Case Title: REEP v BOARD OF CO COMMISSIONERS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-044

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-44 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 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 Honorable Leonard H . Langen, District Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r , t h e Missoula County a u d i t o r , brought t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g a w r i t of mandate compelling respondent, county 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 proposed i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y county budget. Following t h e quashing of p e t i t i o n - e r ' s o r i g i n a l w r i t , an amended w r i t was f i l e d and t h e cause heard by t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a jury i n a t r i a l which l a s t e d f i v e d a y s . The D i s t r i c t Court heard testimony from 1 3 w i t n e s s e s , amounting t o over 400 pages of t r a n s c r i p t , admitted o v e r 35 exhi- b i t s i n t o evidence, and t h e n made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- 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 set f o r t h verbatim: "FINDINGS O F FACT " 2 . A m a j o r i t y of t h e commissioners determined t h a t t h e a u d i t o r was conducting examinations of t h e books and r e c o r d s of t h e county broader i n scope t h a n con- templated 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 d u t i e s . " 3 . A m a j o r i t y of t h e commissioners o b j e c t e d t o cer- t a i n a u d i t s termed 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 'compliance' a u d i t s . These a u d i t s included 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 whether county p o l i c i e s were i n compliance w i t h 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 county 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 w i t h t h e procurement, investment o r use of county funds. " 4 . A m a j o r i t y of t h e commissioners 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 from conducting a u d i t s they deemed o v e r l y broad i n scope. "5. A u d i t s of t h e s o r t found improper by t h e com- m i s s i o n e r s a r e conducted 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 normal course of t h e i r b u s i n e s s . These 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 broaching 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 not conducted 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 commissioners 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 examinations t o bookkeeping and account b a l a n c i n g , and t h e y budgeted t h e a u d i t o r a c c o r d i n g l y . " 7 . The budget amounts requested 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 r e a s o n a b l y p r o v i d e s 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 conduct a u d i t s of t h e scope and type to which t h e com- m i s s i o n e r s have o b j e c t e d , and any 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 Accountant. A l l t h e d i s p u t e d a u d i t s were done 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 expended a t t o r n e y s f e e s and costs i n t h i s s u i t , t h e amount being n o t y e t known. " "CONCLUSIONS O F LAW "2. The term 'examination of t h e book and a c c o u n t s . . .' c o n t a i n e d i n MCA 7-6-2409(1) i n c l u d e s a u d i t s of broad scope conducted i n t h e manner and t o t h e e x t e n t countenanced by g e n e r a l l y accepted accounting and a u d i t i n g p r i n c i p l e s and methods a p p l i c a b l e to an independent a u d i t o r . It 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 to d e t e r m i n e t h e scope 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 accepted 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 methods. Under MCA 7-6-2408 ( 2 ) a u d i t o r s have broad 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 complete s t a t e m e n t of 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 ) , is 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 on t h e s c o p e of t h e examinations by t h e a u d i t o r . " 4 . The commissioners have a clear l e g a l d u t y to fund t h e county a u d i t o r t o c a r r y on examinations of books 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 scope and e x t e n t o b j e c t e d t o . "5. F a i l u r e t o fund t h e s e a u d i t s was a f a i l u r e to p e r f o r m a clear l e g a l d u t y and an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . "6. Mandamus lies to compel t h e performance of a clear l e g a l d u t y and to c o r r e c t an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . "7. The commissioners 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 hold 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 to a l l o w t h e i r performance. "8. The a u d i t o r should 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 . " Later t h e D i s t r i c t Court made supplemental 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 are s e t f o r t h verbatim: "SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS O F FACT "1. A m a j o r i t y of t h e commissioners caused funds t o b e s u b t r a c t e d from t h e budget of t h e a u d i t o r to l i m i t h e r a b i l i t y t o conduct a u d i t s of any scope beyond t h a t of bookkeeping and account b a l a n c i n g . " "SUPPLEMENTARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "2. An