4—Petitioners’ Prehearing requested information is not.

Brief

attorney, and reiterating his request for information

by including a copy

of the original written request. See Exhibit 2, June 7, 2001 letter from

Darrell Geist to MDOL. The MDOL was again nonresponsive. Therefore,

Petitioners’ counsel wrote to Bernie Jacobs requesting that MDOL comply

with Petitioners’ request for public information, and notified Mr. Jacob’s

of the MDOL’s duty to comply with the request pursuant to the Montana

Constitution, Article II, Section 9, and §§ 2-6-102 and 104, MCA. See

Exhibit 3, June 19, 2001 letter from Brenda Lindlief Hall to Marc Bridges.

Finally, on June 28, 2001, Mr. Jacobs wrote to Petitioners’ counsel

stating that he believed that Petitioners’ federal lawsuit “modifies”

Petitioners’ constitutional and statutory right to know. See Exhibit 4,

June 28, 2001 letter from Bernie Jacobs to Brenda Lindlief Hall. Mr.

Jacobs further stated that he believed that the discovery process in

federal court was the appropriate means for obtaining information. Id.

Finally, Mr. Jacobs stated that he believed that if he did provide

information to Petitioners, that doing so would be in violation of the

Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. Mr. Jacobs also stated that almost all

of the information requested by Petitioners was on the MDOL’s internet

website, or that it was otherwise available in public documents. Id. After
After repeatedly being denied access to inspect public documents,

extensive searching on MDOL’s website, Petitioners discovered that while
Petitioners filed their Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on July 27, 2001.

some of the information is available on the website, much of the