Reep v. Board of Co. Commissioners

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 28, 1981
Docket80-044
StatusPublished

This text of Reep v. Board of Co. Commissioners (Reep v. Board of Co. Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reep v. Board of Co. Commissioners, (Mo. 1981).

Opinion

No. 80-44 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

LINDA REEP,

Petitioner and Respondent,

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MISSOULA COUNTY, STATE OF MONTANA et al., Appellants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, Montana Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record:

For Appellants:

Robert L. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Michael W. Sehestedt, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent:

Morrison Law Offices, Missoula, Montana Daniel Kemmis argued, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Garrity, Keegan and Brown, Helena, Montana G. Steven Brown argued, Helena, Montana

-- - ~

Submitted: November 24, 1980 H o n o r a b l e L e o n a r d H . Langen, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. S h e e h y , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .

P e t i t i o n e r , t h e M i s s o u l a County a u d i t o r , b r o u g h t t h i s

a c t i o n s e e k i n g a w r i t of m a n d a t e c o m p e l l i n g r e s p o n d e n t , c o u n t y commissioners, t o i n c l u d e i n t h e f i n a l county budget funding f o r a l a r g e r s t a f f f o r t h e a u d i t o r ' s o f f i c e t h a n was p r o p o s e d i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y county budget. F o l l o w i n g t h e q u a s h i n g of p e t i t i o n -

e r ' s o r i g i n a l w r i t , a n amended w r i t was f i l e d and t h e c a u s e h e a r d

by t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y i n a t r i a l which l a s t e d f i v e days. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from 1 3 w i t n e s s e s ,

a m o u n t i n g t o o v e r 4 0 0 p a g e s of t r a n s c r i p t , a d m i t t e d o v e r 3 5 e x h i -

b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e , and t h e n made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u - s i o n s of law, t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of which a r e now s e t f o r t h verbatim: "FINDINGS OF FACT

"2. A m a j o r i t y of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a u d i t o r was c o n d u c t i n g e x a m i n a t i o n s of t h e books and r e c o r d s o f t h e c o u n t y b r o a d e r i n s c o p e t h a n con- t e m p l a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e s d e f i n i n g t h e a u d i t o r ' s duties. " 3 . A m a j o r i t y of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s o b j e c t e d t o cer- t a i n a u d i t s t e r m e d by them a s 'management' a u d i t s , which t h e a u d i t o r d e f i n e d a s ' c o m p l i a n c e ' a u d i t s . T h e s e a u d i t s i n c l u d e d o p i n i o n s by t h e a u d i t o r or h e r s t a f f on w h e t h e r c o u n t y p o l i c i e s were i n c o m p l i a n c e with a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , o r whether t h e s e p o l i c i e s were i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c o u n t y i n a f i n a n c i a l s e n s e . A l l o p i n i o n s were d e l i - vered i n connection with the procurement, investment o r u s e of c o u n t y f u n d s .

"4. A m a j o r i t y of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s a s a m a t t e r of d e l i b e r a t e p o l i c y budgeted t h e a u d i t o r t o p r e v e n t h e r f r o m c o n d u c t i n g a u d i t s t h e y deemed o v e r l y b r o a d i n scope.

"5. A u d i t s of t h e s o r t found i m p r o p e r by t h e com- m i s s i o n e r s a r e c o n d u c t e d by p r i v a t e a u d i t o r s and a c c o u n t a n t s i n t h e g e n e r a l and n o r m a l c o u r s e of t h e i r business. T h e s e a u d i t s of n e c e s s i t y r e q u i r e t h e e x e r c i s e of judgment and t h e s t a t e m e n t of c o n c l u s i o n s b r o a c h i n g on t h e r e n d e r i n g of l e g a l o p i n i o n s . These a u d i t s do n o t i n c l u d e s t u d i e s of t h e management e f f i - c i e n c y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s , and e f f i c i e n c y a u d i t s were n o t c o n d u c t e d by t h e a u d i t o r . "6. A m a j o r i t y of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s d e s i r e d t o l i m i t t h e a u d i t o r ' s e x a m i n a t i o n s t o b o o k k e e p i n g and a c c o u n t b a l a n c i n g , and t h e y b u d g e t e d t h e a u d i t o r a c c o r d i n g l y . "7. The b u d g e t a m o u n t s r e q u e s t e d by t h e a u d i t o r a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a l l a u d i t s reasonably provides f o r t h e i r performance. " 8 . The a u d i t o r was and is now q u a l i f i e d t o c o n d u c t a u d i t s o f t h e s c o p e and t y p e t o which t h e com- m i s s i o n e r s h a v e o b j e c t e d , and a n y a u d i t s c u s t o m a r i l y and u s u a l l y conducted by a C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n t . A l l t h e d i s p u t e d a u d i t s were d o n e i n a r e g u l a r manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e s t a n d a r d s . " 9 . The a u d i t o r h a s n e c e s s a r i l y e x p e n d e d a t t o r n e y s f e e s and c o s t s i n t h i s s u i t , t h e amount b e i n g n o t y e t known. "

