Title: EXPENSE OF JUDGES

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13121 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975 I N THE MATTER OF ACTUAL N E C E S S A R Y EXPENSE O F JUDGES OPINION AND ORDER Oral argument was presented by the following: D i s t r i c t Judges: Honorable Robert Keller, Kalispell, Montana Honorable Robert Sykes , Kalispell, Montana Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Lewistown, Montana Honorable Gordon Bennett, Helena, Montana \,&JZ I&&#SFB Bar Association: Alan F. Cain, Helena, Montana & h Tria 1 Lawyers Association: James T. Harrison Jr., Helena, Montana Submitted: September 26, 1975 PER CURIAM: O n August 11, 1975, t h i s Court issued a Notice of Hearing r e "In the of Actual Necessary Travel Expense of ~udges". The notice reads: 11 The Court has received o r a l and written com- p l a i n t s , a s well a s a p e t i t i o n , with respect t o the question of expenses of Judges incurred i n performance of t h e i r duties. "The language of A r t . V I I , Sec. 9(2) of the 1972 Montana Constitution provides judges s h a l l receive 1 salary and actual necessary t r a v e l expense.' This language applies t o Judges alone and t o no other public o f f i c i a l . It a l s o must be read i n conjunction with the other singular and peculiar limitations on Judges appearing i n A r t . V I I . "Sec. l ( b ) , Chapter 439, 1975 Session Laws (H.B. 621), amends section 59-538, R.C.M. 1947, and provides elected o f f i c i a l s traveling within t h e s t a t e s h a l l be authorized actual cost of lodging not exceeding $16.00 per day, plus $2.00 for the morning meal, $3.00 f o r midday meal and $5.00 f o r evening meal, a l l lodging claims must be documented by receipt. I I Sec. 3(c) amends section 59-801, R.C.M. 1947, and provides t h a t when a privately owned vehicle i s used a r a t e equal t o the mileage allotment allowed by the United States Internal Revenue Service s h a l l be paid for t h e f i r s t 1,000 miles and 36 l e s s per mile f o r a l l miles thereafter traveled within a calendar month. "1t has been represented t h a t the allowable mileage reimbursement does not i n f a c t meet t h e a c t u a l expense of automobile t r a v e l and thereby diminishes the judge's salary contrary t o A r t . V I I , Sec. 7 , 1972 Montana Constitution. The same complaint has been made regarding limitation of the lodging reimbursement due t o laclc of suitable f a c i l i t i e s within t h a t price range i n many areas of the s t a t e . I I The judicia.ry i s presently carrying a heavy case load, evident t o us by our calendar, and i f circum- stances e x i s t as have been represented which hinder per- formance of our jud es by requiring them t o absorb a portion of t h e i r 'actual necessary t r a v e l expense' it i s contended t h a t weshould adopt r u l e s which w i l l a l l e v i a t e t h i s situation. f I W e deem t h i s matter of prime importance because t r a v e l i s necessary between counties i n a j u d i c i a l dis- t r i c t and between d i s t r i c t s . It i s always d i f f i c u l t t o secure out of d i s t r i c t judges t o help because of t h e i r commitments already existing and on top of t h i s i f sky- I I rocketing costs a r e causing judges t o say no t o re- quests f o r help we have a s i t u a t i o n that cannot be t o l e r - ated. f I W e want the f a c t s ! . Since we have no f a c i l i t i e s f o r preparing a record we w i l l accept signed statements of f a c t s , studies, a r t i c l e s , b r i e f s or any other type of documents which have factual backgrounds on the matters with which we a r e here concerned. W e s t a r t with the limiting r r words actual necessary t r a v e l expense". W e a n t i c i p a t e f a c t s t o be presented which w i l l estab- l i s h "actual necessary" expenses t o be a reasonable formula t o apply uniformly across the s t a t e , both a s t o t r a v e l and sustenance. " W e d i r e c t t h e Clerk of t h i s Court t o forward copy of t h i s notice t o each D i s t r i c t Judge, and t o the Attorney General, the Legislative Finance Committee, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Administration, the Legislative Council, the President of the S t a t e Bar of Montana, and President of the Montana T r i a l Lawyers Association, and on request t o any other party evidencing an i n t e r e s t i n these matters. " W e w i l l hold a fact-finding hearing on September 26, 1975, a t the hour of 1:30 p.m., and w i l l appreciate receiving such documentary evidence a s i s available a t t h a t time and, on prior request, w i l l permit o r a l presentation by counsels. I f A hearing was held on September 26, 1975. The Court has accepted l e t t e r s , statements, newspaper a r t i c l e s , and periodicals i n an attempt t o a r r i v e a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y solution f o r an order establishing a r u l e which w i l l permit claims t o be f i l e d , processed, audited and paid, so t h a t judges may be reimbursed t h e i r constitutional a c t u a l necessary t r a v e l expenses i n a reasonable way t o apply uniformly across the s t a t e . The Court received under date of August 18, 1975, a l e t t e r from FJ. A . Groff, Director of the Department of Revenue, t o the e f f e c t t h a t insofar a s l e g i s l a t i v e budget problems with f i s c a l notes a r e concerned, none e x i s t . 14r. Groff's l e t t e r reads: h he Department of Revenue takes the position t h a t Article V I I , Sections 7(1) and 9 ( 2 ) of the Plontana Constitution have primacy over Sections 59-801 and 59-538, R.C.14. 