e l e c t e d county a u d i t o r is an a g e n t of t h e p e o p l e , having i m p o r t a n t o f f i c i a l d u t i e s f o r t h e f a i t h f u l d i s c h a r g e of which she is d i r e c t l y respon- s i b l e to t h e p e o p l e . Under MCA 7-6-2408(2) a u d i t o r s have broad 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 . I n performing h e r d u t i e s , t h e a u d i t o r must have s u f - f i c i e n t independence from t h e commissioners t o p e r m i t h e r t o d e t e r m i n e which o f f i c e s to a u d i t , a t what t i m e , and what t h e scope of such a u d i t s should be, 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 accepted a u d i t i n g and a c c o u n t i n g p r i n c i p l e s and methods. "3. F a i l u r e t o fund a u d i t s of scope and e x t e n t o b j e c t e d to was a f a i l u r e t o perform a clear l e g a l d u t y and such an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n as t o amount to no e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l . "4. Although t h e commissioners have d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers to set budgets, and a l t h o u g h t h e y may set a budget l i m i t f o r an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l below t h a t r e q u e s t e d by t h e o f f i c i a l , t h e y cannot use t h e budget t o p r e v e n t a n o t h e r e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l from f u l f i l l i n g a s t a t u t o r y d u t y . The commissioners may adopt a budget which h a s t h e i n c i d e n t a l e f f e c t of c a u s i n g a budgeted o f f ice t o r e d u c e its a c t i v i t y i n some area, even i f t h a t a c t i v i t y is one n e c e s s a r y to a s t a t u t o r y d u t y ; b u t , t h e commissioners may n o t s i n g l e o u t an a c t i v i t y n e c e s s a r y t o a s t a t u t o r y d u t y and p r e c l u d e it by b u d g e t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n ." I n accordance w i t h t h e 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 l a w t h e District Court t h e n o r d e r e d t h a t mandamus i s s u e . From t h a t o r d e r t h e board of county commissioners a p p e a l s . The p r o p e r s t a n d a r d s t o be m e t b e f o r e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t o f mandamus are set f o r t h i n Cain v. Department of H e a l t h , etc. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 448, 582 P.2d 332, 334, 3 5 St.Rep. 1056, 1058: "A w r i t of mandate w i l l i s s u e o n l y where t h e p e r s o n s e e k i n g t o invoke it is e n t i t l e d t o have t h e defen- d a n t perform a clear l e g a l d u t y and t h e r e is no s p e e d y or a d e q u a t e remedy i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of law. S t a t e ex rel. Swart v. Casne ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mon t . , 564 P.2d 983, 34 St.Rep. 347. O r d i n a r i l y mandamus w i l l n o t l i e to compel t h e performance of a d i s c r e - t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n . S t a t e ex r e l . B u t t e Youth S e r v i c e C e n t e r v. Murray ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 171, 551 P.2d 1017, 33 St.Rep. 610. However, i f t h e r e h a s been s u c h an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n as t o amount to no exer- cise of d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l , mandamus w i l l l i e to com- p e l t h e p r o p e r e x e r c i s e of powers g r a n t e d . Barnes v. Town of Belgrade ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 467, 524 P.2d 1 1 1 2 . " I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e county commissioners had a clear l e g a l d u t y to fund t h e o f f i c e of t h e county a u d i t o r so t h a t s h e c o u l d a d e q u a t e l y perform h e r d u t i e s a t t h e minimum l e v e l imposed by t h e state l e g i s l a t u r e under s e c t i o n s 7-6-2407 through 7-6-2412, MCA. T h e r e f o r e we s h a l l f i r s t a d d r e s s o u r s e l v e s to t h i s i s s u e . S e c t i o n 7-6-2407, MCA, r e q u i r e s a county a u d i t o r to a u d i t and i n v e s t i g a t e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e county, and s e c t i o n 7-6-2408, MCA, a u t h o r i z e s t h e a u d i t o r to a d m i n i s t e r o a t h or a f f i r m a t i o n and t o i s s u e p r o c e s s t o compel a t t e n d a n c e of w i t n e s s e s i n o r d e r to c a r r y o u t t h e s e d u t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t to claims. However, t h e a u d i t o r ' s d u t i e s under s e c t i o n s 7-6-2407 and 7-6-2408 are not i n i s s u e i n t h i s l a w s u i t . Respondent's r i g h t to mandamus is grounded i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o be g i v e n to s e c t i o n 7-6-2409, MCA, which p r o v i - d e s t h a t it is t h e d u t y of t h e county a u d i t o r to examine t h e books and a c c o u n t s of t h e county t r e a s u r e r and c e r t a i n o t h e r d e s i g n a t e d county o f f i c e r s w i t h i n 1 5 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t r e g u l a r s e s s i o n of t h e board of county commissioners i n March, J u n e , September, and December of each y e a r u n l e s s a l o n g e r t i m e is g r a n t e d to t h e a u d i t o r by t h e board. S u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of s e c t i o n 7-6-2409 p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e