BROWN v BOARD OF COUNTY COMM RS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12774 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN M R A E BROWN, G a l l a t i n County Superintendent of Schools, AG RT EARL BEST, G a l l a t i n County Surveyor, CARL STUCKY, G a l l a t i n County C l e r k and Recorder, IRIS WHITTLE, G a l l a t i n County T r e a s u r e r , WILLIAM JOHNSON, G a l l a t i n County Auditor, PAUL REESE, Clerk o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court of G a l l a t i n County, and L.D.W. ANDERSON, G a l l a t i n County S h e r i f f , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE BOARD O C U T COMMISSIONERS O GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, F O NY F Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Less l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A l l e n Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents : Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Ronald K. Olson, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: .J/iC 1 2 ;gjq . --1 Filed: - - November 19, 1974 D f C 12 1974 Decided : M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an appeal from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, Hon. W. W. Lessley p r e s i d i n g . P l a i n t i f f s a r e e l e c t e d county o f f i c e r s . They brought a d e c l a r a - t o r y judgment a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i r s a l a r i e s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 25-605 and 25-609.1, R..C.M. f o r t h e f i s c a l year J u l y 1, 1973 through June 30, 1974. 1947, The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment r e a d : "That ' t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n ' t o b e used i n computing t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' s a l a r i e s i s a v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e new f i s c a l y e a r 1973-1974, and t h e defendants have a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y t o compute t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1373-1974 and pay s a l a r i e s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s based thereon. The ' t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n ' should be computed on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1 of each f i s c a l y e a r u s i n g t h e new f i g u r e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e defendants. I t Defendant r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) Whether t h e r e i s a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1 of each f i s c a l y e a r . (2) Whether t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n o f a county which i s completed a f t e r J u l y 1 may be used t o compute s a l a r i ~ s county of o f f i c e r s f o r t h e following f i s c a l y e a r . Appellant i s t h e Board of County Commissioners o f G a l l a t i n County. I t s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i t cannot be compelled t o compi~te t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county p r i o r t o J u l y 1, because i t has u n t i l t h e second Monday i n J u l y t o a s s e s s t h e t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y under s e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e second Monday i n August t o a f f i x t h e m i l l l e v y under s e c t i o n 84-3505, R.C.M. 1947. In o t h e r words, a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e only v a l u a t i o n e x i s t i n g a s of J u l y 1 t o apply t h e s a l a r y formula t o i s t h a t of t h e previous year. On t h e o t h e r hand, respondent county o f f i c e r s maintain t h a t t h e two s e c t i o n s , 84-406 and 84-3805, a r e n o t c o n t r o l l i n g s i n c e t h e only importance of s e c t i o n 84-406 i s t h a t i t s e t s t h e second Monday i n J u l y a s t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r e p o r t i n g t o t h e s t a t e d e p a r t ment of revenue and s e c t i o n 84-3805 only concerns t h e time f o r fixing rates. Respondents urge t h a t t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n omitted t h e former p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t changing a county o f f i c i a l ' s s a l a r y d u r i n g h i s term of o f f i c e , and s e c t i o n 25-609.1 imposes a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y t o compute t h e new t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county p r i o r t o J u l y 1. T h i s , respondents contend, would a l l o w s a l a r i e s t o be c u r r e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o demands o f t h e o f f i c e and would avoid a l a c k of u n i f o r m i t y and even i n f l u e n c e by t h e commissioners a s t o whether t o i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e s a l a r i e s . W agree with respondents' e position. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , county o f f i c i a l s have been paid according t o a s a l a r y formula based on t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n and population of t h e county computed j u s t p r i o r t o t h e i r e l e c t i o n . Under t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1889 a county o f f i c i a l could n o t r e c e i v e a pay i n c r e a s e d u r i n g t h e term of h i s o f f i c e . The n e t r e s u l t was t h a t some county o f f i c e r s were p a i d more, o r on a d i f f e r e n t pay s c a l e t h a n o t h e r s , s i n c e they were e l e c t e d a t a d i f f e r e n t time and t h e r e were, consequently, d i f f e r e n t t a x v a l u a t i o n s . The 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n removed t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n and t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t u r e upgraded t h e county s a l a r i e s by amending s e c t i o n 25-609.1, R.C.M. 1947, and s e t t i n g t h e s a l a r i e s a t t h e beginning of each f i s c a l year. T h i s change imposes