Brown v. Board of County Comm Rs

No. 12774

I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN

M R A E BROWN, G a l l a t i n County Superintendent of Schools, AG RT EARL BEST, G a l l a t i n County Surveyor, CARL STUCKY, G a l l a t i n County C l e r k and Recorder, IRIS WHITTLE, G a l l a t i n County T r e a s u r e r , WILLIAM JOHNSON, G a l l a t i n County Auditor, PAUL REESE, Clerk o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court of G a l l a t i n County, and L.D.W. ANDERSON, G a l l a t i n County S h e r i f f ,

P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

THE BOARD O C U T COMMISSIONERS O GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, F O NY F

Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Less l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For A p p e l l a n t s :

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A l l e n Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana

For Respondents :

Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Ronald K. Olson, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: November 19, 1974

.J/iC 1 2 ;gjq --1 . Decided : D f C 12 1974 Filed: - -

M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an appeal from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, Hon. W. W. Lessley p r e s i d i n g . P l a i n t i f f s a r e e l e c t e d county o f f i c e r s . They brought a d e c l a r a - t o r y judgment a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i r s a l a r i e s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 25-605 and 25-609.1, R..C.M. 1947, f o r t h e f i s c a l year J u l y 1, 1973 through June 30, 1974. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment r e a d : "That ' t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n ' t o b e 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 v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e new f i s c a l y e a r 1973-1974, and t h e defendants have a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y t o compute t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1373-1974 and pay s a l a r i e s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s based thereon. The ' t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n ' should be computed on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1 of each f i s c a l y e a r u s i n g t h e new f i g u r e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e defendants. I t Defendant r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l :

(1) Whether t h e r e i s a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1 of each f i s c a l y e a r . (2) Whether t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n o f a county which i s completed a f t e r J u l y 1 may be used t o compute s a l a r i ~ s county of o f f i c e r s f o r t h e following f i s c a l y e a r . Appellant i s t h e Board of County Commissioners o f G a l l a t i n County. I t s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i t cannot be compelled t o compi~te t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county p r i o r t o J u l y 1, because i t has u n t i l t h e second Monday i n J u l y t o a s s e s s t h e t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y under s e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e second Monday i n August t o a f f i x t h e m i l l l e v y under s e c t i o n 84-3505, R.C.M. 1947. In o t h e r words, a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e only v a l u a t i o n e x i s t i n g a s of J u l y 1 t o apply t h e s a l a r y formula t o i s t h a t of t h e previous year. On t h e o t h e r hand, respondent county o f f i c e r s maintain t h a t t h e

two s e c t i o n s , 84-406 and 84-3805, a r e n o t c o n t r o l l i n g s i n c e t h e only importance of s e c t i o n 84-406 i s t h a t i t s e t s t h e second Monday i n J u l y a s t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r e p o r t i n g t o t h e s t a t e d e p a r t - ment of revenue and s e c t i o n 84-3805 only concerns t h e time f o r fixing rates. Respondents urge t h a t t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n omitted

