Settlement terms should be public

The Daily Inter Lake ran a story Sunday on a proposed settlement between the state of Montana and victims of the asbestos health disaster in Libby.

It was the first that anyone had ever publicly reported on the settlement, which would commit the state to paying $43 million to settle future claims in relation to asbestos-related disease stemming from the former W.R. Grace vermiculite mine operations in Libby.

The state’s oversight procedures have been challenged by victims as inadequate and flawed, which is why the state might have some legal liability for the disaster.

Some people have questioned whether the Inter Lake should have published the story at all. That’s because lawyers for the victims told their clients that if the settlement became public, it might be scrapped.

We considered that possibility prior to publishing the story. Certainly we do not want to jeopardize any chance for asbestos victims to get some kind of compensation for their suffering, however small. In this case, the payments would have ranged from $34,279 up to $60,723 — which sounds like a fairly significant amount at first, but pales in comparison to the pain and suffering borne by workers and their families for many years.

But whether the settlement amount was fair or frivolous was not part of our consideration. That was the amount agreed upon by the victims, and they were the ones who had to decide it if was fair. But against the possibility of compensation for the victims, we did feel it was appropriate to balance the public’s right to know — and in this case, the public was actually a party to the settlement, not just a disinterested bystander. So far as we have been able to confirm, at least one half of the settlement, and possibly all of it, would come from the state’s General Fund.

Though we understand that tort claims are often negotiated in secret, it did not seem appropriate to keep those negotiations from the legislators and taxpayers who would ultimately have to fund the settlement.

We also could not get anyone in a position of authority to confirm for us whether or not the proposed settlement would prohibit future claims against the state by victims who were not party to the negotiations. Since we knew that there were many victims who were not included in the settlement, it was also important to inform them of what was taking place in secret.

Finally, we felt that if the settlement really was in the best interests of both parties, it would not be scrapped just because it became public prior to final approval. Shining a light on a positive public accomplishment is nothing to be afraid of, but when the public’s constitutional “right to know” is flouted, it usually means that someone is trying to hide something that they wouldn’t do in the light of day.

Moreover, there is considerable precedent for public input and involvement in settlements that involve the public treasury. Consider the recent Cobell trust fund settlement, which took nearly 15 years from start to finish, but was negotiated in the public eye. It was up to a vote of Congress to finally authorize the payment of $3.4 billion to the Native American  plaintiffs. That standard of openness should be expected here as well.

Hopefully, the asbestos settlement is a wise one, and it can proceed as intended. We don’t want to see the innocent victims of Libby wait a day longer for some small measure of justice.