No, 12391 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

RALPH GILDROY, an individiual citizen, and the South Central Montana Development Federation, an unincorporated association of counties, actingby and through its Board of Directors, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

FORREST H. ANDERSON, Governor of the State of Montana, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of theFirstJudicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants: Hickman and Moore, Harlowton, Montana Perry J. Moore argued, Harlowton, Montana Charles Maris, Roundup, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L, Woodahl, Attorney Geneql, Helena,

Montana Charles Dickman, Assistant Attorney General, argued,

Helena, Montana

Submitted: March 1, 1973

Filed: 

### MAR

### 2

### 8

### 1973PER CURIAM: This appeal is taken froman order of the district court of Lewis and Clark County granting a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order, originally issued by the district court of Musselshell County,and granting motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs and appellants,Ralph Gildroy and the South Central Montana Development Federation, initiated this litigation in the district court ofMusselshell County, and on September 3, 1971, that court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Governor Forrest Anderson from implementingExecutive Order No. 2-71. Governor Anderson filed a motion for change ofvenue to Lewis and Clark County and a motion to dismiss. The motions were denied by the Musselshell County district court and that denial

was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. This Court vacated the district court order and ordered the cause transferred to Lewis and Clark County. On September 

### 6, 1972,the Lewis and Clark County district court entered the order fromwhich this appeal is taken, There appears to be no dispute as to the facts. South Central Montana Development Federation is a private unincorporated association ofpersons fromWheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Carbon, Yellowstone and Big Horn Counties, whose purpose is stated to be promotion of economic and social development in those counties, It appears a "Board of Trustees" controls the Federation and that Ralph Gildroy is a member trustee for Musselshell County. Senate Joint ResolutionNo. 13 adapted by the 42nd Montana LegislativeAssembly in February 1971,was entitled: "A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA RESPECTFULLYURGING THEHONORABLE FORWST

### H. ANDERSON, GOVERNOR,AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTTORETAIN

### THE SOUTH-CENTRAL MONTANA DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION INTACT.

## "Itprovided inpertinent part: "That it is the wish of the Montana state senate and house of representatives that the south-central Montana development federationcontinue as it is presently constituted [naming the eight member counties] and that it not be divided for purposes not related to the economic and socialwell-being of the people of the area", InAugust 1971,Governor Anderson issued Executive Order No. 2-71dividing the fifty-six counties of the State of Montana into twelve multi-county districts, stating in pertinent part: "A consistent use of districts is also needed for effective coordinationof awide range of federal-aid programs, and to meet the objectives of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, for implementation of federalacts providing state assistance in planning,housing, education,welfare,community development,environmental protection and other fields1'. Three counties of the Federation, Musselshell, Wheatland and GoldenValley were placed in District 6alongwith Fergus, Judith Basin and PetroleumCounties. 

### The rest of the Federation countieswere placed in and comprised District 

### 7,under Executive Order 2-71. The Federation and Mr. Gildroy assert that the governor did not heed the wishes of the legislature in districttng under Executive Order 2-71and assign two issues for review: 1, Whether a Joint Legislative Resolutionhas any force and effect or whether it is a nullity, 2, Whether Senate Joint ResolutionNo. 13 directed the governor to refrain from a particular act. Considering the second of the two presented issues,we find, froman examination of Senate Joint Resolution No. 13,that its directive portion merely states: 

## "**

## * it is the wish of the Montana senate and house of representative-at the south-centralMontana development federation continue as it is presently constituted

## * ** and that it not be divided for purposesnot related to the economic and socialwellbeing of the people of the area

# ". (Emphasis added) It is a judicial principle too aften repeated to require citation, that courts in construing a statute or rule will give effect to the plain languageused in its ordinary meaning andconsider the statute in its entirety to determine legislative intent. Although Senate Joint ResolutionNo. 13 is neither a statutenor a rule, this principle nonetheless applies. A fair and reasonable reading of the entire Senate Joint ResolutionNo, 13 indicates to this Court: (1) That it is not a directive,and (2) that it does not preclude the action taken by the Governor in Executive Order 2-71. Perhaps, as appellants suggest, the use of term "wish" is attributable to poor draftsmanship. However, that does not make "wish" synonymouswith "direct", We do not believe the South Central Montana Development

'I Federation cannot now continue as it is presently constituted." Executive Order 2-71 is directed only to "all state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, divisions, bureaus, offices and other state governmental entities." The order is not directed to counties or municipalities, nor is it directed toward private individuals or unincorporated associations such as appellants herein. Executive Order 2-71does not divide the South Central Montana Development Federation; it does provide geographic districts for use by state agencies, Appellants' issue concerningwhether a joint legislative resolution is a nullity, is not susceptible to a universally applicable answer. Appellants point out that joint legislative resolutions canproperly be used for such purposes as to ratify amendments to the United States Constitution, create committees whose terms continuebeyond the adjournment of the legislature, and direct that studies or inventoriesbe made by the legislative council. Respondent points out that joint legislative resolutions do not have the force and effect of a general law, citing State

ex rel. Peytonv. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P, 497. The effect and validity of a joint legislative resolution must be decided upon a consideration of the purpose intended to be accomplished and in light of the applicable provisions of the Montana Constitution,Article 

### VII, Section 

### 1,of the Montana Constitution provides that the governor "shall perform suchduties as are prescribed in this constitution and by the laws of the state." 

### A joint legislative resolution is not a general law and cannotbe used to control the discretion of the governor. The order appealed from is affirmed.