Reference Documents

Montana Code Annotated 2025

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
Part 10. General Provisions
Public Information Requests — Fees
2-6-1006. (Temporary) Public information requests — fees. (1) (a) A person may request public information from a public agency. A public agency shall make the means of requesting public information accessible to all persons.

(b) (i) All public agencies are governed by this subsection (1).

(ii) A public agency that is not an executive branch agency must meet the requirements of subsection (2) when responding to a public information request.

(iii) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b)(iv), all executive branch agencies must meet the requirements of subsection (3) when responding to a public information request.

(iv) The secretary of state must meet the requirements of subsection (4) regarding fees.

(c) A public agency other than the office of the secretary of state may charge a fee pursuant to subsections (1)(e) and (5) and this subsection (1)(c). The fee must be documented. The public agency may require the requesting person to pay the estimated fee prior to identifying and gathering the requested public information.

(d) A public agency is not required to alter or customize public information to provide it in a form specified to meet the needs of the requesting person.

(e) If a public agency agrees to a request to customize a records request response, the costs of the customization may be included in the fees charged by the agency.

(2) Upon receiving a request for public information, a public agency that is not an executive branch agency shall respond in a timely manner to the requesting person by:

(a) making the public information maintained by the public agency available for inspection and copying by the requesting person; or

(b) providing the requesting person with an estimate of the time it will take to fulfill the request if the public information cannot be readily identified and gathered as well as any fees that may be charged.

…

…

Montana Code Annotated 2025
TITLE 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 4. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Part 21. County Commissioners
Supervision Of County And Other Officers
7-4-2110. Supervision of county and other officers. (1) The board of county commissioners has jurisdiction and power, under the limitations and restrictions that are prescribed by law, to:

(a) supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing public revenue;

(b) see that the officers faithfully perform their duties;

(c) direct prosecutions for delinquencies;

(d) when necessary, require the officers to renew their official bonds, make reports, and present their books and accounts for inspection;

(e) require the officers to supervise staff in a manner that complies with personnel policies and procedures adopted by the county governing body;

(f) initiate civil proceedings to seek a writ of mandamus to compel or enjoin the performance of an act by a local government entity within the county or any member of its governing body; and

(g) hire outside counsel to litigate a proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus and recover attorney fees and costs as determined by a court.

(2) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), as used in this section, “local government entity” has the meaning provided in 2-7-501.

(b) The term does not include a county, consolidated city-county, incorporated city or town, or school district.

Montana Code Annotated 2025
TITLE 45. CRIMES
CHAPTER 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Part 4. Official Misconduct
Official Misconduct
45-7-401. Official misconduct. (1) A public servant commits the offense of official misconduct when in an official capacity the public servant commits any of the following acts:

(a) purposely or negligently fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law or by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) knowingly performs an act in an official capacity that the public servant knows is forbidden by law;

(c) with the purpose to obtain a personal advantage or an advantage for another, performs an act in excess of the public servant’s lawful authority;

(d) solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward that the public servant knows is not authorized by law; or

(e) knowingly conducts a meeting of a public agency in violation of 2-3-203.

(2) A public servant convicted of the offense of official misconduct shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.

(3) The district court has exclusive jurisdiction in prosecutions under this section. Any action for official misconduct must be commenced by an information filed after leave to file has been granted by the district court or after a grand jury indictment has been found.

(4) A public servant who has been charged as provided in subsection (3) may be suspended from office without pay pending final judgment. Upon final judgment of conviction, the public servant shall permanently forfeit the public servant’s office. Upon acquittal, the public servant must be reinstated in office and must receive all backpay.

(5) This section does not affect any power conferred by law to impeach or remove any public servant or any proceeding authorized by law to carry into effect an impeachment or removal.

Montana Code Annotated 2025
TITLE 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 4. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Part 27. Office of County Attorney
County Attorney To Be Legal Adviser Of County And Other Subdivisions
7-4-2711. County attorney to be legal adviser of county and other subdivisions. (1) The county attorney is the legal adviser of the board of county commissioners. The county attorney shall attend their meetings when required and shall attend and oppose all claims and accounts against the county that are unjust or illegal. The county attorney shall defend all suits brought against the county.

(2) The county attorney shall:

(a) give, when required and without fee, an opinion in writing to the county, district, and township officers on matters relating to the duties of their respective offices;

(b) act as counsel, without fee, for fire districts and fire service areas in unincorporated territories, towns, or villages within the county;

(c) when requested by a conservation district pursuant to 76-15-319, act as counsel, without fee;

(d) when requested by a weed district pursuant to 7-22-2109, act as counsel, without fee; and

(e) when requested by a county hospital board pursuant to 7-34-2115, act as counsel, without fee, unless the legal action requested involves the county commissioners.

April 14, 2026 – Letter To the Flathead County Commissioners, titled “RE: Statutory Supervisory Duty of the Board of County Commissioners Over All County Officers, Including the County Attorney; and the Five-Year Non-Resolution of Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26.”