t h e former p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t changing a county o f f i c i a l ' s s a l a r y d u r i n g h i s term of o f f i c e , and s e c t i o n 25-609.1 imposes a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y t o compute t h e new t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of a county p r i o r t o J u l y 1. T h i s , respondents contend, would a l l o w s a l a r i e s t o be c u r r e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o demands o f t h e o f f i c e and would avoid a l a c k of u n i f o r m i t y and even i n f l u e n c e by t h e commissioners a s t o whether t o i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e s a l a r i e s . W agree with respondents' e position. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , county o f f i c i a l s have been paid according t o a s a l a r y formula based on t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n and population of t h e county computed j u s t p r i o r t o t h e i r e l e c t i o n . Under t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1889 a county o f f i c i a l could n o t r e c e i v e a pay i n c r e a s e d u r i n g t h e term of h i s o f f i c e . 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 p a i d more, o r on a d i f f e r e n t pay s c a l e t h a n o t h e r s , s i n c e they were e l e c t e d a t a d i f f e r e n t time and t h e r e were, consequently, d i f f e r e n t t a x v a l u a t i o n s . The 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n removed t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n and t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t u r e upgraded t h e county s a l a r i e s by amending s e c t i o n 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. T h i s change imposes a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o compute t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n p r i o r t o J u l y 1, t h e f i r s t day of t h e f i s c a l y e a r , and t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e amendment. The time f o r assessment and computing t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 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 t h e second Monday i n J u l y . The second Monday i n J u l y i s o n l y important by v i r t u e o f t h e r e q u i r e d r e p o r t i n g of t h i s v a l u a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e Department of Revenue. In addition, t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s m a t t e r i n d i c a t e t h a t i t would be possibl-e f o r t h i s v a l u a t i o n t o be a c t e d upon by defendant Board o f County Commissioners on o r b e f o r e J u l y 1, without w a i t i n g u n t i l t h a t l a s t p o s s i b l e moment b e f o r e t h e second Monday i n July. Under t h e 1889 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e followed a c l e a r p o l i c y of i n s u l a t i n g 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 o r o t h e r r e a s o n s , during h i s term o f office. A r t . V , Sec. 31, 1889 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ; Section 2 5 - 609, R.C.M. 1947; Shubat v. S t a t e of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 484 P.2d 278. Thus, a p u b l i c o f f i c e r was denied a pay r a i s e d u r i n g h i s term of o f f i c e . Montana has s i n c e 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 t h e 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 r e s p o n s i v e t o changes i n t h e amount of work r e q u i r e d of t h e i r o f f i c e s . 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 t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e county. These y a r d s t i c k s a r e f a i r measures of t h e amount of work r e q u i r e d of t h e s e o f f i c e r s . But t o u s e t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e previous year a s a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s , whether i t be l a r g e r o r s m a l l e r , would d e f e a t t h e whole purpose of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g i s l a t i v e changes; i t would be impossible f o r s a l a r i e s t o achieve a c u r r e n t and r e s p o n s i v e level. Every p u b l i c o f f i c e r would r e c e i v e h i s pay r a i s e o r d e c r e a s e one y e a r l a t e r . By choosing J u l y 1, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s attempted t o make a l l such changes c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a r t of t h e county f i s c a l year. A p p e l l a n t ' s argutrent would f u r t h e r 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 , S t a t e of Montana, 157 Mont. 143, 150, 484 P.2d 278. There t h i s Court s a i d , c i t i n g from Jackson v. P o r t e r , 57 Mont. 343, 188 P. 375: 'I* ;k * t h e s o l e purpose o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s i s t o remove from t h e sphere of temp- t a t i o n every p u b l i c o f f i c e r whose o f f i c e i s c r e a t e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and whose o f f i c i a l conduct i n t h e remotest degree might be i n f l u e m e d b y t h e hope of reward o r t h e f e a r o f punishment." To a l l o w , a s a p p e l l a n t u r g e s , t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n t o be determined e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e d a t e of f i x i n g t h e s e s a l a r i e s would open up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of e x e r t i n g i n f l u e n c e by i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e of s a l a r y . Certainly the constitutional r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t change has been l i f t e d , b u t undue i n f l u e n c e i n branches of s t a t e and l o c a l government i s never t o be t o l e r a t e d .

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 ' sOpinions, No. 33, s t a t e s t h a t i f t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n i s n o t completed u n t i l a f t e r J u l y 1 of t h e f i s c a l y e a r , then t h e --t o r y schedule statu -- i n e f f e c t on t h e f i r s t day of t h e f i s c a l y e a r must be used. That opinion was i s s u e d j u s t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e i n s t a n t s u i t and i s deserving of our c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; however, we f e e l i t i s i n e r r o r on two p o i n t s . F i r s t , t h e s a l a r y schedule d i s c u s s e d i n secti-on 25-605, R.C.M. 1947, i s n o t t h e amount of t h e s a l a r y p a i d , b u t t h e 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 n 3 t a f f e c t e d by when t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e county i s f i x e d . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s opinion i n f e r s t h e schedule i t s e l f i s s u b j e c t 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 o p i n i o n i n f e r s t h a t v a l u a t i o n i s n o t due u n t i l t h e second Hmday i n August under s e c t i o n 84-3805, R.C.14. 1947. However, t h i s s e c t i o n i s s e t t i n g out t h e time f o r f i x i n g t h e r a t e of t a x a t i o n , n o t t h e t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n , which i s s e t out a s on o r b e f o r e t h e second Monday i n J u l y . S e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

Justice (I

W Concur: e

Chief J u s i c e Justices.