Laurel residents have been raising concerns about city and state transparency in selecting Laurel for a new facility that would treat criminal defendants before they stand trial.
The controversy among Laurel residents is over how the state picked their city for the forensic mental health facility, and why they didn’t have a chance to comment on that choice.
The state had been considering Billings, but asked communities to express interest after initial pushback last fall.
According to a letter from Laurel City Administrator Kurt Markeguard to the state, the city never applied because there wasn’t suitable property in city limits.
Markegard did point to land outside of city limits but noted the state would need to go through the annexation process.
The state then selected Laurel in early December. Markegard and city council members have said they were surprised by the decision and first heard about it in the press.
Montana Board of Investments Director Dan Villa apologized for that surprise during a Dec. meeting. BOI is charged with developing the facility.
“That process could have been, and indeed should have been, handled better,” Villa said.
Villa promised more transparency as the process moved forward. The state health department in a statement to MTPR said it has kept the city government up to date, and is also committed to transparency.
In mid-January, the state found a potential site outside of the Laurel. That’s when public opposition really began.
Residents have accused the state of not including the public in the site selection.
But what’s required of the state in this case isn’t crystal clear, says Constance Van Kley, University of Montana law professor.
There are two basic legal principles at play. One is the right to know.
“The right to know is the right to see what the government is doing, both by looking at their documents and also by watching them deliberate in meetings,” Van Kley says.
Then there’s the right to participate.
“The right to participate is actually an affirmative right to get to have your voice heard by agencies before they make a final decision,” she says.
That phrase “final decision” is particularly important in this instance.
The BOI had public meetings about the facility. State health officials also presented to state lawmakers during meetings where the public could comment.
Then there’s the state’s annexation application, which will go before Laurel officials. Local residents will be able to comment during that process.
“At least to some extent, there has been some public process up through this point,” University of Montana law professor Mitch WerBell says.
Hel says there isn’t enough case law to make an easy distinction of what constitutes a final decision by the government in this case.
Van Kley agrees. She adds the state providing more chances for Laurel residents to comment might have been a good idea.
“It's inconsistent with the spirit of the law for people to be blindsided by major decisions that will affect them.”
The state’s application to annex property for the new mental health facility into Laurel is forthcoming.