From: Duane Egan
MontanaWatchdog.com
3579 Middle Road, Columbia Falls, Montana 59912
Duane.egan@outlook.com

April 11, 2025

To: Board of Flathead County Commissioners
Mr. Brad Abell
Ms. Pam Holmquist
Mr. Randy Brodehl
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, Montana 59901

CC: Flathead County Attorney Mr. Travis Ahner
Flathead County Planning & Zoning Director Mr. Erik Mack

RE: Statutory Supervisory Duty of the Board of County Commissioners Over All County Officers, Including the County Attorney; and the Five-Year Non-Resolution of Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26

Dear Chairman and Members of the Board:

I. INTRODUCTION

I write as a citizen of Flathead County and the operator of MontanaWatchdog.com, a government accountability website, to address a matter of both legal authority and public consequence. On April 10, 2025, I attended a candidate forum hosted by the Glacier Country Pachyderm Club in Kalispell. During the question-and-answer session following Commissioner candidate Brad Abell’s address, I posed the following question:

“I have had a Community Decay Complaint unresolved for five years. Why is that, Mr. Abell?”

Commissioner Abell responded, in substance, that the matter rested with the Flathead County Attorney’s Office and that the Board of County Commissioners does not have authority to direct the County Attorney, as that officer is independently elected. I respectfully but firmly disagreed, citing Montana law. The exchange concluded without resolution.

This letter is submitted to the full Board to formally establish, on the record, the controlling statutory and constitutional framework governing this issue, and to request that the Board discharge its supervisory duty.

II. THE STATUTORY SUPERVISORY DUTY OF THE BOARD UNDER MCA § 7-4-2110

The position articulated by Mr. Abell — that the Board of County Commissioners lacks supervisory authority over the County Attorney because that officer is elected — is contradicted by express statutory language.

Montana Code Annotated 2025
TITLE 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 4. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Part 21. County Commissioners
7-4-2101 Composition of board of county commissioners
7-4-2102 Division of county into commissioner districts
7-4-2103 Filing of certificate designating districts
7-4-2104 Commissioners to be elected by district
7-4-2105 Term of office
7-4-2106 Vacancy on board of county commissioners — resigning member not to participate in filling pending vacancy
7-4-2107 Compensation of county commissioners
7-4-2108 Mileage allowance for county commissioners — expenses
7-4-2109 Presiding officer of board
7-4-2110 Supervision of county and other officers
7-4-2111 Indemnity insurance for county officers
7-4-2112 County seal
Montana Code Annotated § 7-4-2110 provides, as follows in pertinent part:

“Supervision Of County And Other Officers
7-4-2110. Supervision of county and other officers. (1) The board of county commissioners has jurisdiction and power, under the limitations and restrictions that are prescribed by law, to:

(a) supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing public revenue;

(b) see that the officers faithfully perform their duties;

(c) direct prosecutions for delinquencies;”

The phrase “all county officers” declares no exception for elected officials. The Montana Legislature did not carve out the County Attorney from the Board’s supervisory reach. The County Attorney is unambiguously a county officer. See MCA § 7-4-2211(2)(a) (expressly listing the county attorney among the officers whose offices are governed by county governing body policy). It follows, as a matter of plain statutory construction, that the County Attorney is subject to the Board’s supervisory jurisdiction under MCA § 7-4-2110(b).

Supervision is not direction in specific litigation; it is the duty to “see that the officers faithfully perform their duties.” MCA § 7-4-2110(b). That distinction is legally significant and addressed in full in Section III below.

III. THE BOARD’S SUPERVISORY DUTY DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY

One might argue that the Attorney General’s independent supervisory authority over county attorneys, established at MCA § 2-15-501(5), displaces or preempts the Board’s role. That argument misapprehends the distinct and complementary nature of these two supervisory regimes.

MCA § 2-15-501(5) grants the Attorney General the power to:

“exercise supervisory powers over county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their offices and from time to time require of them reports as to the condition of public business entrusted to their charge. The supervisory powers granted to the attorney general by this subsection include the power to order and direct county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office.”

This supervisory authority is exercised at the state level and concerns state-law matters, criminal prosecutions, and questions of legal policy uniformity across Montana’s counties. It is a vertical, hierarchical supervisory relationship running from the state’s chief legal officer down to county legal officers on matters of state public law.

The Board’s authority under MCA § 7-4-2110, by contrast, is horizontal and administrative in nature. It speaks to the Board’s responsibility to ensure that county officers — including the County Attorney in the officer’s county capacity — are faithfully executing the duties assigned to them by county ordinance and state law. The two regimes operate on different planes and address different functions. The Attorney General supervises the County Attorney as a state legal officer performing state legal functions; the Board supervises the County Attorney as a county officer performing county administrative and legal functions.

Critically, the Board is not empowered — and nothing in this letter suggests it is — to direct the County Attorney in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, in the substance of specific legal opinions, or in matters of trial strategy. Those functions involve the independent professional judgment that the law reserves to the County Attorney. But the duty to respond to a properly filed county ordinance enforcement complaint, to process that matter through the appropriate channel, and to take or recommend action in a timely manner is not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion — it is the performance of a ministerial administrative duty.

