Court Opinion

ID: 9793415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:47:15.511308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:53.448023
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(dissenting)—I have signed the dissent by Judge Mallery, but wish to add my own comment respecting the reasoning of the majority.
The majority opinion all but concedes that the applicable statute authorized the P.U.D. commissioners (at a subsequent hearing) to increase or decrease the annual budget; *242i.e., after it was filed on September 2, 1959. However, by a process of interpretation, the majority reaches a conclusion that inclusion in the budget filed on September 2, 1959, of the words, “to be raised by taxation . . . none,” restricts and limits the statutory power conferred upon the commissioners by the legislature itself.
At this point I pose a question, which I confess seems to me pointlessly naive because its answer appears so obvious. Where does the commission obtain its power to act—from the state legislature or from the state supreme court? Furthermore, is it the legislature or the court which determines the public policy of our state that is controlling respecting the actions of the commission?
The majority opinion certainly suggests that the commission could increase or decrease its budget, provided the changes involve revenue from sources other than taxation. However, the budget filed on September 2, 1959, affirmatively stated, and affirmatively gave notice regarding expenditures and items of revenue other than from taxation.
The crux of the matter seems to be that the majority thinks that the commission is irrevocably bound as to any statements it happens to make regarding taxation, but is not so bound as to any statements that may be made regarding expenditures and items of revenue from sources other than taxation. No such distinction is spelled out in the applicable statute. It appears to me that any such distinction is conceived purely and simply as a matter of emotional reaction of the majority regarding the mention of taxation in the commission’s budget.
On the basis of the foregoing, I have concurred in the dissenting opinion written by Judge Mallery.
January 13, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.