Judge’s statements, decisions bothersome
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
A recent story in a newspaper reported the district court’s summary judgment of a lawsuit presented by citizens regarding a violation of open laws by Polson City Council. The fact that two of the three Polson City Council interview meetings for the city manager hiring, as well as the deliberation and decision making meeting were closed to the public, seemed to be a clear violation of Article II, section 9 of the Montana Constitution, “The Right to Know” section.
That and only that should have been relevant in Judge Manley’s decision. Instead, Judge Manley focused his concern with the possibility that the public might speak too harshly and offend the council. That was not what this case was about. It seems, in Judge Manley’s decision, we don’t wish to offend our public officials, even if the truth is being spoken. That was the excuse given by Judge Manley for having closed meetings and disregarding the “Right to Know” law and dismissing the case.
The statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold, meaning that we focus on the law and not people and personalities. That did not appear to be the case and the newspaper article stated that Judge Manley was indeed swayed by speech or a perceived “outburst” and not the law. Manley tried to make his point by using an inaccurately quoted citizen’s statement. He repeated it over and over as his example. Even so, it should have no influence on open meeting laws.
He also limited and distracted the citizen’s attorney during the hearing with interruptions and redirections. It was very disappointing to see such bias in his courtroom and a disregard for the law.
Summarizing, three things really bother me about Judge Manley’s statements and decisions: first, his bias for City Government above the people; second, his desire to regulate freedom of speech; and third, his neglect to follow clear Constitutional law.
Andrew Speer
Polson