The Board therefore may, and indeed must, inquire whether the County Attorney has faithfully performed the duty of processing and acting upon Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26 in accordance with county ordinance and state law. That inquiry does not intrude upon any sphere reserved to the Attorney General.

IV. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S DUTY TO ADDRESS COUNTY ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS

The County Attorney’s legal obligations in the context of county ordinance enforcement are established by multiple provisions of Montana law.

First, MCA § 7-4-2711(1) provides:

“The county attorney is the legal adviser of the board of county commissioners. The county attorney shall attend their meetings when required and shall attend and oppose all claims and accounts against the county that are unjust or illegal. The county attorney shall defend all suits brought against the county.”

This statute makes plain that the County Attorney functions as the legal instrument of the county governing body — not as an independent actor answerable to no one on matters of county law and policy. The relationship is that of a lawyer to a client, with the Board serving as the client on county matters.

Second, Flathead County Ordinance No. 6 (the Community Decay Ordinance) is an enactment of the county’s governing body, adopted pursuant to MCA §§ 7-5-2110 and 7-5-2111. As such, it is the legal instrument of the Board itself. When a complaint is properly filed under that ordinance and thereafter referred to the County Attorney’s Office for enforcement action, it is the Board’s own ordinance that is at issue. Allowing that ordinance to go unenforced — or allowing a referral to languish without action or explanation for five years — is not merely a matter of prosecutorial discretion. It is a failure to perform the duties of the office with respect to the very client the County Attorney is obligated to serve.

Third, MCA § 7-4-2110(c) authorizes the Board to “direct prosecutions for delinquencies.” While this provision must be read consistently with the County Attorney’s professional independence in legal matters, it establishes that the Board is not a passive observer with respect to matters involving county officers’ duties. The Board has an affirmative power to direct that appropriate legal action be taken when county officers are delinquent.

The Flathead County Planning & Zoning Department publishes a report named “Flathead County Planning & Zoning Violation Reporter” on the Flathead County website. As of April 11, 2026, in that report, the subject violation, number FCD-21-26, status is shown as “Sent to Flathead County Attorney”, along with 11 other Community Decay complaints and 24 other complaints. In total, this database shows that the County Attorney has 36 open complaints pending action of some sort.

V. COMMUNITY DECAY COMPLAINT NO. FCD-21-26: FIVE YEARS OF NON-RESOLUTION

Community Decay Violation Complaint No. FCD-21-26, pertaining to the properties at 5609 and 5611 U.S. Highway 2 West, Columbia Falls, Montana, was filed in 2021, inappropriately closed in 2023, and refiled in Feb 26, 2024. It has now remained unresolved for over five years, passing through three county offices without resulting in any documented remediation, citation, or final disposition.

This complaint was filed under Flathead County Ordinance No. 6. The County’s own Planning and Zoning Department records reflect that this complaint is among the substantial majority of complaints that have received no documented resolution. The Board has been made aware through prior correspondence and public record of this pattern of administrative non-performance, which constitutes a systemic failure of county enforcement functions under any reasonable administrative standard.

The referral of this matter to the County Attorney’s Office does not extinguish the Board’s supervisory responsibility. To the contrary, it triggers MCA § 7-4-2110(b)’s directive to “see that the officers faithfully perform their duties.” If the matter has reached the County Attorney and remains unresolved without explanation, the Board has both the authority and the duty to inquire and to demand an accounting.

VI. FORMAL REQUESTS

Based on the foregoing legal analysis, I respectfully request that the Board take the following actions:

1. Formally acknowledge, in a written Board resolution or meeting minutes, that MCA § 7-4-2110 imposes upon the Board an affirmative statutory duty to supervise the official conduct of all county officers, including the County Attorney and the Director of the Planning & Zoning Department, and to see that such officers faithfully perform their duties.
2. Direct the County Attorney to provide the Board with a written status report on Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26, including: the current status of the matter; any legal basis for inaction or delay; and the projected timeline for resolution or formal case closure.
3. Provide the undersigned, as the complainant of record, with a written response to this letter within ten (10) days setting forth the Board’s position and intended course of action.

VII. CONCLUSION

The proposition that the Board of County Commissioners is powerless to supervise an elected county officer is not supported by Montana law. MCA § 7-4-2110 is unambiguous: the Board has jurisdiction and power to supervise the official conduct of all county officers and to see that they faithfully perform their duties. That duty does not yield simply because an officer is elected rather than appointed.

The Board’s supervisory authority over county officers and the Attorney General’s supervisory authority over county attorneys are complementary, not competing. The Attorney General oversees state legal functions; the Board oversees county administrative performance. Both can, and must, operate concurrently without conflict.

Community Decay Complaint No. FCD-21-26 has been outstanding for over five years. The citizens of Flathead County are entitled to a county government that enforces its own ordinances. The Board has both the legal authority and the statutory duty to demand accountability from the officers within its supervisory charge.

I respectfully request that the Board act accordingly.

Respectfully submitted,

Duane Egan
MontanaWatchdog.com
Columbia Falls, Montana 59912

LEGAL AUTHORITIES CITED

Montana Code Annotated:
MCA § 2-15-501(5) — Attorney General supervisory powers over county attorneys
MCA § 7-4-2110 — Board of County Commissioners: supervision of county and other officers
MCA § 7-4-2211(2)(a) — County attorney listed as county officer subject to governing body policy
MCA § 7-4-2711(1) — County attorney as legal adviser to the Board
MCA § 7-4-2712 — County attorney prosecutorial duties
MCA § 7-4-2716 — County attorney duties related to state matters
MCA §§ 7-5-2110–2111 — Community decay: definition and control

Flathead County Ordinance:
Flathead County Ordinance No. 6 — Community Decay Ordinance

Citizen complaint – Flathead County Board of commissioners (Cover Letter)

Duane Egan
3579 Middle Road
Columbia Falls, Montana 59912
Duane.egan@outlook.com
MontanaWatchdog.com

April 25, 2026

Office of the Attorney General
State of Montana
215 North Sanders Street
P.O. Box 201401
Helena, MT 59620-1401

Re: Citizen Complaint — Flathead County Board of Commissioners
Subject Matter: Public Participation (MCA § 2-3-103) and Supervisory Duties (MCA § 7-4-2110)
Underlying Case: Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26

Dear Attorney General’s Office:

Enclosed please find a formal citizen complaint concerning a documented pattern of administrative conduct by the Flathead County Board of Commissioners. The complaint documents nearly five years of non-response on the underlying community decay matter, fifteen months of sustained non-response from the Board itself following formal written notice, file-passing among multiple county offices, and a written denial by a subordinate county employee of the statutory public-comment access required under MCA § 2-3-103(1)(a).

I am filing this complaint pro se, as a resident and registered elector of Flathead County. The complete record — including the correspondence referenced as Exhibits A through M — is attached. A public copy of the complaint is also available at MontanaWatchdog.com.

I am not asking the Attorney General to adjudicate the underlying community decay matter. I am asking the Office to examine whether the administrative conduct documented in the enclosed record complies with Montana law, and to respond with such guidance, advisory opinion, referral, or other action as the Office deems appropriate.
Four specific questions of law are raised in the complaint’s Relief Requested section:

1. Whether a County Administrator may lawfully deny a citizen access to the public-comment agenda item required by MCA § 2-3-103 on a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction;
2. Whether a Board of County Commissioners may discharge its non-delegable supervisory duty under MCA § 7-4-2110 by referral of a citizen complaint to a non-responsive County Attorney’s Office;
3. Whether the constitutional right to “participation” under Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution is satisfied when a Board of County Commissioners receives written submissions and oral testimony from a citizen on a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction, but provides no acknowledgment, no response, no engagement, and no indication that the citizen’s submissions were considered; and
4. What constitutes a constructive denial of the constitutional participation right under Article II, § 8 in the context of sustained multi-office non-response and ignored formal hearing requests.
   Requested acknowledgment. I respectfully ask that your office provide written acknowledgment of receipt of this complaint, including any file or tracking number assigned, so that I may maintain a complete record of this filing. I can be reached at the email address above.
   Record preservation. Because the underlying pattern remains ongoing, I intend to continue documenting any further administrative conduct relevant to this complaint, and will supplement the record if necessary.
   Public record. This complaint, its exhibits, and this cover letter are not confidential. I have made them publicly available and welcome review by any party.
   Thank you for your attention to this matter. I recognize that the Attorney General’s Office receives many citizen complaints and that not all warrant a formal response. I submit this one in the belief that the pattern it documents — sustained non-response by multiple county offices over a fifteen-month period, culminating in a written denial of statutory public-participation access — is of a character and seriousness that merits review.

Respectfully,

---

Duane Egan
Columbia Falls, Montana

Enclosures:
● Complaint to the Montana Attorney General (dated April 22, 2026)
● Exhibits A through M (referenced correspondence)

Complaint To The Montana Attorney General

COMPLAINT TO THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Concerning the Flathead County Board of Commissioners’ Pattern of Denial of Statutory Public-Participation Rights and Failure to Supervise County Officers

Complainant: Duane Egan
Columbia Falls, Montana
Duane.egan@outlook.com
MontanaWatchdog.com

Respondent: The Flathead County Board of Commissioners
Commissioner Pamela Holmquist
Commissioner Randy Brodehl
Commissioner Brad Abell
800 South Main Street, Kalispell, MT 59901

Date Filed: April 22, 2026
Underlying Matter: Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26
(Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This complaint asks the Attorney General to examine a documented pattern of administrative conduct by the Flathead County Board of Commissioners that has, over nearly five years, produced the following results on a single citizen complaint:
● No decision on the merits.
● No statutorily required hearing.
● No written findings.
● A documented denial, in writing by a subordinate non-elected employee, of the Complainant’s right under MCA § 2-3-103 to present the matter to the Commissioners in public session.
● No supervisory response from the Board despite formal written notice beginning January 24, 2025 (with an explicit request for hearing within 30 days), continued written communication, in-person public testimony, and express invocation of MCA § 7-4-2110.
The Complainant submits that this pattern constitutes, at minimum: (1) a violation of the statutory public-participation requirements of MCA § 2-3-103; (2) a failure of the Board’s non-delegable duty of supervision under MCA § 7-4-2110; and (3) a constructive denial of the constitutional right to participate under Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution.
The Complainant requests that the Attorney General review the enclosed record and issue appropriate guidance, an advisory opinion, or such other response as the office deems warranted.

