Opinion ID: 887060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Deference to the Board

Text: ¶ 10 Initially, we note that the law affords discretion to the Board in its administration of the school land trust. In State v. Babcock (1966), 147 Mont. 46, 51, 409 P.2d 808, 811, we explained that [T]he State Board of Land Commissioners has considerable discretionary power.... If the `largest measure of legitimate and reasonable advantage' from the use of state lands is to accrue to the state, then the State Land Board must, necessarily, have a large discretionary power. We further explained that this power was inherent in the general and discretionary powers conferred by the constitution, and necessary for the proper discharge of its duties.... Babcock, 147 Mont. at 51, 409 P.2d at 811. Finally, we affirmed that discretion in Montanans for the Responsible Use of the School Trust v. Darkenwald, 2005 MT 190, 328 Mont. 105, 119 P.3d 27 ( Montrust II ), where, when faced with an evaluation of the Board's method of determining fair market value, we stated, we will not `control the discretion of the board unless it appears that the action of the board is arbitrarily and, in effect, fraudulent.' Montrust II, ¶ 52 (citing Toomey v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs (1938), 106 Mont. 547, 562, 81 P.2d 407, 415). This is not to say the Board has unfettered discretion, or that its discretion is unlimited. Babcock, 147 Mont. at 52, 409 P.2d at 811. However, it is clear that the Board's obligation as trustee is a complex one, that the obligation is governed by constitutional and statutory provisions which grant authority to the Board over the trust, and that these provisions grant large or considerable discretion to the Board in the performance of its duties. ¶ 11 In addition to the discretion granted to the Board as the administrator of the trust, the law entitles the Board, as a state agency, to respectful consideration of its long and continued course of consistent interpretation of § 77-1-202, MCA, which it has administered for many years. Montana Power Co. v. Public Service Comm., 2001 MT 102, ¶ 25, 305 Mont. 260, ¶ 25, 26 P.3d 91, ¶ 25. This consideration can be overcome by compelling indications. Montana Power, ¶ 25; see also Glendive Med. Ctr. v. Mont. Dep't of Public H.H.S., 2002 MT 131, ¶¶ 14-15, 310 Mont. 156, ¶¶ 14-15, 49 P.3d 560, ¶¶ 14-15.