Denning Cady v. Missoula Study Co

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: August 8, 1977
• Docket: 13531
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 13531 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

DELOY DENNING and LEW CADY, Petitioners,

MISSOULA CITY AND COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioners: Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Fred C. Root, Missoula, Montana Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Garnaas, Hall, Riley and Pinsoneault, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Mae Nan Ellingson, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs.

Submitted: May 11, 1977 Mr.Justice Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion s f t h e Court.

Appeal from judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County.

On May 11, 1976, t h e Missoula City and County Local Government

Study Commission contracted with t h e Kathleen Walford Senior

C i t i z e n ' s Center t o conduct a v o t e r a t t i t u d e survey a f t e r t h e

June 1, 1976 e l e c t i o n and authorized an expenditure of $1,000

f o r t h i s purpose. The proposal submitted by t h e study commission

was defeated i n t h e June 1 e l e c t i o n . O June 15, 1976, Deloy n

Denning and Lew Cady, respondents h e r e , secured a w r i t of prohi-

b i t i o n d i r e c t i n g t h e study commission t o d e s i s t from proceeding

f u r t h e r with t h i s survey which would r e s u l t i n t h e $1,000 ex-

penditure. O June 28, 1976 a show cause hearing was held. n On

J u l y 21, 1976, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered judgment making t h e

w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n permanent. From t h i s judgment t h e study

commission appeals. Respondents f i l e d no b r i e f and no o r a l

argument was had,

The only i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e study commission

had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r a c t before t h e e l e c t i o n t o spend $1,000

f o r a v o t e r a t t i t u d e survey t o be taken a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n a t

which t h e proposed c h a r t e r was defeated. Y e t - , t h i s was n o t a

c o n s i d e r a t i o n when t h e c o n t r a c t was entered i n t o .

Respondents contend t h e $1,000 expenditure by t h e study

commission i s unlawful i n t h a t t h e purpose of t h e expenditure i s

n o t s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 16-5104, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e spending

of such funds a r e not authorized by s e c t i o n 16-5105, R.C.M. 1947.

S t a t u t e s governing l o c a l government study commissions were

enacted by t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1974 by t h e passage of

approximately 35 new s e c t i o n s t o implement t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e

study commissions. Respondents claim s e c t i o n 16-5105 granted t h e study com-

mission t h e power t o submit one proposal t o t h e e l e c t o r s and

when t h i s proposal had been submitted t h e cornmission's job

was over. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t

with s e c t i o n 16-5108, R.C.M. 1947, which s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s :

" A l l study commissions s h a l l terminate June 30, 1977."

'I* ** I n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s t a t u t e t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s t o be pursued i f p o s s i b l e ; and when a general and p a r t i c u l a r provision a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t , t h e l a t t e r i s para- mount t o t h e former. So a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e n t w i l l c o n t r o l a general one t h a t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with it. (Section 93-401-16, R.C.M. 1947) . I 1 City of B i l l i n g s v. Smith, 158 Mont. 197, 211, 490 P.2d 221.

Therefore, t h e study commission's powers d i d n o t end a t t h e

e l e c t i o n on June 1, 1976, b u t terminated June 30, 1977.

Section 16-5115.9 g i v e s t h e study commission permissive

power t o prepare a d d i t i o n a l r e p o r t s a s a supplement t o i t s

r e p o r t , which i s t h e proposed a l t e r n a t e form of government.

Under t h i s s e c t i o n a study commission would have j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o conduct a survey t o determine t h e reasons why t h e e l e c t o r a t e

defeated o r approved a proposed a l t e r n a t e + f o r mof government

t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f e a t u r e s of t h e e x i s t i n g foam of government

with which t h e e l e c t o r a t e i s s a t i s f i e d and those with which i t

is dissatisfied. Such a survey i s , a s one study commissioner

put i t , r a t h e r l i k e an autopsy, i t does n o t b e n e f i t t h e deceased,

b u t may shed l i g h t on s i m i l a r problems i n the f u t u r e .

Section 16-5112(4), R.C.M. 1947, provides:

''The study commission may c o n t r a c t and cooperate with o t h e r agencies, public or p r i v a t e , a s i t con- s i d e r s necessary f o r t h e r e n d i t i o n and a f f o r d i n g of such s e r v i c e s , f a c i l i t i e s , s t u d i e s and r e p o r t s t o t h e study commission a s w i l l b e s t a s s i s t it t o c a r r y out t h e purposes f o r which t h e study commission was- es- tablished.* * *I1 (Emphasis added.) Section 16-5112(5) , provides : "The study commission may do any and a l l o t h e r t h i n g s a s a r e c o n s i s t e n t with and reasonably required t o perform i t s function under t h i s act."

The information gained from a v o t e r a t t i t u d e survey,

whether before o r a f t e r t h e approval o r r e j e c t i o n of an

a l t e r n a t i v e form of government would be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e

commission's a u t h o r i t y granted by Ch.51, T i t l e 16, R.C.M. 1947,

i f reasonable and n o t an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Since t h e s o l e

purpose of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision on l o c a l

government was t o improve t h e d e l i v e r y of l o c a l government

s e r v i c e s t o t h e people, any reasonable attempt t o a s c e r t a i n

v o t e r s ' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with c u r r e n t o r proposed governmental

s t r u c t u r e should be within t h e commission' s j u r i s d i c t i o n .

I n conformity w i t h t h e foregoing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e

judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s reversed and t h e cause remanded

w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o dismiss t h e w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n .

Austice &/ /

~ h y e fJ u s t i c e