NO. 91-048 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

ROWLAND THROSSELL, MAY 3 0 1991 

petitioner and Appellant, 

-vsBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GALLATIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, 

BOZEMAN, MONTANA, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Gregory 0. Morgan, Bozeman, Montana. 

For Respondent: 

Donald E. White; White & Seel, Bozeman, Montana. 

submitted on briefs : April 18, 1991 

Filed: 

Decided: May 30, 1991 

Clerk 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

A retired school administrator brought this action claiming 

that he was entitled to benefits under the Bozeman Public Schoolst 

Voluntary Career Option Plan, offering retirement benefits 

identical to those afforded teachers. The District Court for the 

Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, denied the 

administrator such benefits and he now appeals. We affirm. 

The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred 

in holding that Mr. Throssell, as an administrator, was not 

entitled to Option Plan benefits under his contract? 

School District No. 7 of Gallatin County hired Mr. Throssell 

in 1976 as Senior High Vice Principal. His contract provided that 

he receive fringe benefits the same as Ifall other benefits equal 

to those offered to other certified employees of the District . . 

. unless otherwise addressed in this contractn. 

In 1983, Mr. Throsself gave notice of his intent to retire at 

the end of the 1984 academic year. In April 1984, the School 

District adopted the Bozeman Public Schoolts Voluntary Career 

Option Plan (Option Plan). The Option Plan speaks of I1out-ofand service. The 

controversy here involves lldistrict-creditedlr service. The Option 

Plan provides in part: 

For the purpose of this program, the term teacher shall 

be as defined in the Collective ~argaining Agreement 

between School Dist. #7 and the Bozeman Education System. . . . The amounts of payment involved are strictly dependent 

upon the number of years of district-credited service. 

(Emphasis added). 
The Collective Bargaining Agreement defines "teacherm as 

follows: 

Unless otherwise indicated the terms "teachertt or 

I1teachers," when used in this agreement, refer[s] to . 

*.. 

all employees who are certified in Class 1, 2, 4, or 5 

as provided in Section 20-4-106, MCA, whose positions 

require certification and all other employees who are 

required to be licensed to perform educational services 

of a professional nature but shall exclude all 

supervisory employees, e.g.! the superintendent, 

assistant superintendent, prxncipals and assistant 

principals, . . . (Emphasis added), 

Prior to retiring, Mr. Throssell applied for benefits under 

the Option Plan. The School District trustees denied his 

application for benefits under the Option Plan upon two grounds: 

(1) As an administrator in the School District he was specifically 

excluded from the benefits of the Option Plan; and (2) he would not 

be entitled to compensation under the Option Plan as he had only 

eight years of in-district credit with the School District. 

Thirteen years of district-credited service are needed to qualify 

for the Option Plan. 

Mr. Throssefl appealed the case to the Gallatin County 

Superintendent of Schools. The County Superintendent found that 

the Option Plan would be a benefit included in Mr. Throsselll s last 

contract in 1983 but that it was necessary to have at least 

thirteen years of district-credited service for a teacher to 

qualify under the Option Plan. She further found that the 

provisions of the schoolls collective bargaining agreement allowing 

a maximum number of seven years of district-credited service 

applies only to "teacherstt hired during the term of the collective 
bargaining agreement dated July 1, 1983, through June 30, 1984. 

She concluded that Mr. Throssell had eight years of in-district 

service but that neither his 1976 nor his 1983 contracts contained 

any provision granting him credit for any out-of-district service. 

Thus, his claim was again denied. 

Mr. Throssell appealed to the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction (State Superintendent) who held that Mr. Throssell was 

entitled to benefits if he were qualified. The State 

Superintendent affirmed the County Superintendent's decision. 

Subsequently, Mr. Throssell appealed the decision to the District 

Court pursuant to 5 2-4-702, MCA. 

The District Court found that the County Superintendent and 

the State Superintendent committed an error of law by considering 

only part of the definition of the term "teacheraf as used in the 

Option Plan, and failing to consider specific language in the 

definition: 

[The Option Plan] . . . shall exclude all supervisory 

employees, e.g., the Superintendent, Assistant 

Superintendent, Principals and Assistant Principals, . . . 

Thus, the District Court held that as an Assistant Principal, Mr. 

Throssell was not eligible to receive Option Plan benefits because 

he was specifically excluded by the language of the Option Plan. 

