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:

__________________________________________ ClerkJustice Patricia O. Cotter deliver ed the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 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 disp osition 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. W illet appealed his termination to the Police Commission which sustained it. He then ap pealed 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 F act, 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 deci sion of the Police Commission sustaining Willet’s discharge from employment. FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND ¶4 Willet was hired as Police Chief for the to wn 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 resp onsibilities. They also met to discuss the

2many citizen complaints Connot received ab out Willet. From the time Connot became mayor until Willet’s discharge, Connot repeat edly 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 Dece mber 2003 Connot notif ied 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, 20 04. Willet testified that he received the December letter, revi ewed it and forwarded it to his attorney. ¶5 By letter dated Februa ry 6, 2004, Connot discharg ed Willet, concluding that Willet’s performance remained una cceptable. Willet appealed his discharge before the Police Commission for the town of St. Igna tius (Commission). The Commission met in special session on April 30, 2004 , to consider the appeal. Willet, his attorney, Connot, and the attorney for St. Igna tius attended the hearing. Th e Commission took evidence and heard the testimony of eight witnesses for St . Ignatius and one witness for Willet. On May 30, 2004, the Commission i ssued its decision upholding W illet’s termination. The Commission determined that Willet had failed to rectify the job performance issues identified in Connot’s D ecember 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 subs tantial evidence to support the Commission’s factual findings. It also concluded that the Commission’s evidentiary rulings were

3correct. 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 ma y 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 whet her the rulings of the commission are correct and to review the facts to de termine whether they are support ed by substantial evidence. The district court shall defer to the polic e commission unless the findings of fact or conclusions of law are clearly erroneous, in violation of constitu tional 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 fo rth 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 gr ounds for termination, and the record did not support the contention that his performance wa s unsatisfactory under the circumstances. Our review of the record rev eals that these arguments are w ithout merit. Therefore, we have determined to decide this case pursuan t to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum

4opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Add itionally 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

5