quar- t e r l y r e p o r t s h a l l c o n t a i n a f u l l and complete s t a t e m e n t of t h e money r e c e i v e d and d i s b u r s e d by each of t h e o f f i c e r s s i n c e t h e l a s t examination and r e p o r t . For t h e purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n t h e c o u n t y a u d i t o r h a s f r e e access to a l l books and p a p e r s i n each of t h e o f f i c e s . W e hold t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n concluding t h a t t h e county a u d i t o r is r e q u i r e d to perform t h e broad d u t i e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e District C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The Montana Supreme C o u r t h a s a l r e a d y decided t h e obvious- - t h e terms " a u d i t " and "examine1' are n o t synonymous. An a u d i t is more e x t e n s i v e t h a n an examination and an a u d i t i n c l u d e s an e x a m i n a t i o n . J u d i t h Basin Co. v . L i v i n g s t o n , e t a l . ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 89 Mont. 438, 298 P. 356. Th fact t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e chose not to u s e t h e term " a u d i t " i n s e c t i o n 7-6-2409, MCA, is s i g n i f i c a n t . W e hold t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h e county a u d i t o r to exa- mine t h e books and r e p o r t a s t a t e m e n t of money r e c e i v e d and - 4 - d i s b u r s e d . Nothing more is r e q u i r e d . A d e t a i l e d a u d i t is not r e q u i r e d to r e p o r t r e c e i p t s and e x p e n d i t u r e s . The l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y intended t h e a u d i t o r to perform a bookkeeping and a c c o u n t b a l a n c i n g f u n c t i o n under s e c t i o n 7-6-2409, MCA. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is r e i n f o r c e d by a n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Audit A c t ( s e c t i o n s 5-13-101 e t seq., MCA) and t h e R e p o r t s and A u d i t s A c t ( s e c t i o n s 2-7-101 t h r o u g h 2-7-105 and 2-7-501 through 2-7-521, MCA). The language of t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t A c t l e a v e s no room t o doubt t h a t an a u d i t , and n o t an examination, is r e q u i r e d under t h a t A c t . Furthermore, t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t A c t s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e s t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r to r e p o r t p o s s i b l e p e n a l v i o l a t i o n s to t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , and i n s t a n c e s of m i s f e a s a n c e , m a l f e a s a n c e and nonfeasance to t h e governor. The a u t h o r i t y to conduct broad management and compliance a u d i t s is c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d . The R e p o r t s and A u d i t s A c t also i n d i c a t e s t h e county a u d i t o r ' s f u n c t i o n s under s e c t i o n 7-6-2409, MCA, a r e l i m i t e d to bookkeeping and a c c o u n t b a l a n c i n g d u t i e s . S e c t i o n 2-7-503, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h e Department of Community A f f a i r s to a u d i t a l l coun- ties a n n u a l l y . The term " a u d i t " is used c o n s i s t e n t l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e A c t . S e c t i o n s 2-7-505 and 2-7-513, MCA, s p e c i f y t h a t t h e a u d i t must be "comprehensiven and must i n c l u d e comments and opi- n i o n s concerning: (1) b a l a n c e s h e e t s ; ( 2 ) r e s u l t s of o p e r a t i o n s ; ( 3 ) compliance w i t h state s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ; ( 4 ) recommen- d a t i o n s f o r improvement; ( 5 ) t h e adequacy of f i n a n c i a l p r e s e n t a - t i o n ; and ( 6 ) how p r e v i o u s l y noted d e f i c i e n c i e s have been a d d r e s s e d . Remaining p r o v i s i o n s of t h e R e p o r t s and A u d i t s A c t r e q u i r e t h a t a n e x i t i n t e r v i e w be conducted ( s e c t i o n 2-7-512, MCA), t h a t a u d i t s be conducted i n accordance w i t h g e n e r a l l y accepted a c c o u n t i n g p r i n c i p l e s ( s e c t i o n 2-7-505, MCA) , and t h a t c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r e s be followed i n p r e p a r i n g and p u b l i s h i n g t h e a u d i t r e p o r t s ( s e c t i o n s 2-7-504, 2-7-506, 2-7-515 and 2-7-521, MCA). - 5 - I n s h o r t , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s e x p r e s s l y c o n f e r r e d a u t h o r i t y t o conduct d e t a i l e d management and compliance a u d i t s of c o u n t y governments on t h e Department of Community A f f a i r s . