## Facts

- The Montana University System is supervised and controlled by the Board of Regents.
- The Board of Regents employs the Commissioner of Higher Education, who serves as the University System’s chief executive officer and conduit for matters presented to the Board.
- Richard A. Crofts served as Commissioner and convened recurring meetings of senior University System officials, including a Policy Committee and a Senior Management Group.
- The meetings addressed University System business, including policy and management matters involving presidents, chancellors, and other senior employees.
- Media organizations sought access to these meetings, but Crofts refused to admit a reporter, treating them as closed internal staff gatherings.
- The media sued, claiming the meetings were subject to the Montana Constitution’s right to know and state open-meeting statutes.
- The district court ruled the meetings were subject to open-meeting requirements and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the media.
- Crofts appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether meetings convened by the Commissioner among senior University System employees were subject to Article II, § 9 of the Montana Constitution and Montana’s open-meeting laws.
2. Whether the media plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees as awarded by the district court.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Court held that certain structured, high-level meetings convened by the Commissioner to deliberate on University System policy and management matters were subject to the constitutional right to know and open-meeting statutes.
- The Court rejected a rule that would make all internal staff meetings open, limiting coverage to meetings that function as part of the public decision-making process.
- The Court reversed in part the attorneys’ fee award and required modification to reflect the media’s partial success after the Court narrowed the scope of the openness ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Montana’s constitutional right to know and implementing open-meeting statutes are construed broadly in favor of public access, and exceptions are construed narrowly.
- A meeting may be subject to open-meeting requirements when a legally constituted public governance structure uses structured group deliberations to transact or shape public business, even if participants are labeled “staff” or “advisors.”
- Routine, informal, or purely advisory internal staff communications are not automatically “meetings” covered by open-meeting requirements; courts apply a functional inquiry focused on the meeting’s role in governmental decision-making.
- Attorneys’ fees in right-to-know/open-meeting litigation depend on prevailing-party status and the degree of success; fee awards must be adjusted when appellate relief is mixed.

## Conclusion

The Court required public access to certain high-level University System meetings convened by the Commissioner when they functioned as part of governmental deliberation on public business, but it limited the ruling to avoid sweeping in ordinary staff discussions and ordered modification of the attorneys’ fees award to match the media plaintiffs’ partial success.


Associated Press v. Crofts, 89 P.3d 971 (Mont. 2004)