Opinion ID: 887060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Strict Accountability

Text: ¶ 24 Finally, we address FOWS's brief argument that harvest-level accounting is required under § 77-1-202, MCA, by virtue of the strict accountability requirement of Article VIII, Section 12 of the Constitution, which provides: Strict accountability. The legislature shall by law insure strict accountability of all revenue received and money spent by the state and counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental entities. ¶ 25 Interpreting this provision, we have stated that [t]he Constitution indicates that the strict accountability function is not self-executing. Reep v. Board of County Commissioners (1981), 191 Mont. 162, 169, 622 P.2d 685, 689. The provision directs the legislature to implement the provision by law, and, as such, it is up to the Legislature to create the statutory means which ensure strict accountability. In Reep, the Legislature, in the context of county government audits, required the Department of Community Affairs to conduct comprehensive audits, instead of leaving that task to the county auditor. Reep, 191 Mont. at 169, 622 P.2d at 688-89. The effect of that decision was to recognize that the Legislature had significant discretion in creating a statutory scheme which satisfied the strict accountability mandate. See also, Grossman v. State Dep't of Natural Res. (1984), 209 Mont. 427, 464, 682 P.2d 1319, 1338 (holding that DNRC's issuance of coal tax severance bonds for water resource development did not violate the strict accountability requirement). Such discretion is necessary given the breadth and diversity of monies spent and received by various agencies of the State of Montana, and the peculiar accounting difficulties that may be faced in some agencies and not in others. ¶ 26 Here, the Legislature responded to the need for strict accountability by enacting, § 77-1-223, MCA, requiring annual detailed trust reports to all beneficiaries, and § 77-1-224, MCA, describing exactly how certain revenue must be calculated and reported to the beneficiaries. These provisions constitute the Legislature's effort to ensure accountability. ¶ 27 FOWS does not argue that these statutes are unconstitutional for failing to ensure strict accountability. Instead, it appears to argue that § 77-1-202, MCA, must be read as requiring harvest-level accounting to give effect to the constitutional mandate for strict accountability. However, the Legislature clearly addressed strict accountability of trust revenues and administration costs by enacting the statutes addressed above. We cannot conclude that, in order to ensure strict accountability, a harvest-level accounting requirement must also be mandated.