Introduction

Citizens for a Better Flathead, a Montana nonprofit public benefit corporation, challenged the Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County regarding the adoption of the county's 2012 Revised Growth Policy. The central contention by Citizens was that the Planning Board and the County Commission violated public rights protected by Montana's constitution and statutes due to inadequate public participation and failure to follow procedural protocols during the policy revision process. The Supreme Court of Montana, in its 2016 decision, affirmed the District Court’s rejection of Citizens' appeal, thereby upholding the procedural integrity of the Growth Policy’s revision process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana examined five primary issues raised by Citizens:

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in striking Citizens' expert report.
2. Whether the District Court erred in determining that the Commission complied with the growth policy's mandatory procedures for adopting revisions.
3. Whether the District Court erred in determining that the Commission allowed meaningful public participation in the revision process.
4. Whether the District Court erred in determining that the Commission adequately incorporated public comments into its decision-making process.
5. Whether the final clause in Part 6 of the revised growth policy survives constitutional scrutiny.

After thorough analysis, the Court affirmed the District Court’s decisions on all issues, finding that the Growth Policy revision process adhered to statutory and constitutional requirements, effectively incorporated public participation, and that the contested clause did not violate constitutional mandates.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several precedents to underpin its decision:

• Hocevar v. State: Affirmed the broad discretion of district courts in determining the admissibility of evidence.
• Wicklund v. Sundheim: Established that expert testimony offering legal conclusions is inadmissible.
• North 93 Neighbors, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County: Clarified the standards for judicial review of governing bodies' legislative acts.
• Bitterroot River Protective Ass'n v. Bitterroot Conservation District: Defined the essential elements of public participation under the Montana Constitution.
• Bryan v. Yellowstone County Elementary School District No. 2: Interpreted the constitutional rights related to public participation and the right to know.
• Allen v. Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Commission: Distinguished between agencies and non-agency bodies regarding the applicability of open meeting laws.

These precedents collectively guided the Court in assessing evidentiary rulings, procedural compliance, and constitutional considerations, ensuring that the decision was grounded in established legal principles.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected each issue:

• Expert Report Admissibility: The Court upheld the District Court's decision to strike the expert report, aligning with Wicklund v. Sundheim, which prohibits expert testimony that states legal conclusions. Kathleen McMahon's report was deemed to primarily offer legal assessments rather than factual analysis, thus rendering it inadmissible.
• Compliance with Mandatory Procedures: The Court found that the Planning Board and Commission adhered to the Growth Policy’s mandatory procedures, distinguishing between "updates" and "amendments." The revision process was classified as an update, aligning with the policy’s guidelines, and did not necessitate written findings of fact as would amendments.
• Meaningful Public Participation: The Supreme Court determined that adequate notice, opportunities for public observation, and chances for the public to be heard were provided, satisfying the constitutional requirements outlined in Article II, Sections 8 and 9 of the Montana Constitution.
• Incorporation of Public Comments: The Court affirmed that both the Planning Board and Commission considered and integrated public comments into their decision-making processes, fulfilling statutory obligations despite the high volume of feedback.
• Constitutionality of Growth Policy Clause: The contested clause in Part 6, which prioritizes this part over others in case of conflict, was upheld as constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Growth Policy is a non-regulatory document and does not possess the authority to override constitutional rights.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural adherence in policy revisions by governmental bodies. Key impacts include:

• Affirmation that expert reports offering legal conclusions are inadmissible, guiding future litigation involving expert testimonies.
• Clarification on the distinction between "updates" and "amendments" to growth policies, providing clearer guidelines for local governments in future policy revisions.
• Reinforcement of the standards for public participation, ensuring that governmental bodies maintain transparency and inclusivity in their decision-making processes.
• Emphasis on the non-regulatory nature of growth policies, limiting the extent to which such policies can influence or override constitutional mandates.

Consequently, local governments can reference this judgment to structure their policy revision processes, ensuring compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Expert Testimony and Legal Conclusions

In legal proceedings, expert witnesses can provide specialized knowledge to aid the court's understanding of factual matters. However, as established in Wicklund v. Sundheim, experts are prohibited from offering opinions that interpret the law or apply legal standards to the facts, as this encroaches upon the court's role as the fact-finder.

Distinguishing "Updates" from "Amendments"

The Growth Policy specified "updates" as routine revisions conducted at regular intervals, requiring flexibility and discretion. In contrast, "amendments" are changes triggered by specific events and necessitate detailed factual findings. This distinction determines the procedural requirements and the extent of judicial oversight.

Public Participation Requirements

Under Montana's constitution, public participation entails more than merely being informed. It requires that the public has meaningful opportunities to contribute to decision-making processes, including proper notice of meetings, ability to observe proceedings, and opportunities to voice opinions or concerns.

Conclusion