NO. 95-179 IN THE SUPREMECOURTOFTHE STATE OFMONTANA 1995

TRUSTEES OFFRAZER 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.

COUNSELOFRECORD:

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.24lQQ5 Decided: August 24, 1995 Filed:Justice JamesC. 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. Weaffirm. 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 anoncertified teacher's aide in violation of the school district's written policy andordered her reinstatement. Bird cross-appealed Keenan's Decision andOrder, to the extent that said Decision andOrder (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 andsuchother actions asmaybenecessary to enforce said Decision andOrder. Citing our decision in Harris v. Bauer (1983), 206Mont. 480, 672 P.2d 26, the District Court dismissed with prejudice Bird's appeal onthe basis that neither the Valley County Superintendent
nor Keenanhadaddressed or determined anyissues 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 ofthe lawis correct. Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603. InHarris, 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 asalower appellate tribunal, basing its conclusions on the printed record. Harris, 672P.2d at 32, (citing Yanzick v. School Dist. No. 23, etc. (1982) 196Mont. 375, 387-88, 641 P.2d 431, 438-39.) Wealso held that the trial court can review only those issues determined by the State Superintendent, which, in turn, reviews only those issues determined bythe County Superintendent. Harris, 672P.2d at 32. Here, neither the Valley County Superintendent nor Keenan addressed or determined anyissues regarding Bird's entitlement to "back pay" or attorney fees. Accordingly, pursuant to our decision in Harris, wehold that the District Court properly concluded that it waswithout jurisdiction to entertain Bird's appeal andthat it correctly dismissed her appeal with prejudice. Onappeal 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 andpunitive damages. It requires
nolengthy recitation of authority that wewill not address issues and matters raised for the first time on appeal to this Court. Dagel v. Manzer (1991), 251Mont. 176, 178, 823P.2d 874, 875-76. Bird failed to preserve the issues shenowraises onappeal 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 1988Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not becited as precedent andshall bepublished byits filing asapublic document with the Clerk of this Court andbyareport of its result to the West Publishing Company.