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d u t i e s of t h e county a u d i t o r are c o n f i n e d to bookkeeping and account b a l a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s under s e c t i o n 7-6-2409, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "Examination o f County Books and Accounts. (1) It -- is t h e d u t y o r t h e county a u d i t o r to examine t h e books and a c c o u n t s of t h e county t r e a s u r e r , t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r , t h e s h e r i f f , t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and a l l o t h e r county and township o f f i c e r s w i t h i n 1 5 d a y s p r i o r to t h e f i r s t r e g u l a r s e s s i o n of t h e board of county commissioners i n March, J u n e , September, and December of each y e a r u n l e s s a l o n g e r t i m e is g r a n t e d to t h e a u d i t o r by t h e board. " ( 2 ) The q u a r t e r l y r e p o r t s h a l l c o n t a i n a f u l l and complete s t a t e m e n t of t h e m n e y r e c e i v e d and d i s - b u r s e d by each of t h e o f f i c e r s s i n c e t h e l a s t exami- n a t i o n and r e p o r t . For t h e purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e county a u d i t o r h a s f r e e access to a l l books and p a p e r s i n each of t h e o f f ices ." The District C o u r t ' s supplementary c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w invoke t h e "strict a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " p r o v i s i o n of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n to j u s t i f y a f i n d i n g t h a t a county a u d i t o r is r e q u i r e d to perform broad management and compliance a u d i t s . However, t h e r e is no f a c t u a l o r l e g a l b a s i s f o r t h e District C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n . A r t . V I I I , S e c t i o n 12, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , r e a d s : " S t r i c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . The l e g i s l a t u r e s h a l l by l a w i n s u r e strict a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of a l l revenue r e c e i v e d and money s p e n t by t h e s t a t e and c o u n t i e s , cities, towns, and a l l o t h e r l o c a l governmental e n t i t i e s . " The C o n s t i t u t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e strict a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n is n o t s e l f - e x e c u t i n g . The l e g i s l a t u r e is d i r e c t e d to i n s u r e strict a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of a l l p u b l i c funds. The l e g i s l a - t u r e h a s responded by p a s s i n g l a w s r e q u i r i n g t h e Department of Community A f f a i r s to conduct "comprehensive a u d i t s " of c o u n t i e s and a l l l o c a l government e n t i t i e s ( s e c t i o n s 2-7-501 t h r o u g h 2-7-521, MCA). T h i s e x p a n s i v e a u d i t a u t h o r i t y was passed i n 1974 3 4 / 8 7 (Laws of Montana ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Ch. 349-1 and r e c o d i f i e d i n 1975 (Laws of Montana (W), Ch. 3 8 0 ) . 1 4 75 A s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 2-7-502, MCA: "The purpose of t h e a u d i t of t h e a f f a i r s of t h e governmental e n t i t i e s as set f o r t h i n t h i s p a r t s h a l l b e to i n s u r e c o n s t i t u e n t i n t e r e s t s by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t compliance w i t h a l l a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t i o n s is accomplished, t h a t t h e f i n a n c i a l con- d i t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of t h e e n t i t i e s a r e r e a s o n a b l y conducted and r e p o r t e d , t h a t t h e s t e w a r d s h i p of such e n t i t i e s is conducted i n such a manner as to p r e s e r v e and p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c t r u s t , and to accomplish, w i t h economy and e f f i c i e n c y , t h e d u t i e s and respon- s i b i l i t i e s of t h e e n t i t i e s i n accordance w i t h t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s imposed and t h e d e s i r e s of t h e p u b l i c . " The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s responded t o t h e mandate of A r t . V I I I , S e c t i o n 12, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , by expanding t h e powers of t h e Department of Community A f f a i r s and n o t t h e county a u d i t o r . W e have still f u r t h e r grounds f o r o u r h o l d i n g . There are no p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t h a t must be s a t i s f i e d t o s e r v e as a county a u d i t o r . The o n l y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h i s o f f i c e r are t h a t he be of v o t i n g age and a r e s i d e n t of t h e county f o r two y e a r s ( s e c t i o n 7-6-2403, MCA). Thus a p e r s o n w i t h no a c c o u n t i n g o r a u d i t i n g e x p e r i e n c e can be a county a u d i t o r . The l e g i s l a t u r e c e r t a i n l y could n o t have intended t h e c o u n t y a u d i t o r t o perform broad management and compliance a u d i t f u n c t i o n s u n l e s s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e were w i l l i n g to impose pro- f e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e of £ i c e . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is r e i n f o r c e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s imposed strict p r o f e s s i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e p e r s o n s e l e c t e d to s e r v e as l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . The l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r must have a d e g r e e from an a c c r e d i t e d u n i v e r s i t y w i t h a major i n a c c o u n t i n g or a similar f i e l d . Furthermore t h e l e g i s l a - t i v e a u d i t o r must have a t least two y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n govern- m e n t a l a c c o u n t i n g and a u d i t i n g ( s e c t i o n 5-13-302, MCA) . Furthermore t h e county a u d i t o r h a s no a u t h o r i t y under Montana l a w t o i n c r e a s e t h e d u t i e s of h e r o f f i c e beyond t h a t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . Only