Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-485

Opinion No. 485. Water Conservation Board-Claims- Expenses, TI·a.velling and l\faintenance -Pel' Diem Expenses. HELD: Chapter 35, Laws of the E~traordin~ry Session, 1933, dealing With a particular group of persons and restricted to them, provides that the membp.rs of the Water Conservation Board shall receive "actual traveling and maintenance expenses." March 7, 1934. I ha,:e your request for an opinion concernmg Claim No. 598708 executed by It. R. Purcell, a member of the Wa- ter Conservation Board. You ask two specific questions. "1. Did the same Legislative Assemhly limit persons en- gage? in the service of the State, .both e~ectIve antI appointive, to $4.00 per dIem expense, but make an exception to the allowance in the case of the 'Va- ter Conservation Board, which may do nothing further than spend $100,000.00 of the taxpayers' money?" 2. "May a warrant be legally issued for expense items in excess of $4.00 per day·!" If the first question be answered in the affirmative, it follows that a war- rant may be legally issued for the items in excess of $4.00 per day. It is possible the legislature did make an exception in favor of the Water Conservation Board. The Act provides (Sec. 3, Oh. 35, Laws Extraordinary Session, Twenty-third assembly) that the members shall receive "actual trav- eling and maintenance expenses." This Act deals especially with a par- ticular group of persons and is restrict- ed to them. Chapter 32 of the same seSSion, amending a prior act in other particulars, is general in its scope. A proviSion for a limited expense is in- consistent with a provison for allow- ~nce of actual expense. The Water Conservation Act was passed and ap- proved alter Chapter 32. In a majority of jurisdictions a spe- cial law, local or restricted in its oper- ation, which is positively repugnant to a former general law, impliedly repeals and supersedes the former general law \\ithin the limits to which the special law applies, or at least creates an ex- ception to the former general law. (59 C. J. 937, and cases cited in Note 25.) It is not essential to determine this OPIXIOXS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 333 question, howe\'er. for members of the 'Vater Consenation Board are not per- sons affected by Chapter 32, as pre- scribed lIy the terms of the act itself. You will note that Section 1 of Chap- ter 32, applies to two classes of per- sons: (1) Persons whose duties con- sist of full or partial time in traveling to perform any services for the state undet· monthly or yearly salary, includ- ing elective and appointh'e officers; (2) persons who are nQt the authorized executives of any department but who may be sent by any authorized execu- tive of any department upon a special mission. The Water ConserYation Act fixes the compensation of an appointed mem- ber of the Board at $10.00 per day for each day actually engaged in the per- formance of. the dutes of his office, so that Mr. Purcell does not come within the class of persons on monthly or year- ly salaries. Neither does he come with- in the second class because he is not one sent by command of any executive of any department on a special mis- sion. On the contrary, he is one of the executives of the department himself and is commanded by the law to attend meetings of the Board and not by any order of any executive. For these reasons it is my opinion tha t the items may be paid.