Supreme court ends fight over FVCC vote

The Montana Supreme Court has cleared the way for Flathead Valley Community College to sell $15.8 million in bonds to expand the Kalispell campus.

In an order issued Tuesday, the court dismissed an appeal of District Court Judge Katherine Curtis' decision to reject a lawsuit filed by KGEZ radio station owner John Stokes and state Rep. George Everett, R-Kalispell.

The justices agreed with college attorney Dana Christensen that Stokes and Everett missed the 60-day deadline for filing an appeal.

"We think this is a wonderful day for the college and the students we serve," FVCC President Jane Karas said Friday.

She said the whole community would benefit from the upgrades approved by voters in a mail-in ballot election in December 2002.

Karas said the college will go forward immediately with architectural plans and the process required to sell the bonds. She said long-term interest rates remained relatively low in spite of the two-year delay.

She said the cost of construction had increased during the extended legal wrangling. However, the college has not yet determined if that increase will result in cutbacks in the planned improvements.

Responding to the high court's dismissal, Stokes initially said he had not yet seen the court's decision and had no comment. Later Friday he said that college officials would commit bond fraud if they attempt to sell the construction bonds.

Stokes said that Montana Code Annotated 20-9-436 requires the county attorney or another designated attorney to certify that the bond election was "in full compliance" with election laws as part of the bond sale process.

He said an apology for election law violations printed in the Daily Inter Lake by the college was evidence that all laws were not followed. The advertisement was part of an out-of-court settlement that ended an earlier lawsuit over the election.

Christensen, however, said the District Court ruling had settled all the underlying issues raised about the college's election and had declared the election valid.

He said the effect of the Supreme Court decision was that the lawsuit filed by Stokes and Everett was over.

"They have had complete and total due process,"Christensen said. "The final decision has been rendered."

He said the college no longer faced any legal impediments to selling the bonds.

Christensen said he hoped that Stokes and Everett would now allow the rule of the majority as expressed in the election to go forward.

Overcrowding at the college and record-low interest rates were factors in the college board's decision in 2002 to move forward with the December election.

According to college statistics, enrollment had grown nearly 30 percent and course offerings expanded more than 50 percent since the campus was constructed a decade ago. On the original schedule, the college expected to finish the work last fall.

However, three people filed a lawsuit in February 2003 challenging the election. The issues raised grew from a mistake made by the county election office in which 15,000 names were dropped from the list of registered voters without proper notice.

After consulting with state election officials and the county attorney, the college sent ballots to the 15,000 voters. The move violated election rules which require that ballots go out in one mailing, and a lawsuit was filed to challenge the election.

In October 2003, college officials and the three plaintiffs agreed to a settlement in which the college paid the lawsuit expenses and published an apology in the newspaper. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed.

Within a month, however, Stokes and Everett filed another lawsuit which brought another year of judicial review.

Acting as their own attorneys, Stokes and Everett alleged the college didn't give proper public notice of a meeting in which trustees voted to accept the settlement.

By challenging the trustee vote, Stokes and Everett sought to reopen the first lawsuit that was filed within the crucial 60-day limit allowed for election lawsuits. However, Judge Curtis ruled against their lawsuit on every issue raised.

Undaunted, Stokes and Everett asked Curtis to change or amend her decision based on rule 59g of civil procedure. The two assumed their request stopped the 60-day appeal limit following Curtis ruling on June 16.

This week's Supreme Court decision validated college attorney Christensen's argument that Stokes and Everett inappropriately used rule 59g, thus the appeal limit applied and the appeal was filed more than two months too late.

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