Opinion ID: 883111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court err in affirming the Acting City Administrator's decision to modify Abbey's punishment?

Text: In an order dated October 2, 1992, the Acting City Administrator, Bruce McCandless (McCandless) confirmed the Police Commission ruling and modified the three-week suspension that the Commission had levied. McCandless stated that Abbey had violated the trust of the citizens of Billings by submitting an untruthful report. He, therefore, terminated Abbey from the police force. Abbey argues that the City Administrator acted beyond his authority. The City of Billings argues that the City Administrator has the jurisdiction to modify the decision of the Police Commission. In reviewing the actions of the City Administrator, the District Court concluded that the City Administrator had not exceeded his authority pursuant to § 7-32-4160, MCA, when he modified the ruling of the Police Commission. The law in effect at the time of the hearing before the Commission was the 1991 version of our codes. Section 7-32-4160, MCA (1991), reads: Decision by police commission  veto power of mayor. (1) The police commission must, after the conclusion of the hearing or trial, decide whether the charge was proven or not proven and shall have the power, by a decision of a majority of the commission, to discipline, suspend, remove, or discharge any officer who shall have been found guilty of the charge filed against him. (2) Such action of the police commission shall, however, be subject to modification or veto by the mayor, made in writing and giving reasons therefor, which shall become a permanent record of the police commission; provided, however, that where and when the police commission decides the charge not proven, the decision is final and conclusive and is not subject to modification or veto by the mayor or to any review. (3) Where the police commission decides the charge proven, the mayor, within 5 days from the date of the filing of such findings and decision with the city clerk, may modify or veto such findings and decision. (Emphasis added.) Section 7-32-4153, MCA (1991), describes a mayor as a: . . . . city manager, city commissioner, or any other name or designation used to identify or designate the chief executive of any city or municipality. It is clear from the wording of this statute that McCandless did not exceed his authority by modifying Abbey's punishment. The record shows that McCandless filed his modification within the time limit permitted by the statute. This Court upheld the plain meaning of this statute. In Gentry, 237 Mont. at 362-63, 773 P.2d at 315, the Police Commission recommended that three officers receive only temporary suspensions. The City Manager modified the ruling terminating all officers and we upheld that action. However, we note that the 1993 Legislature has deleted subsection (2) and (3) of § 7-32-4160. 1993 Mont. Laws 1661. That statute now reads: Decision by police commission. The police commission shall, after the conclusion of the hearing, decide the appeal and must have the power, by a decision of a majority of the commission, to sustain, modify, or overrule the disciplinary order of the mayor, city manager, or chief executive. This is a drastic departure from the 1991 version. We conclude that pursuant to the 1991 version of § 7-32-4160, MCA, the City Administrator had the authority to modify the decision of the Police Commission. We hold the District Court did not err in affirming the Acting City Administrator's decision to modify Abbey's punishment. Affirmed. HARRISON, TRIEWEILER, HUNT and GRAY, JJ., concur.