Mr. Throssell appeals the District Court's decision. 

Did the District Court err in holding that Mr. Throssell, as 

an administrator, was not entitled to Option Plan benefits under 

his contract? 

Two factors must be met before Mr. Throssell can receive 
benefits. First, he must be an employee "eligible'l under the 

Option Plan to receive such benefits. Second, if he is eligible, 

he must meet a minimum requirement of thirteen years of districtcredited service so that he may actually receive the benefits. 

The District Court concluded that Mr. Throssell was not 

eligible for coverage. We disagree. Mr. Throssellls contract 

provided that he receive the following fringe benefits (in part): 

A. Full family health, dental and vision Insurance. 

All other benefits equal to those offered to other 

certified employees of the District which includes but 

is not limited to Maternity Leave, Emergency Leave, Leave 

for Civic Duties, Personal Leave and Leaves of Absence, 

unless otherwise addressed in this contract. (Emphasis 

added) . 

Nowhere does the contract otherwise provide that Mr. Throssell 

should not receive benefits equal to those offered to other 

certified employees. The District Court's reference to the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement's definition of teacher was 

correct. However, it must also consider Mr. Throssellts individual 

contract which allows Itall other equal benef itstt. We theref ore 

reverse the ~istrict Court's conclusion that Mr. Throssell is not 

entitled to benefits under the Career Option Plan. 

Mr. Throssellts record of service card showed the number "11" 

in the 190utM column. Throssell contends that the School District 

credited him with eleven years of out-of-district service on the 

permanent record card and thus, he is entitled to benefits under 

the Option Plan. 

The State Superintendent addressed that argument as follows: 

The maximum number of years out-of-district service 

a "new teachert1 could be credited is seven years. A 
decision on the actual number of years of out of district 

service credited to a new teacher is made by the District 

at the time of hire. The new teacher's placement on the 

salary matrix requires the District to decide how many 

years of out-of-district service it will credit to a new 

teacher. The term "district-credited" requires action 

on the part of the District. The ~istrict may credit a 

new teacher with zero through seven years of out-ofdistrict service. 

As the County Superintendent concluded, Mr. Throssell was not a 

"new teacher" when he entered into his final contract in 1983. The 

1983 contract does not contain a provision granting credit to Mr. 

Throssell for any out-of-district service. Therefore, districtcredited service for new teachers under the 1983 - 1984 Collective 

Bargaining Agreement is not a benefit to which Mr. Throssell would 

be entitled under his 1983 contract because he was not a "new 

teacher" in 1983. For this reason, the County Superintendent and 

the State Superintendent concluded that Mr. Throssell did not meet 

the requirement for a minimum of thirteen years of districtcredited service to qualify for the Option Plan. The scope of 

review of administrative decisions is somewhat limited. See 5 2- 

4-704 (2), MCA. 

Our function as an appellate court reviewing an 

administrative decision is not to substitute our judgment 

for that of the County [or State] Superintendent but 

rather to review the whole record to determine if the 

administrative findings are clearly erroneous or if the 

County Superintendent's [or State Superintendent's] 

conclusions of law constitute an abuse of discretion. 

Harris v. Cascade County School Dist. No. 6 and F (1990), 241 Mont. 

274, 277, 786 P.2d 1164, 1166. After reviewing the record, we 

conclude that the County and State Superintendents' findings are 

not clearly erroneous nor were the conclusions of law an abuse of 
discretion, and affirm their conclusion that Mr. Throssell did not 

meet the thirteen year minimum requirement. 

While we affirm the final holding of the District Court that 

Mr. Throssell will not receive Option Plan benefits, we disagree 

with the basis for its decision. As previously stated, Mr. 

Throssell's contract specifically provided that he receive "all 

other equal benefitstt equal to those offered to other certified 

employees of the District. Thus, we hold that in this case, under 

Mr. Throssellts contract he was eligible to receive Option Plan 

benefits if he satisfied the thirteen year minimum requirement of 

district-credited service. We agree that the record supports the 

conclusions of the Superintendents that he did not. 

We affirm the District Court's denial of benefits to the 

plaintiff. 

We Concur: 

Chief Justice 
May 30, 1993 

CERTf FICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Gregory 0. Morgan 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 1530 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

Donald E. White 

White & See1 

1800 W. Koch, Ste. 9 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA