City motions to keep Hyatt quiet about doughnut talks

The city of Whitefish has filed a motion in Flathead District Court to prevent city councilor Chris Hyatt from talking about negotiations between the city and county involving the planning “doughnut.”

The city Nov. 29 filed a motion for protective order for Hyatt seeking a ruling from the court that prevents him from giving a deposition in the lawsuit over the doughnut. All parties in the lawsuit have also submitted motions asking for summary judgment in the lawsuit.

At the center of the lawsuit is whether the city or county has planning authority in the doughnut, the two-mile extraterritorial area surrounding Whitefish.

A lawsuit filed last year by four residents against the city of Whitefish seeks to void a voter-approved referendum to repeal the 2010 city-county agreement regarding the doughnut. The 2010 agreement rescinded the original 2005 interlocal agreement because the county felt doughnut residents didn’t have representation since they can’t vote in city elections.

Opponents of the 2010 agreement backed the referendum because they feel that Whitefish does not have the ability to plan effectively without jurisdiction over the doughnut.

As the lawsuit proceeds, a preliminary injunction that gives the city planning jurisdiction in the doughnut remains in place. The case is set to go to trial in April 2013.

The plaintiffs in the case against the city are Lyle Phillips, Anne Dee Reno, Turner Askew and Ben Whitten. The plaintiff’s attorney Duncan Scott has filed a request to depose Hyatt in the case.

The plaintiffs take issue with the city’s claim that the county refused to meet to resolve differences over the 2010 agreement. Scott said that Hyatt and late county commissioner Jim Dupont continued to talk even after the county commissioners gave a one-year termination notice on the 2010 agreement.

“Councilor Hyatt clearly is a witness,” Scott said in his motion to compel the deposition of Hyatt. “Second, he is a rebuttal witness ... to Whitefish’s attempt to rewrite history in its motion for summary judgment.”

The city of Whitefish, represented by City Attorney Mary VanBuskirk and attorney Terry Trieweiler, filed a motion last week that seeks to prevent Hyatt from discussing the negotiations.

The city claims that Hyatt’s testimony isn’t relevant and that a single commissioner’s conduct can’t speak for the county as a whole.

VanBuskirk also notes in court documents that if it is necessary to “establish the opinion of one Commissioner, there are three sitting Commissioners who are available” and “Hyatt’s deposition should not be required when it can be obtained from another source.”

All three parties have filled for summary judgment in the lawsuit. At issue is whether the referendum is legal.

The city contends that the “referendum was a valid legislative repeal” of the 2010 interlocal agreement and the result is that the 2005 agreement should be reinstated as prior to the vote.

However, the county believes that the “referendum was an improper attempt to repeal an administrative act” because the one-year termination notice has run out and that the county should resume jurisdiction of the doughnut, according to documents.