No. 13531 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

DELOY DENNING and LEW CADY, Petitioners,

MISSOULA CITYAND COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioners: Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Fred C. Root, Missoula,Montana Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Garnaas, Hall, Riley and Pinsoneault, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Mae Nan Ellingson, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs.

Submitted: May 11, 1977Mr.Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion sf the Court. Appeal fromjudgment of the district court, Missoula County. On May 

### 11, 1976, theMissoula City and County Local Government Study Commission contracted with the KathleenWalford Senior Citizen's Center to conduct a voter attitude survey after the June 

### 1, 1976 election and authorized an expenditure of $1,000 for thispurpose. The proposal submitted by the study commission

was defeated in the June 

### 1election. On June 15, 1976, Deloy Denning and Lew Cady, respondents here, secured a 

### writof prohibition directing the study commission to desist from proceeding further with this surveywhich would result in the $1,000 expenditure. On June 28, 1976 a show cause hearing was held. On July 21, 

### 1976, the district court enteredjudgment making the 

### writof prohibition permanent. From thisjudgment the study commission appeals. Respondents filedno brief and no oral argument was had, The only issue on appeal 

### iswhether the study commission had the authority to contract before the election to spend $1,000 for a voter attitude survey tobe taken after the election at which the proposed charter was defeated. 

### Yet-, thiswas not a considerationwhen the contract was entered into. Respondents contend the $1,000 expenditureby the study commission 

### isunlawful in that the purpose of the expenditure 

### is not set out in section 16-5104, R.C.M. 1947, and the spending of such funds arenot authorizedby section 16-5105, R.C.M. 1947. Statutes governing local government study commissions were enacted by theMontana Legislature in 1974 by the passage of approximately 35 new sections to implement the creation of the study commissions.

### Respondents claim section 16-5105 granted the study commission the power to submit one proposal to the electors and when this proposal had been submitted the cornmission's job

was over. This interpretation, however, is 

### indirect conflict with section 16-5108, R.C.M. 

### 1947, which specifically states: "All 

### study commissions shallterminate June 30, 1977."

'I* 

# ** Inthe construction of a statute the intention of the legislature is 

### tobe pursued ifpossible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter

### isparamount to the former. So a particular intentwill 

### control a general one that 

### is inconsistent with it. 

### (Section 93-401-16, R.C.M. 

### 1947).I1 

### City of Billings v. Smith, 158Mont. 197, 211, 490 P.2d 221. Therefore, the study commission's powers did not end atthe electionon June 

### 1, 1976, but terminated June 30, 1977. Section 16-5115.9 gives the study commission permissive power toprepare additional reports as a supplement to its 

### report, which is 

### the proposed alternate form of government. Under this section a study commission would have jurisdiction toconduct a survey todetermine the reasons why the electorate defeated or approved a proposed alternate+form of government toestablish the features of the existing 

### foam of government withwhich the electorate is 

### satisfied and those with which it 

### is

### dissatisfied. Such a survey is, as one study commissioner put it, 

### rather like an autopsy, it 

### does not benefit the deceased, but may shed light on similarproblems in the future. Section 16-5112(4), R.C.M. 

### 1947, provides: ''The study commission may contract and cooperate with other agencies, public or private, as it 

### considersnecessary for the rendition and affording of such services, facilities, studies and reports to the study commission as

### willbest assist it 

### tocarryout the purposes forwhich the study commission was-established.* 

# * *I1 

### (Emphasis added.)Section 16-5112(5)

## ,provides: "The study commission may do any and allother things as are consistentwith and reasonably required to perform 

### its function under this act." The information gained from a voter attitude survey, whether before or after the approval or rejection of an alternative form of government would be consistent with the commission's authority granted by Ch.51, Title 16, R.C.M. 1947, if reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. Since the sole purpose of the 1972Montana Constitutionalprovision on local government was to improve the delivery of localgovernment services to thepeople, any reasonable attempt toascertain voters' dissatisfaction with current orproposed governmental structure should be within the commission'

### s jurisdiction. Inconformity with the foregoing interpretation, the judgment of the district court 

### isreversed and the cause remanded with instructions todismiss the

### writof prohibition.

Austice 

# &/ /

~hyef Justice