t h e board of county commissioners may do t h i s . ( S e c t i o n 7-6-2412, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e county a u d i t o r s h a l l also perform such o t h e r d u t i e s , clerical or o t h e r w i s e , as he may be d i r e c t e d t o perform by t h e county commissioners. ) W e h o l d t h a t t h e l e g a l d u t y of t h e a p p e l l a n t was to ade- q u a t e l y fund t h e county a u d i t o r ' s o f f ice so t h a t she can perform t h e minimum d u t i e s r e q u i r e d by l a w . The board of county commissioners, i n t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , may e n l a r g e t h e d u t i e s of t h e c o u n t y a u d i t o r ( s e c t i o n 7-6-2412, MCA), and i f t h i s should o c c u r , it would f o l l o w t h a t t h e board should p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l funding. T h i s Court h a s t h e d u t y t o s c r u t i n i z e t h e manner i n which t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e District Court was made and t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e judge a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y . W e hold t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n its c o n c l u s i o n s of law. Likewise t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n s o f a r as t h e same are i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l a w as e x p r e s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n . W e hold t h a t o u r r u l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e minimum l e v e l d u t i e s of t h e county a u d i t o r should be s u f f i c i e n t to cause p e t i t i o n e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate t o be d i s m i s s e d . F i n d i n g of f a c t N o . 6 would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e county c o m m i s - s i o n e r s , i n f a c t , have budgeted s u f f i c i e n t funds f o r t h e county a u d i t o r to perform h e r d u t i e s i n accordance w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . However, t h i s Court cannot make a f i n d i n g of f a c t n o r can it d i r e c t t h e District Court to make such a f i n d i n g . Its j u r i s d i c - t i o n is s t r i c t l y appellate. T h i s cause is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o make amended 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 lan accordance w i t h t h i s r / 1 P o p i n i o n . Hon. ~ & ~ n a r d H. Langen, District J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Jus- tice John C. Sheehy. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e 1 L --___,,_-______,___- J u s t i c e s T h i s cause was submitted p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5, 1981. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly dissenting: I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . F i r s t of a l l , f o r c l a r i - f i c a t i o n purposes, I f i n d it necessary t o comment on t h e paragraph i n t h e majority opinion concerning an a u d i t o r ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . This paragraph is simply n o t involved i n t h i s case, has no place i n t h e opinion, and demonstrates no more than a desperate attempt by t h e majority t o j u s t i f y i t s holding i n t h i s matter, which i s t r u l y a g a i n s t t h e f a c t s . Q u i t e frankly, our l o c a l governmental setup i s r e p l e t e with o f f i c e s of t h i s kind which, by s t a t u t e , do n o t r e q u i r e a degree; however, l o c a l governments a r e furnished with necessary funds t o provide p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f s . I agree t h a t t h e proper standard of review i n an appeal of a mandamus a c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d i n Cain v. Dept. of Health, e t c . (1978), 177 Mont. 448, 582 P.2d 332, 35 St.Rep. 1056, a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e majority opinion. This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t a r b i t r a r y o r capricious a c t i o n by an adminis- t r a t i v e board i s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e ex rel. Sanders v. H i l l (P.E.R.S.) (1963), 1 4 1 Mont. 558, 381 P.2d 475. I n m y opinion, a p p e l l a n t s ' argument i s tenuous a t b e s t . They argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n when it determined t h a t t h e County Commissioners abused t h e i r d i s c r e - t i o n and i n f a i l i n g t o adequately fund t h e County Auditor's o f f i c e . A s provided by s t a t u t e , both p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n have broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers. The Board of County Commis- s i o n e r s has d i s c r e t i o n i n budgeting county o f f i c e s and super- v i s i n g t h e i r conduct, s e c t i o n s 7-4-2110, 7-6-2314 (e) , MCA. The County Auditor has broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of i n v e s t i - a gation, s e c t i o n 7-6-2408(Y), MCA. This C o u r t ' s t a s k , t h e r e f o r e , i s twofold: f i r s t , t o determine i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n i s s u i n g a w r i t of mandamus; and second, t o determine i f a p p e l l a n t s abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h - i n g t h e budget f o r t h e Auditor's o f f i c e . I n P o r t e r v. P o r t e r (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, 541, t h i s Court s t a t e d : ". . . a reviewing c o u r t is never