1947, a s amended. To require Judges t o comply with the provisions of the above-cited sections of the Revised Codes of Montana would v i o l a t e those c i t e d provisions of the Constitu- t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e i r s a l a r i e s s h a l l not be diminished and t h a t they are t o receive a c t u a l necessary t r a v e l expense. The Department's experience with the t r a v e l and per diem allowances provided by the 1975 Session Laws is still inadequate to defray the costs of actual necessary travel expenses. I I The Department of Revenue is routinely called upon by the legislature to write 'fiscal notes1 on all matters affecting the state budget. Our research division informs me that the monetary impact of an increase in travel expenses for Judges contemplated under Cause No. 13121 would be minimal and of no consequence as it affects the state budget. I I Additionally, the Court has received an informative letter from Jack Crosser, Director of the Department of A.dminis- tration. This letter includes an attachment showing a compilation of actual meals and lodging charged by 25 of the 28 individual judges. Mr. Crosser's letter makes this conclusion: fl In conclusion, the Department of Administration takes no position as to whether or not statutory travel expenses authorized the District Judges I meets the actual and necessary travel expense' requirement of Article VII, Section 9, Constitution of Montana 1972. It has always been this ~epartment's position in auditing expense claims that we must enforce enacted legislation until changed by the Legis- lature or declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction. Whatever the Court decrees in this matter will be immediately implemented by this Department. I I As reflected by Mr. Crosser's conclusion, Mr. ~roff's letter, and our own Notice of Hearing heretofore quoted, the problem is the legislature's language "elected state officials" in sections 59-538 and 59-801, R.C.M. 1947, in authorizing scheduled, fixed charges for lodging per day, meals individually, and mileage. The language of Article VII, sections 7 ( 1 ) and 9 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) , 1972 Montana Constitution is: Section 7 ( 1 ) : "All justices and judges shall be paid as provided by law, but salaries shall not be diminished during terms of office. I I Section 9 ( 2 ) : "No supreme court justice or district court judge shall solicit or receive compensat?on in any form whatever on account of his office, except salary and actual necessary travel expense. I I Section 9(3): "Except a s otherwise provided i n t h i s constitution, no supreme court j u s t i c e or d i s t r i c t court judge s h a l l practice law during h i s term of o f f i c e , engage i n any other employment f o r which salary or fee i s paid, o r hold o f f i c e i n a p o l i t i c a l party. l I This language makes it c l e a r t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e attempts t o 11 r e s t r i c t actual and necessary t r a v e l expense" of d i s t r i c t judges and j u s t i c e s a r e unconstitutional. As applied t o d i s t r i c t judges and supreme court j u s t i c e s only, sections 59-538 and 59-801 a r e unconstituional, and ~ 7 e so hold. Judges a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e i r a c t u a l and necessary expenses f o r subsistence and lodging. This Court w i l l audit and approve such expenses f o r t h e i r a c t u a l i t y , necessity and reasonableness. The problem a s t o "actual and necessary" expenses f o r transportation i s somewhat more complex because the s t a t e does not, a s y e t , furnish s t a t e owned automobiles. Thus, judges must furnish t h e i r own automobiles with a l l the attendant c o s t s , in- cluding gasoline, insurance, t i r e s , depreciation and general upkeep. Their t r a v e l varies widely, from almost none t o 30,000 miles per year. The t r a v e l i s complicated by multiple county, multiple d i s t r i c t scheduling i n a l l types of weather and conditions. It i s a l s o complicated by individual choice of automobiles, from compact t o f u l l sized. Our problem i s t 3 adopt a f a i r r u l e that may be uniformly applied with a minimum of record keeping but consistent with f i s c a l responsibility. Out of a myriad of materials, we have selected t h e analysis of the United States Department of Transportation of the Federal Highway Administration dated April 1972, and using our own interpolations and updating have arrived a t a figure of 19d per mile a s a f a i r and necessary figure, subject t o periodic adjustment t o meet changing conditions. W e recognize t h a t it may not i n a l l cases meet the constitutional c r i t e r i a but i n those cases t h i s Court w i l l require f u l l record keeping and proof. The choice w i l l be l e f t t o the individual judge. Additionally, a s an observation, the l e g i s l a t u r e may, i n the future, choose t o provide other means, e i t h e r by s t a t e owned auto- mobiles, leased automobiles, o r any other constitutional method. As t o the choice of individual judges, where other forms of transportation other than public transportation a r e selected which w i l l cost more than 19d per mile or the then current a d j u s ~ d figure, t h i s Court w i l l require e i t h e r p r i o r approval o r authenticated documentary proof of the a c t u a l and necessary expense. This Court w i l l hereafter handle t h e processing and approval of these claims on a monthly basis. Copies of t h i s opinion and order s h a l l be mailed by the Clerk of t h i s Court t o a l l D i s t r i c t Judges, ~ o r k e r s ' Compensation Judge, the Department of Administration and the Department of Revenue.