I. JURISDICTION AND STANDING

1. The Attorney General of Montana is charged with providing legal guidance on matters of state law and with enforcing, or advising upon the enforcement of, statutes concerning public participation in governmental operations. See MCA § 2-15-501.
2. The Complainant is a resident and registered elector of Flathead County, Montana, and has been directly affected by the administrative conduct described herein. The Complainant has standing to invoke the public-participation statutes of MCA Title 2, Chapter 3 by virtue of his direct and repeated attempts to participate in Board decisions on matters within the Board’s jurisdiction.
3. This complaint concerns conduct by a political subdivision of the State of Montana (Flathead County) and its governing body (the Board of County Commissioners), both of which are subject to Montana’s public-participation and supervisory statutes.

II. PARTIES

4. Complainant Duane Egan is a resident of Columbia Falls, Montana. He operates MontanaWatchdog.com, a public-interest documentation platform, and has been engaged in the underlying matter since July 7, 2021.
5. Respondent Flathead County Board of Commissioners is the governing body of Flathead County, Montana, comprising Commissioners Pamela Holmquist, Randy Brodehl, and Brad Abell. The Board holds non-delegable statutory authority under MCA § 7-4-2110 to supervise the conduct of all county officers.
6. Other Flathead County officials — County Administrator Pete Melnick, County Attorney Travis Ahner, Planning & Zoning Director Erik Mack, and Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder — are referenced in the factual record that follows. Their conduct is presented as evidence of the Board’s supervisory failure; they are not named as respondents in this complaint.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following facts are documented by written correspondence, official letters, and public meeting records. Exhibits are referenced throughout and listed at the end of this complaint.
A. Filing and Improper Closure of the Underlying Complaint

7. On July 7, 2021, Complainant filed a Community Decay Violation Complaint with the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office, assigned case number FCD-21-26.
8. In mid-2023, the Planning & Zoning Office closed the complaint without resolution on the merits and without notice or hearing provided to the Complainant.
9. On February 20, 2024, Complainant refiled the same violation. No merits determination followed.
   B. Formal Notice to the Board and Request for Hearing
10. On January 24, 2025, Complainant delivered a formal written communication to Commissioners Holmquist, Brodehl, and Abell titled “Community Decay Processing Issues.” The document set forth in detail the Complainant’s documented concerns regarding the administrative handling of FCD-21-26, including the improper 2023 closure, the absence of a merits determination, the lack of substantive engagement with the complaint by the offices to which it had been referred, and other procedural defects observable in the processing of the matter. The document expressly requested a hearing or consultation with the Board within 30 calendar days. No member of the Board responded to this request for hearing. No hearing was scheduled. No written acknowledgment of the document was provided. (See Exhibit A.)
11. On May 12, 2025, Complainant delivered a further written communication directly to Commissioner Holmquist, with copies to Commissioners Abell and Brodehl, again concerning the handling of FCD-21-26 and seeking documents and status information from the Commissioners’ office on the matter. The communication specifically asked for written confirmation of receipt. No member of the Board acknowledged or responded to this communication. (See Exhibit B.)
    C. Attempts at Resolution Through Staff
12. On June 13, 2025, Complainant sent a detailed email to Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder identifying specific misapplications of Flathead County Community Decay Ordinance No. 6 in the processing of FCD-21-26. No response was received. (See Exhibit C.)
13. On July 15, 2025, Complainant sent a follow-up email to Mr. Schroeder requesting a meeting to discuss the complaint. Mr. Schroeder responded only that the matter had been “referred to the County Attorney’s Office.” No substantive response addressing the misapplication of the ordinance was provided. (See Exhibit D.)
    D. Renewed Notice to the Board and In-Person Public Testimony
14. On August 13, 2025, Complainant sent a third written communication to Commissioners Holmquist, Brodehl, and Abell describing the ongoing status of FCD-21-26, the unresolved misapplication of Ordinance No. 6, and the continued lack of response from P&Z staff, from the County Attorney’s Office, and from the Board itself. The communication expressly requested a meeting with the Board. No response was received from any member of the Board. (See Exhibit E.)
15. On September 2, 2025, Complainant appeared in person at the open public forum of the Flathead County Board of Commissioners at the Flathead County Courthouse. Complainant addressed the Board directly for approximately seven minutes regarding FCD-21-26. Complainant also physically delivered to the Board, at that meeting, a written letter dated September 1, 2025, titled “Persistent Statutory Noncompliance and Intent to Escalate Oversight,” which formally reiterated the Complainant’s concerns regarding the Board’s supervisory duties under MCA § 7-4-2110. In that combined oral and written presentation, Complainant expressly identified the Board’s apparent failure to discharge its supervisory duties under MCA § 7-4-2110 and the Board’s failure to respond to the January 24, 2025 request for hearing and to the May 12, 2025 communication. No response, written or verbal, was thereafter provided by any member of the Board. (See Exhibit F.)
    E. Continued Escalation and Non-Response
16. On November 20, 2025, Complainant sent a written communication to P&Z Director Erik Mack requesting the status of FCD-21-26, with copies provided to the Board. Mr. Mack responded that “the case file has been forwarded to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office for further action.” (See Exhibit G.)
17. On the same date, November 20, 2025, Complainant sent a written communication to County Attorney Travis Ahner requesting only the current status of FCD-21-26 and an estimated timeline for any corrective action. No response has ever been received from the County Attorney’s Office. (See Exhibit H.)
    F. Denial of Agenda Access Under MCA § 2-3-103
18. On January 25, 2026, Complainant sent a written communication to County Administrator Pete Melnick requesting placement on the agenda of a public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to discuss FCD-21-26 — a matter indisputably within the Board’s jurisdiction. (See Exhibit I.)
19. On January 27, 2026, Mr. Melnick responded in writing denying the Complainant access to the public agenda. (See Exhibit J.) This denial was issued by a non-elected subordinate employee of the Board, without apparent reference to any statutory authority permitting such denial, and without any demonstrable review by the Board itself.
20. On February 2, 2026, Complainant sent a written response to Mr. Melnick refuting the grounds of the denial. No further response was received. (See Exhibit K.)
    G. Continued File-Passing and Circular Referral
21. On February 10, 2026, Complainant made a final good-faith attempt at resolution by writing to P&Z Director Mack offering to discuss a solution to the delay. Mr. Mack responded that because the matter was at the County Attorney’s Office, it could only be discussed there — notwithstanding that the County Attorney, as documented in paragraph 17, had already declined to respond. (See Exhibit L.)
22. As of the filing of this complaint, Community Decay Violation Complaint FCD-21-26 has been pending without a merits determination for four years and nine months. No statutorily required hearing has been held. No written findings have been issued. No substantive response has been received from any of the three Commissioners since formal written notice to them beginning on January 24, 2025 — a period of fifteen months of continuous non-response.

