Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula training stresses 48-hour minimum notice, clear agendas and public comment before action
Summary
At a public-board training led by Dan Clark of MSULocal Government Center, attendees reviewed Montanaconstitutional rights, the Montana Code Annotated, and practical steps for meeting notices, public comment, executive sessions and meeting procedures; Clark urged local policies to set clear notice and agenda practices.
Missoula Dan Clark, director of the Montana State University Local Government Center, told local board members and volunteers at a training in Missoula that complying with open-meeting requirements is as important as any policy outcome.
"My name is Dan Clark. I'm the director of the Montana State University Local Government Center," Clark said, opening the session and laying out a participant-driven agenda for the day. He reviewed the state constitution's guarantees and how the legislature and the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) translate those rights into operational rules for local boards.
Why it matters: Clark framed open meetings as part of the public's "social contract" with local officials, saying the public has a right to participate "prior to final agency action" and to examine documents and observe deliberations. To reduce legal exposure, he urged boards to put substantive matters on agendas and to give the public a meaningful chance to comment before final votes.
What the trainer told attendees: Clark cited a long-standing Attorney General opinion and subsequent practice that treats 48 hours as the baseline for "adequate notice," while warning boards that more significant decisions warrant longer notice. "Attorney General opinion ... would be basically 48 hours would be considered adequate notice," he said, and added that local policies may set higher minimums to protect public trust.
He also explained two parallel duties: physical posting in customary public places (bulletin boards, post office, city hall) and electronic notice. If a newspaper's website will publish agendas for free, boards may use it; if not, they must post agendas on an agency website or social media account in addition to physical postings.
Public comment and meeting flow: Clark recommended a four-step flow for contentious items: an informational presentation by staff or experts, a board question-and-answer period, public comment, and then board deliberation and motion. That order aims to provide context before final action and to reduce heated, uninformed interruptions during deliberation.
On public comment timing, Clark advised boards to choose a consistent approach (agenda-item comment, general comment at the start or end, or both), and to codify any time limit in bylaws. He recommended a customary three-minute maximum per speaker and suggested written comments submitted in advance be included in the permanent record.
Executive sessions and confidentiality: Clark reviewed the statutory grounds for closing a meeting, focusing on the balancing test between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know. He said personnel records, medical and drug issues, IQ tests and litigation strategy are common bases for closure but emphasized that officials should consult counsel because the line is fact-specific.
Procedural risks and remedies: The trainer warned that courts typically invalidate board actions when procedural defects are found (improper notice, failure to allow comment, improper closing of meetings). Clark recounted a consent-agenda case in which a court found a procedural violation and awarded damages to a litigant, underscoring the financial and reputational risks of skipping notice or comment requirements.
Practical tools: Clark urged boards to adopt written meeting procedures and scripts for chairs, set clear standards for notice timing in local policies, use BCC for scheduling emails to avoid inadvertent group deliberation, and keep executive-session minutes separate and secure. He recommended that advisory groups provide quarterly status reports to commissions to avoid surprises when recommendations move up the chain.
What comes next: Clark reminded attendees that state law and attorney general opinions change and advised annual or term-start reviews of bylaws and policies so that local procedures remain aligned with statutory and case law developments. He encouraged new and volunteer board members to use available training and to document agendas, minutes and public comments to preserve transparency and reduce legal vulnerability.
The training ended with an invitation for follow-up and resources; Clark said the Local Government Center provides technical assistance and can be asked to deliver follow-up training when petitions alleging procedural violations are referred to county attorneys.
