Common Cause v. Statutory Committee

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

Common Cause vs. Statutory Committee Number: 868 P.2d 604 Year: 1994 State: Montana Court: Montana Supreme Court Other lawsuits in Montana Other lawsuits in 1994 Precedents include: This case established the definition of public body as "a group of individuals organized for a governmental or public purpose."

Sunshine Laws

How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Litigation

Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances

Deliberative Process Exemption

Common Cause v. Statutory Committee was a case before the Montana Supreme Court in 1994 concerning the definition of public body.

Important precedents

This case established the definition of public body as "a group of individuals organized for a governmental or public purpose."

Background

• The position of Commissioner of Political Practices is a position appointed by the Governor. The law requires that all applicants for the position of Commissioner be screened by a 4 member selection committee.
• The 1992 committee consisted of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and both the House and Senate minority leaders. Due to an upcoming vacancy, the committee held a number of informal meetings and phone conferences in November 1992 to discuss potential candidates and qualifications. The meetings were not public and were never announced.
• After the discussions, three members of the committee submitted a list of 5 candidates to the governor. The candidates included the individual who would be appointed, Edward Argenbright, as well as two individuals who were supported by Common Cause, a Montana nonprofit, and two other individuals. The remaining member of the committee submitted his own list, which included only the two individuals supported by Common Cause.
• The Governor interviewed all 5 of the recommended candidates and appointed Argenbright as the commissioner on December 1, 1992.
• On December 18, 1992, Common Cause, the Helena Independent Record, and the Great Falls filed suit claiming that the selection committee violated the state open meetings act and the constitutional right to participation. They sought to have the list assembled by the committee declared void and consequentially the appointment to Argenbright voided.
• While the suit was in court, Argenbright took office and began performing the duties of the position.
• The district court later ruled in favor of the committee.
• Common Cause appealed the decision.

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of the committee determining that the Governor's decision on whom to appoint was independent of the committees actions and was not in itself subject to the open meetings act. Based on these two factors, the court determined that the decision could not be voided.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and also ruled in favor of the selection committee. First and foremost, the Court rejected the committee's contention that the trial was moot because Argenbright had already taken office and been confirmed by the Senate. The court determined that, because the issue was likely to repeat, the problem and the case cannot be moot. The court went on to define public body as "a group of individuals organized for a governmental or public purpose." The court defended this definition citing Booth Newspapers Inc. v. University of Michigan Board of Regents, from Michigan. Based on this definition, the court determined that the selection committee was in fact a public boy subject to the public records and open meetings laws. The court went on to determine that the selection committee did in fact hold a meeting to serve its purpose and that that meeting was held in violation of Montana law. The court defended this definition citing Booth Newspapers Inc. v. University of Michigan Board of Regents, from Michigan. However, the court went on to determine that the committees submission of a collection of names was separated from the Governor's decision of whom to appoint because the submission of names is not binding on the governor's decision. Based on this separation, the court determined that it could not void the governor's selection due to a violation of the open meetings law on the part of the selection committee. Thus, while the court found a violation of the law, it could not grant Common Cause's request to void the action, and in turn, ruled in favor of the committee.

Associated cases

• Booth Newspapers Inc. v. University of Michigan Board of Regents

External links

• Ruling of the Court