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The pattern of conduct documented above implicates three bodies of Montana law, each of which is addressed in turn.
A. Violation of MCA § 2-3-103 (Public Participation)

23. Montana’s Public Participation in Governmental Operations Act, enacted to effectuate the constitutional mandate of Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution, provides in relevant part:
    “The agenda for a meeting, as defined in 2-3-202, must include an item allowing public comment on any public matter that is not on the agenda of the meeting and that is within the jurisdiction of the agency conducting the meeting.”
    MCA § 2-3-103(1)(a).
24. The statute’s language is mandatory, not permissive. The legislature did not grant any agency, officer, administrator, or employee discretion to deny a citizen access to this statutorily required agenda item when the matter in question is within the agency’s jurisdiction.
25. Community decay violation complaints filed under Flathead County Ordinance No. 6 are indisputably within the jurisdiction of the Flathead County Board of Commissioners. The ordinance was adopted by the Board; its enforcement is supervised by the Board; and complaints arising under it fall squarely within the scope of MCA § 2-3-103’s “public matter… within the jurisdiction of the agency” language.
26. The January 27, 2026 denial letter from County Administrator Melnick (Exhibit J) is a written, documented denial of the Complainant’s statutory public-comment access. The denial was issued:
    (a) By a non-elected subordinate employee;
    (b) Without reference to any exception recognized under MCA § 2-3-112;
    (c) Without apparent Board review or ratification at the time of issuance; and
    (d) With respect to a matter unquestionably within the Board’s jurisdiction.
27. The Montana Supreme Court has consistently held that the public-participation right requires more than a perfunctory opportunity to speak. See Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 2 (the right is not satisfied by an “uninformed opportunity to speak”); Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 2016 MT 103, 383 Mont. 297, 371 P.3d 415 (“Public participation procedures are required when a final decision is made.”). The denial of agenda access is, in its plain effect, a denial of the participation right itself.
28. The Complainant submits that Mr. Melnick’s denial letter, and the Board’s subsequent failure to correct or overturn it, constitute a violation of MCA § 2-3-103.
    B. Failure of the Non-Delegable Duty of Supervision — MCA § 7-4-2110
29. MCA § 7-4-2110 places on the Board of County Commissioners a statutory duty to “supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing the public revenues” and to direct the enforcement of law. The duty is not discretionary; the Board cannot delegate it to the County Attorney, to the County Administrator, or to departmental directors.
30. The evidentiary record demonstrates that the Board has been placed on direct notice of the following facts:
    (a) A citizen complaint filed under a county ordinance has been pending without merits determination for nearly five years (paragraphs 7–9, 22);
    (b) The Board received a formal written notice on January 24, 2025 detailing the Complainant’s documented concerns regarding the administrative handling of FCD-21-26, accompanied by an explicit request for hearing within 30 days, which was ignored (paragraph 10);
    (c) The Board received a further direct written communication on May 12, 2025, which was ignored (paragraph 11);
    (d) P&Z staff failed to respond substantively to correspondence identifying ordinance misapplication (paragraphs 12–13);
    (e) The Board received a third written communication on August 13, 2025, which was ignored (paragraph 14);
    (f) The Complainant expressly invoked MCA § 7-4-2110 during public testimony on September 2, 2025 and in the written letter delivered at that same meeting (paragraph 15);
    (g) The County Attorney failed to respond to direct written inquiry over a period now exceeding five months (paragraph 17);
    (h) A subordinate non-elected employee issued a written denial of statutory public-participation access (paragraphs 18–19).
31. Notwithstanding formal written notice beginning January 24, 2025, an ignored 30-day hearing request, ignored follow-up written communications, in-person public testimony on September 2, 2025 accompanied by a written letter, and express invocation of the supervisory statute, no member of the Board has taken any documented supervisory action. No member of the Board has provided a substantive written response to the Complainant in the fifteen months following the January 24, 2025 written notice.
32. The Complainant submits that this constitutes a failure of the Board’s non-delegable supervisory duty under MCA § 7-4-2110 — not in a single instance, but as a sustained pattern across multiple county offices simultaneously, sustained over a period of more than a year. A Board that is notified, in writing and in person, that its subordinate offices are non-responsive, and that thereafter takes no supervisory action over a fifteen-month period, is not exercising the supervision the statute requires.
