vote; 

Another amendment includes choosing a council chair from among the six councilors. The chair would preside at council meetings and if the mayor is not present, the council chair would act as mayor;       

- Changes in city license fees, user fees, permit fees or utility charge can only be made following a public hearing.

If city voters approve it, the amended charter would go into effect Jan. 9, 2027.