j u s t i f i e d i n s u b s t i t u t i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of a t r i a l court. I n determining whether a t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e question i s n o t whe- t h e r t h e reviewing c o u r t agrees with t h e t r i a l c o u r t , but, r a t h e r d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without employment of conscientious judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of reason, i n view of a l l t h e circumstances, ignoring recognized p r i n c i - p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . " Also, i n Grant v. Michaels (1933), 94 Mont. 452, 23 P.2d 266, 269, and Taylor v. County Commissioners (1954), 128 Mont. 102, 111, 270 P.2d 994, t h i s Court said: " . . . t h e phrase 'abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ' implies, n o t merely an e r r o r i n judgment, b u t p e r v e r s i t y of w i l l , prejudice, passion, o r moral delinquency . . ." I n reviewing t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e lower c o u r t , it i s n o t our function t o e n t e r t h e b a t t l e of semantics t o determine t h e d u t i e s of t h e Commission and t h e Auditor, o r of t h e De- partment of Community A f f a i r s ; r a t h e r , w e must decide i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t acted reasonably i n a r r i v i n g a t a conscientious decision. I n 1 4 Am.Jur. Counties, 5 33 a t 205, t h e r u l e i s s t a t e d a s follows: "The r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c o u r t s t o t h e o t h e r departments of government i s such t h a t they cannot perform executive d u t i e s o r i n t e r f e r e with t h e performance of l e g i s l a t i v e d u t i e s . They are n o t endowed with v i s i t o r i a l powers t o approve o r disapprove t h e manner i n which county commissioners e x e r c i s e the powers conferred upon them. They cannot reach o r c o n t r o l t h e commissioners i n t h i s regard unless i n some manner the l a t t e r have brought themselves within j u d i c i a l cognizance. So long a s the commissioners a c t honestly and i n good f a i t h and keep within t h e l i m i t s of t h e powers given them by t h e law, t h e c o u r t s have no a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r f e r e with o r c o n t r o l t h e i r l e g i t i m a t e d i s c r e t i o n . " I n her p e t i t i o n , respondent argues t h a t the Commissioners have a l e g a l duty t o make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e County Auditor both t h e time and the s t a f f necessary t o perform t h e d u t i e s of ex- amination and accounting of county books; and, by c u t t i n g t h e ~ u d i t o r ' s budget, she i s prevented from adequately performing her s t a t u t o r i l y created d u t i e s . Therefore, t h e Commissioners d i d not a c t within t h e l i m i t s of t h e power given them by law, and it i s within t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o i n t e r - vene and c o n t r o l t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the Commissioners. The District Court does have such authority; and, thus, t h i s case was properly brought. A s s e t f o r t h i n t h e majority opinion, t h e D i s t r i c t Court made extended findings of f a c t and conclusions of law, and it i s n o t t h i s Court's function t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l court. W e have a duty t o s c r u t i n i z e t h e manner i n which t h e decision of the t r i a l c o u r t was made and determine i f t h e judge acted a r b i t r a r i l y . Here, i n a t r i a l which l a s t e d f i v e days, t h e D i s t r i c t Court heard testimony from t h i r t e e n witnesses amounting t o over 400 pages of tran- s c r i p t and admitted over t h i r t y - f i v e e x h i b i t s i n t o evidence. The c o u r t then a r r i v e d a t a conclusion t h a t t h e County Com- missioners abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n when they f a i l e d t o perform a l e g a l duty of funding t h e County Auditor enabling her t o c a r r y on examinations of books and records, including a u d i t s , i n accordance with her s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s . It i s very c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n concluding t h e Commission's budgetary decision was p r e j u d i c i a l , exceeding t h e bounds of reason, and w a s such an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n a s t o amount t o no d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s mandate i n no way usurped o r i n t e r f e r e d with t h e Commission's budgetary power. The c o u r t gave t h e Commission an option t o e i t h e r accept t h e Auditor's requested budget f o r a u d i t i n g functions o r t o hold f u r t h e r hearings and t h e r e a f t e r reasonably provide funds t o allow t h e i r performance. I n m y opinion, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e - t i o n . Therefore, it must next be determined i f t h e County Commission's f a i l u r e t o fund t h e Auditor's o f f i c e , a s requested, was a f a i l u r e t o perform a c l e a r l e g a l duty and such an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n a s t o amount t o no e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l . I n determining i f t h e Commissioners were under a l e g a l duty t o a c t , t h e following s t a t u t e s must be considered: "7-6-2315. Consideration of t a b u l a t i o n by