33. The Board may be inclined to argue that its supervisory duties under MCA § 7-4-2110 have been discharged in whole or in part through the role of the County Administrator. The Board’s own adopted Job Description for the County Administrator (Job Code 00050, revised October 29, 2020) defeats this argument on its face. (See Exhibit M.) The job description states that the Administrator operates “under general direction of the County Commissioners,” that his role is to “ensure… that the policies of the County Commission are carried out,” and that his supervisory reach extends only to “appointed department heads who do not report to other Boards.” The Administrator has no supervisory authority over elected county officers, including the County Attorney. The Administrator has no supervisory authority over department heads who report to other Boards, including the Planning & Zoning Director, who serves under the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment. The statutory duty of the Board to supervise county officers under § 7-4-2110 cannot, as a matter of law, be discharged by delegation to a subordinate appointed employee whose own written duties expressly preserve the Board’s direction and control. The existence of the Administrator position is not a defense to the Board’s supervisory failure. If anything, it is evidence of additional administrative resources the Board declined to deploy: the job description specifically charges the Administrator with “identifying and coordinating inter-dependences between county departments and elected officials” and “responding to inquiries from citizens” — tasks the Board could have directed him to perform in the matter of FCD-21-26, and did not.
    C. Constructive Denial of Constitutional Participation Rights — Mont. Const. Art. II, § 8
34. Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution provides:
    “The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.”
35. The Complainant does not ask this office to resolve any broader question about whether the constitutional right to participate requires engagement and dialogue, or whether it requires only a meaningful opportunity to speak. The Complainant’s participation has been denied at a prior and more fundamental stage than either reading would require. The Complainant has been denied placement on the Board’s agenda by written letter from the County Administrator. He has been denied any response, substantive or otherwise, to written requests for a meeting with the Board. He has been denied a hearing on FCD-21-26 despite its pendency for nearly five years and despite an explicit written 30-day hearing request delivered to the Board on January 24, 2025. He has been denied written findings. Whatever the participation right means at its outer margins, it cannot mean less than access to the forum in which participation is meant to occur. That access is what has been denied here.
36. The Montana Supreme Court has held that the participation right is not satisfied by an “uninformed opportunity to speak.” This formulation recognizes that the constitutional guarantee is hollow if it amounts to a citizen speaking into a void: the right requires both a meaningful opportunity to address the body and meaningful conditions surrounding that opportunity, including access to information about what is being decided. By extension, a constructive denial of participation — achieved through bureaucratic delay, file-passing, sustained non-response, or refusal to provide access to the decision-making forum — can itself violate Article II, § 8 where it has the functional effect of preventing meaningful participation.
37. The Complainant submits that nearly five years of unresolved status, combined with documented non-response from multiple county offices over a fifteen-month period, combined with ignored formal hearing requests, combined with denial of agenda access by a subordinate employee, combined with the Board’s sustained failure to respond to direct requests for a meeting, constitutes a constructive denial of the constitutional participation right.
    D. The Pattern Is the Violation
38. The Complainant wishes to emphasize to the Attorney General that the individual acts and omissions described above, while each supporting its own legal theory, are most significant in their cumulative effect. The pattern operates as follows:
    ● The Code Compliance Technician does not respond and refers the matter to the County Attorney.
    ● The County Attorney does not respond.
    ● The P&Z Director responds only that the matter is with the County Attorney.
    ● The Commissioners do not respond to formal written notice, do not respond to requests for hearing, and do not respond to written requests for meetings.
    ● The County Administrator denies access to the Commissioners’ public agenda.
    ● Renewed attempts with the P&Z Director are met with the explanation that the matter is with the County Attorney — who still does not respond.
39. No single official has taken an obviously unlawful action in isolation. The unlawfulness is emergent: it is the product of coordinated (or merely parallel) non-response across offices, with the cumulative effect of rendering citizen redress structurally impossible.
40. The practical consequence of this pattern is that Community Decay Ordinance No. 6, while formally in effect, has functioned as an unenforced law with respect to the Complainant for nearly five years. A law that cannot be invoked by a citizen who follows every prescribed administrative channel is not, in any meaningful sense, an enforced law. The ordinance’s words remain on the books; its enforcement mechanism has ceased to operate.
41. It is precisely this kind of administrative pattern that MCA § 7-4-2110 was enacted to prevent. The Board’s supervisory duty exists so that when subordinate offices collectively fail a citizen, there is a single body with a statutory obligation to intervene. When the Board itself participates in the non-response — including by ignoring formal written hearing requests and direct written communications over a fifteen-month period — the statutory scheme collapses.

