NO. 95-179 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1995 

TRUSTEES OF FRAZER PUBLIC SCHOOL 

DISTRICT NO. 2-ZB, 

Appellant/Respondent and Respondent, 

-vPATRICIA C. BIRD, 

Respondent/Cross-Appellant Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Valley, 

The Honorable John C. McKeon, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Patricia C. Bird, Wolf Point, Montana, pro se 

For Respondent: 

James Rector, Glasgow, Montana; Robert J. Savage, 

Sidney, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: August 17, 1995 

AUG.24 lQQ5 Decided: August 24, 1995 

Filed: 
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Patricia C. Bird (Bird), pro se, appeals from the March 8, 

1995, order of the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Valley 

County, granting the Fraser Public School District No. 2-2B 

Trustees' (Trustees) motion to dismiss. We affirm. 

Before the District Court was Bird's cross-appeal from the 

February 16, 1994, Decision and Order of Nancy Keenan, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction (Keenan) in which Keenan 

upheld the Valley County Superintendent's findings that the 

Trustees improperly terminated Bird from her position as a noncertified teacher's aide in violation of the school district's 

written policy and ordered her reinstatement. Bird cross-appealed 

Keenan's Decision and Order, 

to the extent that said Decision and Order (I) does not 

provide that Ms. Bird is entitled to lost earnings from 

March 23, 1992, to the date of reinstatement of her 

employment and (2) denies her request for attorney fees 

for her appeal and such other actions as may be necessary 

to enforce said Decision and Order. 

Citing our decision in Harris v. Bauer (1983), 206 Mont. 480, 

672 P.2d 26, the District Court dismissed with prejudice Bird's 

appeal on the basis that neither the Valley County Superintendent 

nor Keenan had addressed or determined any issues regarding Bird's 

entitlement to "back pay" or attorney fees. 

Our review of the District Court's conclusions of law is 

plenary. We simply determine whether the trial judge's 

interpretation of the law is correct. Steer, Inc. v. Department of 

Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603. In 
Harris, we held that the district court was subject to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 2-4-704, MCA, in its judicial 

review of contested cases, in effect, sitting as a lower appellate 

tribunal, basing its conclusions on the printed record. Harris, 

672 P.2d at 32, (citing Yanzick v. School Dist. No. 23, etc. (1982) 

196 Mont. 375, 387-88, 641 P.2d 431, 438-39.) We also held that 

the trial court can review only those issues determined by the 

State Superintendent, which, in turn, reviews only those issues 

determined by the County Superintendent. Harris, 672 P.2d at 32. 

Here, neither the Valley County Superintendent nor Keenan 

addressed or determined any issues regarding Bird's entitlement to 

"back pay" or attorney fees. Accordingly, pursuant to our decision 

in Harris, we hold that the District Court properly concluded that 

it was without jurisdiction to entertain Bird's appeal and that it 

correctly dismissed her appeal with prejudice. 

On appeal to this Court Bird attacks the District Court's 

decision by arguing issues that were never raised in the District 

Court appeal, including the applicability of the Montana Wrongful 

Discharge from Employment Act and claims of blacklisting, 

conspiracy, emotional distress and punitive damages. It requires 

no lengthy recitation of authority that we will not address issues 

and matters raised for the first time on appeal to this Court. 

Dagel v. Manzer (1991), 251 Mont. 176, 178, 823 P.2d 874, 875-76. 

Bird failed to preserve the issues she now raises on appeal in any 

of the proceedings before the lower tribunals. Accordingly, we 

will not address those here. 

- 
Affirmed. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company.