Willet v. Town of St. Ignatius
This text of 2007 MT 38N (Willet v. Town of St. Ignatius) 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.
Opinion
No. 05-665
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 38N
CHARLES WILLET,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF ST. IGNATIUS,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DV 2004-145, Honorable C.B. McNeil, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Wilmer E. Windham, Attorney at Law, Polson, Montana
For Respondent:
Dean A. Stensland, Boone Karlberg, P.C., Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 23, 2006
Decided: February 13, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Charles Willet (Willet) was hired as the Police Chief for the town of St. Ignatius in
September 2000. He was terminated from that position in February 2004 by the mayor of
St. Ignatius for unsatisfactory performance. Willet appealed his termination to the Police
Commission which sustained it. He then appealed the Police Commission’s decision to
the Twentieth Judicial District Court for Lake County. The District Court also affirmed
the termination. Willet appeals the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Order. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶3 Willet raises numerous issues on appeal. The dispositive issue, however, is
whether the District Court erred in upholding the decision of the Police Commission
sustaining Willet’s discharge from employment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 Willet was hired as Police Chief for the town of St. Ignatius in September 2000.
In January 2002 John Connot (Connot) became mayor of St. Ignatius. Connot and Willet
met regularly to discuss Willet’s duties and responsibilities. They also met to discuss the
2 many citizen complaints Connot received about Willet. From the time Connot became
mayor until Willet’s discharge, Connot repeatedly instructed Willet on various issues
related to his job performance. On many occasions, Willet ignored or chose not to
comply with Connot’s instructions. In December 2003 Connot notified Willet, by letter,
that his work performance was unacceptable. The letter expressed numerous concerns
the mayor had about Willet’s approach to and performance of his job. The letter
requested that Willet rectify those areas of concern by January 27, 2004. Willet testified
that he received the December letter, reviewed it and forwarded it to his attorney.
¶5 By letter dated February 6, 2004, Connot discharged Willet, concluding that
Willet’s performance remained unacceptable. Willet appealed his discharge before the
Police Commission for the town of St. Ignatius (Commission). The Commission met in
special session on April 30, 2004, to consider the appeal. Willet, his attorney, Connot,
and the attorney for St. Ignatius attended the hearing. The Commission took evidence
and heard the testimony of eight witnesses for St. Ignatius and one witness for Willet. On
May 30, 2004, the Commission issued its decision upholding Willet’s termination. The
Commission determined that Willet had failed to rectify the job performance issues
identified in Connot’s December 2003 letter, and that Willet’s performance had
deteriorated during January 2004.
¶6 Willet appealed the Commission’s decision to the District Court. The District
Court found that the record contained substantial evidence to support the Commission’s
factual findings. It also concluded that the Commission’s evidentiary rulings were
3 correct. Therefore, it determined that the Police Commission’s decision to sustain
Willet’s termination was correct.
¶7 Willet filed a timely appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 A final decision of the police commission may be appealed to the district court
which has jurisdiction to review all questions of fact and law. The function of the district
court is to review the law to determine whether the rulings of the commission are correct
and to review the facts to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
The district court shall defer to the police commission unless the findings of fact or
conclusions of law are clearly erroneous, in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions, or characterized by an abuse of discretion, among other things. Section 2-4-
704(2), MCA. See also Wolny v. City of Bozeman, 2001 MT 166, ¶ 14, 306 Mont. 137, ¶
14, 30 P.3d 1085, ¶ 14. When we review the district court’s opinion, we apply the
standard of review set forth in § 2-4-704, MCA. Wolny, ¶ 15.
DISCUSSION
¶9 As noted above, Willet presented numerous arguments on appeal, including claims
that the Commission failed to provide him an impartial hearing, his due process rights
were violated by inadequate notice of and grounds for termination, and the record did not
support the contention that his performance was unsatisfactory under the circumstances.
Our review of the record reveals that these arguments are without merit. Therefore, we
have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996
Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
4 opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence. Additionally the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled
Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶10 We affirm the decision of the District Court.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 MT 38N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willet-v-town-of-st-ignatius-mont-2007.