county commissioners -- p r e p a r a t i o n of preliminary bud- g e t . (1) The t a b u l a t i o n s h a l l b e submitted t o t h e county commissioners by t h e county c l e r k and recorder on o r before the f i r s t Monday of J u l y . " ( 2 ) Upon r e c e i p t t h e r e o f , t h e board of county commissioners s h a l l immediately consider t h e budget i n d e t a i l and s h a l l , on o r before t h e second Monday of J u l y , make -- any r e v i s i o n s , reduc- t i o n s , a d d i t i o n s , o r changes t h a t - t h e y consider advisable. The t a b u l a t i o n , with any r e v i s i o n s , reductions, a d d i t i o n s , o r changes, i s t h e pre- liminary budget f o r t h e f i s c a l year which it i s intended t o cover. " ( 3 ) Upon completion of t h e budget t h e county c l e r k s h a l l immediately transmit one copy of it t o t h e department of community a f f a i r s and one copy t o t h e department of revenue." "7-4-2110. Supervision of county and o t h e r o f f i c e r s . The board of county commissioners has j u r i s d i c t i o n and power, under such l i m i t a t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s a s a r e prescribed by law, t o : " ( 1 ) supervise t h e o f f i c i a l conduct of a l l county o f f i c e r s and o f f i c e r s of a l l d i s t r i c t s and o t h e r subdivisions of t h e county charged with assess- ing, c o l l e c t i n g , safekeeping, management, o r disbursement of t h e public revenues; " ( 2 ) see t h a t they f a i t h f u l l y perform t h e i r d u t i e s ; " (3) d i r e c t prosecutions f o r delinquencies; and " ( 4 ) when necessary, r e q u i r e them t o renew t h e i r o f f i c i a l bonds, make r e p o r t s , and p r e s e n t t h e i r books and accounts f o r inspection." It is clear that the above statutes impose a duty upon the Commissioners to formulate a budget in such a manner as to enable county officers to faithfully perform their jobs. Although discretionary the duty may be, it nevertheless is a duty . A case factually similar to the one at hand was decided in the State of Washington and has been given recent accord. State ex re1 Yeargin v. Maschke (1916), 90 Wash. 249, 155 P. 1064; accord, Leonard v. Civil Service Commission (1980), 25 Wash.App. 691, 611 P.2d 1290; State v. Pettitt (1980), 93 Wash.2d 288, 609 P.2d ! + & ; Murphy v. Grand County (1954), 1 1364 Utah2d 412, 268 P.2d 677. In Yeargin the court stated: ". . . The general rule, of course, is that the discretionary power of the board of county com- missioners is not subject to review by the court. But this is not a universal rule. If the action of the board of county commissioners is arbitrary or capricious, or if its action is prompted b~ wrong motives, there is not only an abuse of discretion, but in contemplation of law there has been no exercise of discretionary power. If an honest discretion, as demanded by the law, has not been exercised, the result is to substitute arbitrary action for such discretion. If a tribunal such as the board of county commis- sioners acts arbitrarily, or refuses to exercise its discretion, the law will by mandamus require it to exercise its discretionary power. [Cita- tions omitted.] "In [State ex rel. Brown v. Board of Dental Ex., 38 Wash. 325, 80 P. 5441, after stating the general rule that the discretionary power of such tribunal is not subject to review by the court, it is said: "'But, notwithstanding this, it is equally well established that courts will compel by mandamus the honest performance of official duty, and if, under pretense of exercising discretion, the power is exercised with manifest injustice or is grossly abused, or duty is avoided, the courts will grant relief. The action of the court must, in reality, be based upon the as- sumption that the inferior tribunal has refused to exercise the discretion with which it is clothed; because, if it acts arbitrarily or fraudulently, or through unworthy or selfish motives, - or conspires against the rights - of i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e law itsel quently s a i d , under t h e l a w , and t h e r e f o r e a g a i n s t . f , it has not s t r i c t l y , a s i s £re- "abused i t s discretionn--a term which i s responsible f o r some confusion of i d e a s on t h i s subject--but i n contemplation of law, it has not exercised its d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l , b u t has sought t o s u b s t i t u t e a r b i t r a r y and fraudu- l e n t d i s p o s i t i o n and determination of t h e ques- t i o n submitted f o r t h e honest d i s c r e t i o n demanded by t h e law. I n such cases t h e law w i l l , by man- --- damus, compel t h e t r i b u n a l t o a c t honestly and f a i r l y , o r , i n o t h e r words, t o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s - c r e t i o n ; and, when t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s kept i n mind, t h e seeming d i f f i c u l t i e s which have sur- rounded t h i s question, and which have caused so much discussion, disappear.'" 