STATE EX REL BRD OF PERSONNEL APP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13567 I N THE SUPREMZ C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1976 T E STATE O M N A A ex r e l . T E H F OTN H BOARD O PERSONNEL APPEALS, F Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT O T E FOURTH JUDICIAL F H DISTRICT O T E STATE O MONTANA, I N AND F H F FOR THE C U T O MISSOUTA, and T E HON. O NY F H JACK L. GREEN, P r e s i d i n g Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For R e l a t o r s : J e r r y L. P a i n t e r argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: P a t t e r s o n , M a r s i l l o , H a r r i s and Tornabene, Missoula , Montana Charles J. Tornabene argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: October 28, 1976 Decided : B O Y Q 3 1976 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g wherein r e l a t o r s s e e k an a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t t o r e v i e w an o r d e r of October 6, 1976, e n t e r e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i n a c a u s e pending i n s a i d court entitled: "Roger E. Bergmeier, P e t i t i o n e r , v s . The Montana S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals; B r e n t Cromley, Chairman of s a i d Board; t h e Montana S t a t e Department of Admini s t r a t i o n ; J a c k C . C r o s s e r , D i r e c t o r of s a i d Department; and t h e Montana S t a t e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and Conserv a t i o n , Gary Wicks, D i r e c t o r of s a i d Department, Respondents." Upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o u n s e l was h e a r d ex p a r t e and t h e m a t t e r t a k e n under advisement. was i s s u e d f o r a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g . Thereafter an order Such h e a r i n g h a s now been h e l d , b r i e f s f i l e d , c o u n s e l h e a r d i n o r a l argument, and t h e matter submitted. I t a p p e a r s t h a t r e l a t o r s o b j e c t t o t h e o r d e r above r e - f e r r e d t o b e c a u s e t h e y c o n t e n d it i s c o n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n 824209, R.C.M. 1947. The f a c t s a s d i s c l o s e d by t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s i s t h a t Bergmeier, a s t a t e employee, a p p e a l e d h i s wage c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Being d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l Appeals he p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a j u d i c i a l r e v i e w a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 82-4216, R.C.M. 1947. Subdivision ( 4 ) of t h a t s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : " ( 4 ) Within t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of t h e p e t i t i o n , o r w i t h i n f u r t h e r t i m e allowed by t h e c o u r t , t h e agency s h a l l t r a n s m i t t o t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t h e o r i g i n a l o r a c e r t i f i e d copy of t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d of t h e p r o c e e d i n g under r e v i e w . By s t i p u l a t i o n of a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e r e v i e w p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e c o r d may be s h o r t e n e d . A p a r t y unreasonably r e f u s i n g t o s t i p u l a t e t o l i m i t t h e r e c o r d may be t a x e d by t h e c o u r t f o r the additional costs. The c o u r t may r e q u i r e o r permit subsequent c o r r e c t i o n s o r a d d i t i o n s t o t h e record." S e c t i o n 82-4209, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 5 ) : " ( 5 ) The r e c o r d i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e s h a l l include: " ( a ) A l l pleadings, motions, intermediate rulings. " ( b ) A l l evidence received o r considered, inc l u d i n g a s t e n o g r a p h i c r e c o r d of o r a l proceedi n g s when demanded by a p a r t y . "(c) A s t a t e m e n t of m a t t e r s o f f i c i a l l y n o t i c e d . " ( d ) Q u e s t i o n s and o f f e r s of p r o o f , o b j e c t i o n s , and r u l i n g s t h e r e o n . "(e) Proposed f i n d i n g s and e x c e p t i o n s . "(f) Any d e c i s i o n , o p i n i o n o r r e p o r t by t h e h e a r i n g examiner o r agency member p r e s i d i n g a t t h e hearing. " ( 9 ) A l l s t a f f memoranda o r d a t a s u b m i t t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g examiner o r members o f t h e agency a s evidence i n connection with t h e i r consideration of t h e c a s e . " S u b s e c t i o n ( 6 ) of t h e same s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : " ( 6 ) The s t e n o g r a p h i c r e c o r d of o r a l p r o c e e d i n g s o r any p a r t t h e r e o f s h a l l be t r a n s c r i b e d on r e q u e s t o f any p a r t y . Unless o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e , t h e c o s t of t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s h a l l be p a i d by t h e requesting party." The Board d i d n o t t r a n s m i t t h e r e c o r d w i t h i n t h e 3 0 d a y s s e t by law, n o r f u r n i s h a t r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t e n o g r a p h i c record, but did f i l e with t h e d i s t r i c t court a tape recording. P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e o r d e r of October 6 , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had i s s u e d an o r d e r t o show c a u s e t o t h e e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r of t h e Board r e q u i r i n g him t o show c a u s e why he should n o t produce t h e r e c o r d of t h e o r a l p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Board. A t t h e show c a u s e h e a r i n g t h e Board contended it c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o supply a t r a n s c r i p t . Following t h e h e a r i n g t h e c o u r t entered t h e following order: " I n t h e above e n t i t l e d a c t i o n , t h e h e a r i n g t o show c a u s e why R o b e r t R. J e n s e n , A d m i n i s t r a t o r , Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals, s h o u l d n o t be o r d e r e d t o produce t h e w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e above e n t i t l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s , having come b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , and t h e C o u r t h a v i n g d u l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e same; " I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED t h a t t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s p r o v i d e t h i s C o u r t with a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of t h e o r a l proceedings b e f o r e t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s i n t h e above e n t i t l e d case." The Board a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t h a s s h i f t e d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f p a y i n g f o r t h e t r a n s c r i p t from t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g , p l a c i n g i t upon t h e Board h o l d i n g t h e h e a r i n g . However, t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r makes no p r o v i s i o n f o r payment, it merely p r o v i d e s t h a t a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of t h e o r a l proceedi n g s b e f u r n i s h e d , a l l as r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t o r y law. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t i s d e n i e d and t h e proceeding i s ordered d Chief J u s t i c e W e concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.