Yl Argument

ARGUMENT

I. WAS THE PUBLIC AFFORDED PROPER NOTICE OF THE MARCH, 6 2013 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE RHS BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS REQUIRED BY MCA § 2-3-103, -104, -105 AND -203? IF NOT, DID AN EMERGENCY EXIST GIVING RISE TO AN EXCEPTION AS ALLOWED UNDER MCA § 2-3-112?

A. The public was not afforded proper notice.

Section 8 of the Constitution is right of participation. The Constitution requires agencies to give the public reasonable notice before a meeting is held. In this case, the public was given a mere three hours, far shy of the 48 required by Montana Law. MCA § 2-3-103.

Adequate notice is accomplished by a publication in the newspaper. MCA § 2-3-105. If needed, TV and radio ads may also be used as notice. Under the circumstances, no notice was published in the newspaper, but under the case law of Sonstelie v. Board of Trustees, there appears to be no actual requirement to publish for meetings, just to make sure the public is allowed opportunity for participation. However if examined closer, the facts reline themselves as the correct way to give notice is established on page 3 of the Sonstelie v. Board case. Local radio and television stations were notified, but there was no actual guarantee for proper coverage of the meeting, due to their broadcasting of a major earthquake. Writer, a news reporter was present and willing to cover the meeting but upon Leaders arrival was unlawfully dismissed. The public has a right to know what is going on in their schools, and not giving proper notice is an infringement of their rights. Meetings, even if considered special, are not above the law and must adhere to this protocol.

B. No emergency existed to give rise to a special meeting.

In MCA § 2-3-112, there is an exception for emergency meetings. These meetings deal with situations that affect public health, welfare, and/or safety. They also may be called if the interest of the agency is threatened. The incident that occurred on March 5, 2013 that led to the illegal meeting of March 6, 2013 was no call for emergency. The ability of a young man to participate in a basketball game, even if it was a state tournament, does not fall under the category of emergency. It does not help the School Board’s case in any way that the young man in question was the son of the Chairman. The rights of the people of Montana should not be put on the shelf for the selfish ambition of a mere adolescent and his father.

II. DID CHAIRMAN LEADER PROPERLY BALANCE THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW AGAINST THE DEMANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S (COACH) RIGHT OF PRIVACY AS REQUIRED BY THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION AND MCA § 2-3-203(3)? DID CHAIRMAN LEADER HAVE A DUTY TO ASK COACH, THE PERSON WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE BOARD’S