V. RELIEF REQUESTED
The Complainant respectfully requests that the Attorney General’s Office:

42. Review the enclosed record of correspondence and administrative conduct;
43. Issue guidance, an advisory opinion, or a formal response addressing one or more of the following questions of law:
    (a) Whether a County Administrator may lawfully deny a citizen access to the public-comment agenda item required by MCA § 2-3-103 on a matter within the Board of County Commissioners’ jurisdiction;
    (b) Whether a Board of County Commissioners may discharge its non-delegable supervisory duty under MCA § 7-4-2110 by referral of a citizen complaint to the County Attorney’s Office, where that office is demonstrably non-responsive;
    (c) Whether, under Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution and the implementing statutes of MCA Title 2, Chapter 3, the right to “participation” is satisfied when a Board of County Commissioners receives written submissions and oral testimony from a citizen on a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction, but provides no acknowledgment, no response, no engagement, and no indication that the citizen’s submissions were considered — particularly when this pattern is sustained over multiple submissions and an extended period of time;
    (d) What constitutes a constructive denial of the participation right under Article II, § 8 of the Montana Constitution in the context of sustained multi-office non-response and ignored formal hearing requests;
44. Refer this matter to any other office or enforcement authority the Attorney General deems appropriate if direct action by the AG’s office is not available;
45. Provide guidance to Flathead County regarding its compliance obligations under MCA Title 2, Chapter 3; and
46. Grant such other relief as the Attorney General deems appropriate.
    The Complainant does not ask the Attorney General to adjudicate the underlying merits of FCD-21-26. The Complainant asks only that the Attorney General examine whether the administrative conduct documented herein complies with Montana law, and respond accordingly.

VI. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to this complaint and incorporated by reference:
● Exhibit A — “Community Decay Processing Issues” — Written notice to Commissioners Holmquist, Brodehl, and Abell, January 24, 2025, setting forth in detail the Complainant’s documented concerns regarding the administrative handling of FCD-21-26 and requesting a hearing within 30 days
● Exhibit B — Written communication delivered to Commissioner Holmquist (with copies to Commissioners Abell and Brodehl), May 12, 2025
● Exhibit C — Email to Code Compliance Technician Jared Schroeder, June 13, 2025
● Exhibit D — Follow-up email exchange with Jared Schroeder, July 15, 2025
● Exhibit E — Written communication to Commissioners Holmquist, Brodehl, and Abell, August 13, 2025
● Exhibit F — Record of September 2, 2025 proceedings before the Board, comprising (i) the prepared speech delivered orally by Complainant and (ii) the written letter “Persistent Statutory Noncompliance and Intent to Escalate Oversight” dated September 1, 2025 and physically delivered to the Board at the meeting
● Exhibit G — Correspondence with Planning & Zoning Director Erik Mack, November 20, 2025
● Exhibit H — Letter to County Attorney Travis Ahner, November 20, 2025
● Exhibit I — Letter to County Administrator Pete Melnick, January 25, 2026
● Exhibit J — Denial letter from Pete Melnick, January 27, 2026
● Exhibit K — Response to Melnick denial, February 2, 2026
● Exhibit L — Final correspondence with Erik Mack, February 10, 2026
● Exhibit M — Flathead County Job Description, County Administrator (Job Code 00050, revised October 29, 2020)

VII. CERTIFICATION
I, Duane Egan, hereby certify that the foregoing complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, that the exhibits referenced are authentic copies of the correspondence described, and that the complete record of this matter is publicly available at MontanaWatchdog.com.
I submit this complaint in good faith, as a resident of Flathead County, Montana, seeking only that the administrative conduct of my local government be reviewed against the requirements of Montana law.
Respectfully submitted,

---

Duane Egan
Columbia Falls, Montana
Duane.egan@outlook.com
MontanaWatchdog.com

Date: April 22, 2026

This complaint, together with all referenced exhibits, is a matter of public record and is available for review at MontanaWatchdog.com.