FVCC seeks appeal dismissal

Flathead Valley Community College has asked the Montana Supreme Court to dismiss an appeal of a lawsuit related to a $15.8 million bond election held in December of 2002.

In an action filed today in Helena, attorney Dana Christensen contends State Sen. George Everett, R-Kalispell, and radio station owner John Stokes missed the deadline by over two months with their Supreme Court appeal filed Oct. 20.

"This argument is largely legal/technical," Christensen said. "But I think it's a good one."

The attorney bases his argument on motions filed by Everett and Stokes after District Court Judge Katherine Curtis dismissed their lawsuit in June. One motion asked Curtis to change her ruling based on rule 59g of civil procedure. Christensen said Stokes and Everett used inappropriate grounds to justify their request under rule 59g. As a result, he contends the motions did not stop the clock ticking on the 60-day appeal deadline.

Christensen said Curtis also found the motions were invalid under that particular rule.

"What the Supreme Court is going to think, I have no idea," he said.

In her order issued on Aug. 26, Curtis said rule 59g wasn't intended as a devise to rehash arguments considered and rejected by the court or to introduce new theories or evidence that should have come up before she ruled.

Christensen said a ruling by the Supreme Court on the dismissal could come as early as before Christmas or shortly after. He said he notified Everett on Thursday as required to allow Everett and Stokes to object to the request.

Everett confirmed that he was notified of the action. He hadn't yet seen the motion to dismiss the appeal.

"He (Christensen) indicated this is a normal procedure," Everett said.

Stokes also had not yet reviewed the new motion. But he pointed out that Curtis didn't deny their motions until after the deadline of Aug. 18 listed in Christensen's new motion.

"That's a silly argument," Stokes said. "A judge waits 60 days to rule and you lose your appeal rights?"

Stokes and Everett are representing themselves in their quest to void what they consider an illegal bond issue election conducted by the college to expand the campus. Stokes writes the briefs and speaks on their behalf in court.

So far, the two have lost on every legal argument they have raised. However, Stokes remains confident he will triumph in the Supreme Court venue, saying the justices always uphold public meeting laws "to the fullest."

He said he believes politics play a role in district court decisions and that a bias exists against people who represent themselves in the court room.

"Kitty Curtis had no authority to declare an election legal," Stokes said. "This kind of reminds me of the Ukraine."

The lawsuit attempts to unravel the settlement of an earlier election lawsuit by alleging college trustees failed to properly give notice a meeting where they approved the settlement terms.

The first lawsuit was filed by three county residents whose legal expenses were paid by money Stokes raised via his radio show. It alleged the election violated state statutes outlining the rules for the conduct of mail-in ballot elections.

Stokes said that Christensen's latest motion to dismiss was standard procedure. He said he would respond to the filing as well as ask the Supreme Court to examine Christensen's right to represent the college.

He alleges the attorney was hired illegally without a written contract. Although Stokes lost this argument in District Court, he believes the higher court will agree with him that Christensen has no authority to represent the college.

After the attorney entered the case, trustees approved retaining Christensen. But Stokes maintains they can't act after the fact.

"The first issue is this guy isn't legally in the case," Stokes said.

Reporter Candace Chase may be reached at 758-4436 or by e-mail at cchase@dailyinterlake.com