State Ex Rel Brd. of Personnel App.

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1976
Docket13567
StatusPublished

This text of State Ex Rel Brd. of Personnel App. (State Ex Rel Brd. of Personnel App.) 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
State Ex Rel Brd. of Personnel App., (Mo. 1976).

Opinion

No. 13567

I N THE SUPREMZ C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN

T E STATE O M N A A ex r e l . T E H F OTN H BOARD O PERSONNEL APPEALS, F

Relators,

THE DISTRICT COURT O T E FOURTH JUDICIAL F H DISTRICT O T E STATE O MONTANA, I N AND F H F FOR THE C U T O MISSOUTA, and T E HON. O NY F H JACK L. GREEN, P r e s i d i n g Judge,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:

Counsel of Record:

For R e l a t o r s :

J e r r y L. P a i n t e r argued, Helena, Montana

For Respondents:

P a t t e r s o n , M a r s i l l o , H a r r i s and Tornabene, Missoula , Montana Charles J. Tornabene argued, Missoula, Montana

Submitted: October 28, 1976

Decided : B O Y Q 3 1976 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g wherein r e l a t o r s s e e k

an a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t t o r e v i e w an o r d e r of October 6, 1976,

e n t e r e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i n a c a u s e pending i n s a i d

court entitled: "Roger E. Bergmeier, P e t i t i o n e r , v s . The

Montana S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals; B r e n t Cromley,

Chairman of s a i d Board; t h e Montana S t a t e Department of Admin-

i s t r a t i o n ; J a c k C . C r o s s e r , D i r e c t o r of s a i d Department; and

t h e Montana S t a t e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and Conser-

v a t i o n , Gary Wicks, D i r e c t o r of s a i d Department, Respondents."

Upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o u n s e l was h e a r d ex p a r t e

and t h e m a t t e r t a k e n under advisement. Thereafter an order

was i s s u e d f o r a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g . Such h e a r i n g h a s now been

h e l d , b r i e f s f i l e d , c o u n s e l h e a r d i n o r a l argument, and t h e

matter submitted.

I t a p p e a r s t h a t r e l a t o r s o b j e c t t o t h e o r d e r above r e -

f e r r e d t o b e c a u s e t h e y c o n t e n d it i s c o n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n 82-

4209, R.C.M. 1947.

The f a c t s a s d i s c l o s e d by t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s i s t h a t

Bergmeier, a s t a t e employee, a p p e a l e d h i s wage c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

Being d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l

Appeals he p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a j u d i c i a l r e v i e w

a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 82-4216, R.C.M. 1947. Subdivision ( 4 )

of t h a t s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s :

" ( 4 ) Within t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of t h e p e t i t i o n , o r w i t h i n f u r t h e r t i m e allowed by t h e c o u r t , t h e agency s h a l l t r a n s m i t t o t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t h e o r i g i n a l o r a c e r t i f i e d copy of t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d of t h e p r o c e e d i n g under r e v i e w . By s t i p u l a t i o n of a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e r e v i e w p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e c o r d may be s h o r t e n e d . A p a r t y unreasonably r e f u s i n g t o s t i p u l a t e t o l i m i t t h e r e c o r d may be t a x e d by t h e c o u r t f o r the additional costs. The c o u r t may r e q u i r e o r permit subsequent c o r r e c t i o n s o r a d d i t i o n s t o t h e record."

S e c t i o n 82-4209, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 5 ) : " ( 5 ) The r e c o r d i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e s h a l l include:

" ( a ) A l l pleadings, motions, intermediate rulings.

" ( b ) A l l evidence received o r considered, in- c l u d i n g a s t e n o g r a p h i c r e c o r d of o r a l proceed- i n g s when demanded by a p a r t y .

"(c) A s t a t e m e n t of m a t t e r s o f f i c i a l l y n o t i c e d .

" ( d ) Q u e s t i o n s and o f f e r s of p r o o f , o b j e c t i o n s , and r u l i n g s t h e r e o n .

"(e) Proposed f i n d i n g s and e x c e p t i o n s .

"(f) Any d e c i s i o n , o p i n i o n o r r e p o r t by t h e h e a r i n g examiner o r agency member p r e s i d i n g a t t h e hearing.

" ( 9 ) A l l s t a f f memoranda o r d a t a s u b m i t t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g examiner o r members o f t h e agency a s evidence i n connection with t h e i r consideration of t h e c a s e . "

S u b s e c t i o n ( 6 ) of t h e same s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s :

" ( 6 ) The s t e n o g r a p h i c r e c o r d of o r a l p r o c e e d i n g s o r any p a r t t h e r e o f s h a l l be t r a n s c r i b e d on r e q u e s t o f any p a r t y . Unless o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e , t h e c o s t of t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s h a l l be p a i d by t h e requesting party."

The Board d i d n o t t r a n s m i t t h e r e c o r d w i t h i n t h e 3 0 d a y s

s e t by law, n o r f u r n i s h a t r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t e n o g r a p h i c

record, but did f i l e with t h e d i s t r i c t court a tape recording.

P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e o r d e r of October 6 , t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t had i s s u e d an o r d e r t o show c a u s e t o t h e e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r

of t h e Board r e q u i r i n g him t o show c a u s e why he should n o t pro-

duce t h e r e c o r d of t h e o r a l p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Board.

A t t h e show c a u s e h e a r i n g t h e Board contended it c o u l d

n o t a f f o r d t o supply a t r a n s c r i p t . Following t h e h e a r i n g t h e

c o u r t entered t h e following order:

" I n t h e above e n t i t l e d a c t i o n , t h e h e a r i n g t o show c a u s e why R o b e r t R. J e n s e n , A d m i n i s t r a t o r , Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals, s h o u l d n o t be o r d e r e d t o produce t h e w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e above e n t i t l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s , having come b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , and t h e C o u r t h a v i n g d u l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e same;

" I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED t h a t t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s p r o v i d e t h i s C o u r t with a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of t h e o r a l proceedings b e f o r e t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s i n t h e above e n t i t l e d case."

The Board a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t h a s s h i f t e d t h e r e s p o n -

s i b i l i t y o f p a y i n g f o r t h e t r a n s c r i p t from t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d

i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g , p l a c i n g i t upon t h e Board h o l d i n g t h e h e a r i n g .

However, t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r makes no p r o v i s i o n f o r payment, it

merely p r o v i d e s t h a t a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of t h e o r a l proceed-

i n g s b e f u r n i s h e d , a l l as r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t o r y law.

I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t i s d e n i e d and t h e

proceeding i s ordered d

Chief J u s t i c e

W e concur:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Ex Rel Brd. of Personnel App., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brd-of-personnel-app-mont-1976.