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

." 2.. . 'The n terme d' e xi anmMCAa t i7o- n - 2of 0 9t (h1e) book l uande s a c c odui nst s of co tain in 6 4 inc d au t b r o a d s c o p e c o n d u c t e d i n t h e manner and t o t h e e x t e n t c o u n t e n a n c e d by g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d a c c o u n t i n g and a u d i t i n g p r i n c i p l e s and m e t h o d s a p p l i c a b l e to a n independent auditor. I t is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e a u d i t o r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s c o p e and e x t e n t of a u d i t s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s set by g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d a u d i t i n g a c c o u n t i n g p r i n c i p l e s and m e t h o d s . Under MCA 7-6-2408 ( 2 ) a u d i t o r s h a v e b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

" 3 . The term ' f u l l and c o m p l e t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e money r e c e i v e d and d i s b u r s e d . . ., ' MCA 7-6-2409 ( 2 ) , i s a minimum r e q u i r e m e n t , n o t a l i m i t a t i o n o n t h e s c o p e o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n s by t h e a u d i t o r . "4. The c o m m i s s i o n e r s h a v e a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y to f u n d t h e c o u n t y a u d i t o r t o c a r r y o n e x a m i n a t i o n s of b o o k s and r e c o r d s , i n c l u d i n g a u d i t s of t h e s c o p e and extent objected to. "5. F a i l u r e t o f u n d t h e s e a u d i t s was a f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y and a n a b u s e o f discretion. "6. Mandamus l i e s t o compel t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y and t o c o r r e c t a n a b u s e of discretion. "7. The c o m m i s s i o n e r s may e i t h e r a c c e p t t h e b u d g e t i n g r e q u e s t e d by t h e a u d i t o r f o r t h e a u d i t i n g f u n c t i o n s t h e y wished to p r e v e n t o r h o l d f u r t h e r h e a r i n g s and t h e r e a f t e r r e a s o n a b l y p r o v i d e f u n d s t o a l l o w t h e i r performance. "8. The a u d i t o r s h o u l d r e c e i v e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n a r e a s o n a b l e amount and costs " . L a t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s of fact a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of which are s e t f o r t h verbatim:

"SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS OF FACT

" 1 .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Barnes v. Town of Belgrade
524 P.2d 1112 (Montana Supreme Court, 1974)
Leonard v. Civil Service Commission
611 P.2d 1290 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
State Ex Rel. Sanders v. Hill
381 P.2d 475 (Montana Supreme Court, 1963)
Porter v. Porter
473 P.2d 538 (Montana Supreme Court, 1970)
Murphy v. Grand County
268 P.2d 677 (Utah Supreme Court, 1954)
In Re the Marriage of Donovan
612 P.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Board of County Com'rs
270 P.2d 994 (Montana Supreme Court, 1954)
Cain v. Department of Health & Environmental Sciences
582 P.2d 332 (Montana Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. Pettitt
609 P.2d 1364 (Washington Supreme Court, 1980)
Franczak v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
564 P.2d 9 (California Supreme Court, 1977)
Gildersleeve v. Industrial Accident Commission
1 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Judith Basin County Ex Rel. Vralsted v. Livingston
298 P. 356 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Grant v. Michaels
23 P.2d 266 (Montana Supreme Court, 1933)
State ex rel. Brown v. Board of Dental Examiners
80 P. 544 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
State ex rel. Yeargin v. Maschke
155 P. 1064 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
Griswold v. Boley
1 Mont. 545 (Montana Supreme Court, 1872)
King v. National M. & E. Co.
4 Mont. 1 (Montana Supreme Court, 1881)
Fant v. Tandy
7 Mont. 443 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Reep v. Board of Co. Commissioners, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reep-v-board-of-co-commissioners-mont-1981.