155 P. a t 1065. The record here i s r e p l e t e with evidence t h a t t h e budget c u t s were motivated by p u n i t i v e r e t a l i a t i o n , r a t h e r than by bureaucratic e f f i c i e n c y . The e l e c t e d a u d i t o r who preceded Linda Reep i n o f f i c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e examinations conducted by her o f f i c e revealed f a c t s about d a t a processing t h a t w e r e p o t e n t i a l l y embarrassing t o some segments of county govern- ment. During t h e budget discussions conducted i n t h e summer of 1978, one of t h e County Commissioners t o l d t h e Auditor and her Chief Deputy (Linda Reep) t h a t he had heard complaints from some departments about t h e s e a u d i t s . The Commissioner t o l d them t h a t he wanted them t o "back o f f , " leaving them with t h e c l e a r impression t h a t i f they d i d n o t reduce t h e scope of t h e i r a u d i t s , t h e i r budget would s u f f e r t h e next year. Late i n 1978 o r e a r l y i n 1979, t h e Auditor's o f f i c e con- ducted an examination of t h e county's r u r a l s p e c i a l improve- ment d i s t r i c t program which found s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t short- comings i n t h e f i n a n c i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of t h e program. This a u d i t r e p o r t made a t l e a s t one Commissioner "very angry," as another Commissioner t e s t i f i e d t h a t she believed he s a i d t h a t " i t would be b e t t e r " i f t h e employee who prepared t h e a u d i t r e p o r t "wasn't on t h e county p a y r o l l . " Shortly a f t e r t h i s a u d i t r e p o r t was r e l e a s e d , t h e ad- m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t t o t h e County Commissioners went t o ~ i n d a Reep's o f f i c e t o question her about t h e a u d i t . According t o Reep's testimony, a s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t l e f t her o f f i c e he s a i d he had j u s t come t o warn her t h a t " t h e b u f f a l o were coming before I heard t h e i r f o o t s t e p s . " I n t h e context of t h e conversation, t h e Auditor i n f e r r e d t h a t "I was going t o be having problems down t h e l i n e when budget t i m e came." When t h e t i m e came f o r t h e Commissioners t o take a c t i o n on t h e budget r e q u e s t , one Commissioner suggested t h a t t h e Auditor's s t a f f be reduced t o two f u l l t i m e employees. The Commissioners d i d n o t v o t e t o c u t t h e A u d i t o r ' s s t a f f a t t h a t t i m e , b u t a t t h e next budget meeting they voted t o c u t two f u l l t i m e employees from t h e Auditor's budget. Another Commissioner t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e process of making t h e s e c u t s , a fellow Commissioner " s a i d something t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i f she [Linda Reep] had time t o do t h e s e p o l i t i c a l h a t c h e t jobs t h a t maybe she d i d n ' t need t h e amount of help she had." That same Commissioner t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s a i d a t t h e time, "Well, one thing about it . . . a t l e a s t s h e ' s n o t going t o have s o much t i m e t o h a s s l e people." Following t h i s vote, t h e Commissioners s e n t t h e Auditor a w r i t t e n d i r e c t i v e t o reduce s t a f f by two f u l l t i m e employees, e f f e c t i v e with t h e beginning of t h e following pay period. The Auditor w a s t o n o t i f y t h e people being terminated w i t h i n one day of t h e r e c e i p t of t h e d i r e c t i v e . I n sending t h i s d i r e c t i v e , t h e Commissioners "desired immediate a c t i o n . " Shortly a f t e r t h e Auditor's v i s i t with t h e County Attor- ney, t h e l a t t e r ' s o f f i c e informed t h e Commissioners t h a t , i n t h e event of l i t i g a t i o n , t h e c o u r t would probably r e q u i r e t h e Commissioners t o provide t h e Auditor with a deputy. The Com- missioners thereupon informed t h e Auditor on J u l y 16, 1979, t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n of deputy a u d i t o r would be r e s t o r e d b u t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l d u t i e s might be assigned t o t h e Auditor's of- f i c e . The next day, t h e Commissioners d i r e c t e d t h e Auditor t o assume complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e county payroll system, e f f e c t i v e August 5, 1979. Approximately $15,000 was budgeted f o r independent a u d i t s e r v i c e s i n t h e event t h a t t h e Auditor could not perform her d u t i e s with the s t a f f provided. That money was budgeted i n t h e general governmental account, which has always been sub- j e c t t o t h e c o n t r o l of t h e Commissioners and never s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n t r o l of t h e Auditor. Based on t h e foregoing, I b e l i e v e it i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e budgetary process was v i n d i c t i v e i n nature. It is t h i s C o u r t ' s duty t o f i n d t h a t o f f i c i a l government a c t i o n prompted by t h e wrong motives is such an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n a s t o amount t o no d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l , and, t h e r e f o r e , mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel t h e proper e x e r c i s e of powers granted. More importantly, government o f f i c i a l s should be precluded from a c t i n g through s e l f i s h motives o r conspiring a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s , under t h e l a w , and, t h e r e f o r e , a g a i n s t t h e law i t s e l f . These a r e t h e very types of a c t i o n s t o which t h e t e r m "abuse of d i s - c r e t i o n " is d i r e c t e d and, thus, must be thwarted a t t h e i r source, t h e decisionmakers. I would a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court.