The Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District meeting last night was very productive and successful.
- Karen Morgan did an excellent job running the meeting in Jeff’s absence
- The board had 4 outstanding candidates to replace Jeff (who recently moved – but not too far away – and attended the meeting last night) You could tell the board members struggled hard to make a decision on Jeff’s replacement.
- Dave Garner was appointed to replace Jeff. Previously he served temporarily to fill a spot left by Ms. Hanigan and did an excellent job then.
- The board unanimously adopted an amendment to the bylaws requiring at least 4 votes to approve any action related to providing service outside the district boundaries
See here for additional work that could be done to clarify the need for a public hearing and amendment to the service plan before allowing service outside the district:
Green Mountain New Draft Agenda – Providing Service Outside the District
- The board addressed many nuts and bolts regarding operational and financial issues
- During a presentation on legal issues, the board received a report on the Big Sky case.
This is a critical time in the Big Sky case.
- The Court of Appeals has not physically delivered the case back to the District Court but that should happen within the next two weeks.
- During this time the new attorneys should be getting up to speed on the case in order to eventually form their “theory of the case” and discuss it with their client. That process will likely take at least a couple of months assuming they are working on it now.
- Karen Morgan and Dave Wiechman expressed the importance of meeting with the new counsel as soon as possible.
- Counsel Woods reported that the new counsel had talked with him and Mr. Gessler and were reviewing the file prepared by former counsel to form their strategy which would be reported to the board at their first meeting.
- Counsel Woods explained that he wasn’t sure whether there would be any more discovery. He did not clarify whether this meant whether more discovery was needed or more discovery would be allowed by the District Court.
- Counsel Woods explained on a scale of 1 – 20, the case was at 17, with 20 being trial.
The discussion about Big Sky begins at about 1:52:50 here:
Here is a concern.
- The board members who were directly involved in the Big Sky events beginning with May 2018 through April 9, 2019 are no longer on the board. Available, but not on the board.
-
- New counsel needs to spend time with those board members and the residents who worked closely with them to learn the story. Who, when, where, what and how. Through the actual documents. Through the recollections.
-
- The current record appears to be incomplete, non-existent or only one sided – the developer plaintiffs side.
- The Court of Appeals sent the case back for more facts
- The Court of Appeals noted that even the motion for summary judgment seemed to be missing facts and arguments present in the key document – the Resolution Terminating the Big Sky IGA passed April 9, 2019.
- On a scale of 1 – 20, the trial preparation by the plaintiffs was at about 17 but the trial preparation for Green Mountain was at about 3. No depositions have been taken by Green Mountain.
Based upon about 40 years of trial experience I can easily say that if you give the same complete set of facts to 5 different attorneys, you will come up with 5 different “theory of the case” themes to win the case.
- But what is absolutely true for each and every one of those attorneys is that arriving at the best “theory of the case” which truly represents the client’s position MUST be based on the most complete set of facts possible.
- What is also absolutely true for each and everyone of those attorneys is that you cannot rely on the plaintiff’s set of facts or the plaintiff’s “theory of the case” to define your set of facts or “theory of the case”.
The board made a hard decision to obtain experienced trial counsel on board to finish the case.
- Karen and Dave want to be closely engaged in representing the residents’ best interests in handling the litigation.
- Counsel Woods is listening to them.
- The folks with the most knowledge about the Big Sky issues are still available even though they are no longer on the board or working for the board.
- The board needs to know you, the residents and customers are paying attention, care and are available to support them when needed.
- As they make tough decisions about critical steps in the case including refilling motions for summary judgment (which could easily cover additional issues), trial or settlement, you can expect the board will want to hear from you about those big decisions.
John Henderson