a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n p r i o r t o J u l y 1, t h e f i r s t day of t h e f i s c a l y e a r , and t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e amendment. The time f o r assessment and computing t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947, i s a t any time between t h e f i r s t Monday i n March and t h e second Monday i n J u l y . The second Monday i n J u l y i s o n l y important by v i r t u e o f t h e r e q u i r e d r e p o r t i n g of t h i s v a l u a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e Department of Revenue. In addition, t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s m a t t e r i n d i c a t e t h a t i t would be possibl-e f o r t h i s v a l u a t i o n t o be a c t e d upon by defendant Board o f County Commissioners on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1, without w a i t i n g u n t i l t h a t l a s t p o s s i b l e moment b e f o r e t h e second Monday i n July. Under t h e 1889 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e followed a c l e a r p o l i c y of i n s u l a t i n g an o f f i c e r ' s compensation from any a l t e r a t i o n , f o r p o l i t i c a l o r o t h e r r e a s o n s , during h i s term o f A r t . V , Sec. 31, 1889 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ; Section 2 5 - office. 609, R.C.M. P.2d 278. 1947; Shubat v. S t a t e of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 484 Thus, a p u b l i c o f f i c e r was denied a pay r a i s e d u r i n g h i s term of o f f i c e . approach. Montana has s i n c e abandoned such an a r b i t r a r y The l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e l e c t o r a t e have removed c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s t o allow s a l a r i e s of o f f i c e r s t o be r e s p o n s i v e t o changes i n t h e amount of work r e q u i r e d of t h e i r o f f i c e s . The l e g i s l a t u r e has chosen a s a l a r y formula based on population and t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e county. These y a r d s t i c k s a r e f a i r measures of t h e amount of work r e q u i r e d of t h e s e o f f i c e r s . But t o u s e t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e previous year a s a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s , whether i t be l a r g e r o r s m a l l e r , would d e f e a t t h e whole purpose of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g i s l a t i v e changes; i t would be impossible f o r s a l a r i e s t o achieve a c u r r e n t and r e s p o n s i v e level. Every p u b l i c o f f i c e r would r e c e i v e h i s pay r a i s e o r d e c r e a s e one y e a r l a t e r . By choosing J u l y 1, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s attempted t o make a l l such changes c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a r t of t h e county f i s c a l year. A p p e l l a n t ' s argutrent would f u r t h e r allow f o r t h e very abuses t h i s Court sought t o q u e l l i n Shubat v , S t a t e of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 150, 484 P.2d 278. There t h i s Court s a i d , c i t i n g from Jackson v. P o r t e r , 57 Mont. 343, 188 P. 375: * 'I* ;k t h e s o l e purpose o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s i s t o remove from t h e sphere of tempt a t i o n every p u b l i c o f f i c e r whose o f f i c e i s c r e a t e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and whose o f f i c i a l conduct i n t h e remotest degree might be i n f l u e m e d b y t h e hope of reward o r t h e f e a r o f punishment." To a l l o w , a s a p p e l l a n t u r g e s , t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n t o be determined e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e d a t e of f i x i n g t h e s e s a l a r i e s would open up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of e x e r t i n g i n f l u e n c e by i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e of s a l a r y . Certainly the constitutional r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t change has been l i f t e d , b u t undue i n f l u e n c e i n branches of s t a t e and l o c a l government i s never t o be t o l e r a t e d . Appellant i n i t s b r i e f , c i t i n g 35 Attorney ~ e n e r a l ' sOpinions, No. 33, s t a t e s t h a t i f t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n i s n o t completed u n t i l a f t e r J u l y 1 of t h e f i s c a l y e a r , then t h e --t o r y schedule statu -i n e f f e c t on t h e f i r s t day of t h e f i s c a l y e a r must be used. That opinion was i s s u e d j u s t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e i n s t a n t s u i t and i s deserving of our c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; however, we f e e l i t i s i n e r r o r on two p o i n t s . F i r s t , t h e s a l a r y schedule d i s c u s s e d i n secti-on 25-605, R.C.M. 1947, i s n o t t h e amount of t h e s a l a r y p a i d , b u t t h e formula f o r i t s determination. This formula o r schedule i s only open t o l e g i s l a t h e changes and i s n 3 t a f f e c t e d by when t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e county i s f i x e d . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s opinion i n f e r s t h e schedule i t s e l f i s s u b j e c t t o change, which we f e e l i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Second, t h a t same o p i n i o n i n f e r s t h a t v a l u a t i o n i s n o t due u n t i l t h e second Hmday i n August under s e c t i o n 84-3805, R.C.14. 1947. However, t h i s s e c t i o n i s s e t t i n g out t h e time f o r f i x i n g t h e r a t e of t a x a t i o n , n o t t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n , which i s s e t out a s on o r b e f o r e t h e second Monday i n J u l y . S e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice W Concur: e Chief J u s i c e Justices. (I 1947.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.