Big Sky, Open Meetings

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a decision that held that open meeting procedures were violated in a judicial appointment process

On January 6, 2023, then Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice, Mike McGrath, notified Respondent Governor Gianforte of an impending judicial vacancy in Montana’s Ninth Judicial District. Pursuant thereto, Governor Gianforte invited nominations for the position and applications from attorneys in good standing who met the qualifications required to serve as a district court judge. See §§ 3-1-901(1),-902, MCA. The application period for the position closed on February 13, 2023. Governor Gianforte appointed an Advisory Council to assist the appointment process by reviewing applications, interviewing applicants, and making a recommendation, pursuant to § 2-15-122, MCA. The membership of the Advisory Council included attorneys and community leaders from the counties comprising the Ninth Judicial District, including Glacier, Pondera, Teton, and Toole, with Respondent Stutz, a Teton Deputy County Attorney, serving as the Chair of the Advisory Council.

The Advisory Council convened on March 23, 2023, in the Pondera County courthouse in Conrad, to interview two applicants, Daniel Guzynski (Guzynski) and Gregory Bonilla (Bonilla) for the position. As Respondents’ briefing explains, the Governor’s office provided Advisory Council members a printed list of “Potential General Questions” to ask the applicants, “but members [were] not limited to those questions during applicant interviews,” and Advisory Council members were encouraged to ask “any questions they believe are appropriate.” The printed questions included: “Why do you want to serve as a district court judge?”; “What are some areas of law where you do not have much experience, and how will you get up to speed in these matters?”; “What practices would you use for time and caseload management?”; “What guidelines would you follow in deciding a case of first impression that has no prior precedent?”; and “What plans do you have to run a successful election?” Representatives of Petitioners also attended the meeting.

After discussion of several preliminary matters by the Advisory Council, and prior to commencement of the interviews, Guzynski and Bonilla both affirmed that their answers to questions would implicate constitutionally protected privacy interests, and they asserted their respective privacy rights. Over Petitioners’ objections, Chair Stutz closed the meeting to the public, including for the duration of the interviews and for the subsequent deliberations. Only the public comment portion of the meeting was open to the public. The Advisory Council ultimately recommended both applicants to Governor Gianforte, and provided a ranked order, with Guzynski receiving nine first-pick votes and Bonilla receiving one. Governor Gianforte appointed Bonilla.

Holding

Because we conclude that the statute governing the open meeting procedure was violated, we affirm the District Court’s determination that the Advisory Council’s meeting was subject to the open meeting laws and that a blanket closure was improper. The District Court likewise concluded the statute had been violated, and we need not reach the District Court’s constitutionally-based holding that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to a judicial candidates’ qualifications” such that “there is no individual privacy interest to balance,” and these conclusions do not necessitate reversal. We affirm on sole, narrower grounds that do not require a constitutional analysis. See Hubbell, ¶ 24 (“We will not reverse the District Court when it reaches the right result, even if for the wrong reason.”). As it was not appealed, the District Court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ claim to void the actions of the Advisory Council is also affirmed.

(Mike Frisch)