Title: BROWN v BOARD OF COUNTY COMM RS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12774
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1974

No. 12774 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A M A R G A R E T BROWN, Gallatin County Superintendent of Schools, E A R L BEST, Gallatin County Surveyor, C A R L STUCKY, Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, IRIS WHITTLE, Gallatin County Treasurer, WILLIAM JOHNSON, Gallatin County Auditor, P A U L REESE, Clerk of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Gallatin County, and L.D.W. ANDERSON, Gallatin County Sheriff, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE BOARD O F C O U N T Y COMMISSIONERS O F GALLATIN COUNTY, M O N T A N A , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Less ley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas Allen Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents : Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Ronald K. Olson, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana - - 1 .J/iC . 1 2 ;gjq Filed: - - Submitted: November 19, 1974 Decided : DfC 12 1974 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s entered by t h e d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County, Hon. W. W. Lessley presiding. P l a i n t i f f s a r e elected county o f f i c e r s . They brought a declara- tory judgment action seeking a determination of t h e i r s a l a r i e s under the provisions of section 25-605 and 25-609.1, R..C.M. 1947, f o r the f i s c a l year July 1, 1973 through June 30, 1974. The t r i a l court ' s judgment read : "That 'taxable valuation' t o be used i n computing t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' s a l a r i e s i s a valuation f o r t h e new f i s c a l year 1973-1974, and t h e defendants have a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute t h e taxable valuation f o r the f i s c a l year 1373-1974 and pay s a l a r i e s t o the p l a i n t i f f s based thereon. The 'taxable valuation' should be computed on o r before July 1 of each f i s c a l year using the new figures available t o the defendants. I t Defendant r a i s e s two issues on appeal: (1) Whether there i s a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute taxable valuation of a county on o r before July 1 of each f i s c a l year. (2) Whether the taxable valuation of a county which i s completed a f t e r July 1 may be used t o compute s a l a r i ~ s of county o f f i c e r s f o r the following f i s c a l year. Appellant i s t h e Board of County Commissioners of Gallatin County. I t s position i s t h a t i t cannot be compelled t o compi~te t h e taxable valuation of a county p r i o r t o July 1, because it has u n t i l the second Monday i n July t o assess t h e taxable property under section 84-406, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e second Monday i n August t o a f f i x the m i l l levy under section 84-3505, R.C.M. 1947. In other words, appellant argues t h a t t h e only valuation e x i s t i n g a s of July 1 t o apply the salary formula t o i s t h a t of the previous year. O n t h e other hand, respondent county o f f i c e r s maintain t h a t t h e two sections, 84-406 and 84-3805, a r e not controlling since t h e only importance of section 84-406 i s t h a t it s e t s the second Monday i n July as t h e deadline f o r reporting t o the s t a t e depart- ment of revenue and section 84-3805 only concerns the time f o r fixing r a t e s . Respondents urge t h a t t h e 1972 Constitution omitted the former prohibition against changing a county o f f i c i a l ' s s a l a r y during h i s term of o f f i c e , and section 25-609.1 imposes a c l e a r legal duty t o compute the new taxable valuation of a county p r i o r t o July 1. This, respondents contend, would allow s a l a r i e s t o be current with respect t o demands of the o f f i c e and would avoid a lack of uniformity and even influence by the commissioners a s t o whether t o increase o r decrease s a l a r i e s . W e agree with respondents' position. Traditionally, county o f f i c i a l s have been paid according t o a salary formula based on t h e taxable valuation and population of t h e county computed j u s t p r i o r t o t h e i r election. Under t h e Montana Constitution of 1889 a county o f f i c i a l could not receive a pay increase during the term of h i s office. The n e t r e s u l t was t h a t some county o f f i c e r s were paid more, o r on a d i f f e r e n t pay s c a l e than others, since they were elected a t a d i f f e r e n t time and there were, consequently, d i f f e r e n t tax valuations. The 1972 Montana Constitution removed t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n and the 1973 l e g i s l a t u r e upgraded the county s a l a r i e s by amending section 25-609.1, R.C.M. 1947, and s e t t i n g t h e s a l a r i e s a t t h e beginning of each f i s c a l year. This change imposes a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute the taxable valuation p r i o r t o July 1, the f i r s t day of the f i s c a l year, and the e f f e c t i v e date of the l e g i s l a t i v e amendment. The time for assessment and computing taxable valuation s e t out i n section 84-406, R.C.M. 1947, i s a t any time between t h e f i r s t Monday i n March and the second Monday i n July. The second Monday i n July is only important by v i r t u e of the required reporting of t h i s valuation t o the S t a t e Department of Revenue. In addition, the findings of f a c t of the d i s t r i c t court i n t h i s matter indicate t h a t i t would be possibl-e f o r t h i s valuation t o be acted upon by defendant Board of County Commissioners on o r before July 1, without waiting u n t i l t h a t l a s t possible moment before the second Monday i n July. Under the 1889 Montana Constitution, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e followed a c l e a r policy of insulating an o f f i c e r ' s compensation from any a l t e r a t i o n , f o r p o l i t i c a l or other reasons, during h i s term of office. A r t . V , Sec. 31, 1889 Montana Constitution; Section 25- 609, R.C.M. 1947; Shubat v. State of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 484 P.2d 278. Thus, a public o f f i c e r was denied a pay r a i s e during h i s term of office. Montana has since abandoned such an a r b i t r a r y approach. The l e g i s l a t u r e and the e l e c t o r a t e have removed c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s t o allow s a l a r i e s of o f f i c e r s t o be responsive t o changes i n the amount of work required of t h e i r offices. The l e g i s l a t u r e has chosen a s a l a r y formula based on population and taxable valuation of the county. These yardsticks a r e f a i r measures of the amount of work required of these o f f i c e r s . But t o use the taxable valuation of the previous year a s appellant argues, whether it be l a r g e r o r smaller, would defeat the whole purpose of t h e constitutional and l e g i s l a t i v e changes; it would be impossible f o r s a l a r i e s t o achieve a current and responsive level. Every public o f f i c e r would receive h i s pay r a i s e or decrease one year l a t e r . B y choosing July 1, the l e g i s l a t u r e has attempted t o make a l l such changes consistent with the s t a r t of the county f i s c a l year. Appellant's argutrent would further allow f o r t h e very abuses t h i s Court sought t o q u e l l i n Shubat v, State of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 150, 484 P.2d 278. There t h i s Court said, c i t i n g from Jackson v. Porter, 57 Mont. 343, 188 P. 375: 'I* ; k * t h e sole purpose of the constitutional limitations i s t o remove from the sphere of temp- t a t i o n every public o f f i c e r whose o f f i c e i s created by t h e Constitution and whose o f f i c i a l conduct i n the remotest degree might be influemedby t h e hope of reward or the fear of punishment." To allow, a s appellant urges, t h e taxable valuation t o be determined e i t h e r before o r a f t e r the date of fixing these s a l a r i e s would open up the p o s s i b i l i t y of exerting influence by increase o r decrease of salary. Certainly t h e constitutional r e s t r i c t i o n against change has been l i f t e d , but undue influence i n branches of s t a t e and local government i s never t o be tolerated. Appellant i n i t s b r i e f , c i t i n g 35 Attorney ~ e n e r a l ' s Opinions, No. 33, s t a t e s t h a t i f the taxable valuation is not completed u n t i l a f t e r July 1 of the f i s c a l year, then the statutory schedule -- -- i n e f f e c t on the f i r s t day of the f i s c a l year must be used. That opinion was issued j u s t p r i o r t o the f i l i n g of the i n s t a n t s u i t and i s deserving of our consideration; however, we f e e l i t is i n e r r o r on two points. F i r s t , the salary schedule discussed i n secti-on 25-605, R.C.M. 1947, i s not the amount of t h e salary paid, but the formula f o r i t s determination. This formula o r schedule i s only open t o l e g i s l a t h e changes and i s n3t affected by when the taxable valuation of the county i s fixed. The attorney general's opinion i n f e r s the schedule i t s e l f i s subject t o change, which we f e e l i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Second, t h a t same opinion i n f e r s t h a t valuation i s not due u n t i l the second Hmday i n August under section 84-3805, R.C.14. 1947. However, t h i s section i s s e t t i n g out the time f o r fixing the r a t e of taxation, not the taxable valuation, which i s s e t out a s on o r before the second Monday i n July. Section 84-406, R.C.M. 1947. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. J u s t i c e (I W e Concur: Chief J u s i c e Justices.