Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-296

Opinion No. 296. Governor - State Examiner - State Highway Commission-Examinations of State Board., and Commissions. HELD: 1. The Governor has au- thority to direct the State Examiner to make an examination of the Mon- tana State Highway Commission. 2. In the event of such examination the Commission is required to reim- burse the State Examiner's Perma- nent Revolving Fund for the salaries and expenses of such examination. Hon. Elmer Holt Governor of Montana The Capitol June 3, 1936. You have inquired (1) whether you are authorized to direct the State Ex- aminer to make an examination of the Montana Highway Commission; and (2) whether in the event of such ex- amination the Montana Highway Commission is required to reimburse the State Examiner's Permanent Re- volving Fund for the salaries and ex- pense of such examination. Section 124, R. C. M. 1921, provides: "In addition to those prescribed by the Constitution, the Governor has the power and must perform the du- ties prescribed in this and the fol- lowing sections: "1. He is to supervise the official conduct of all executive and minis- terial officers. " " * "13. He may require any officer or board to make special reports to him, upon demand, in writing." This section is also consistent wit~ OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 301 Section 5, Article VII of the Constitu- tion of the State of Montana, whip.h provides that the supreme executive power of the state shall be vested in the Governor, and with Section 10 of said Article VII, which provides that the Governor may require information in writing from the officers of the executive department upon any sub- ject relating to the duties of their re- spective offices. It is clear from the foregoing con- stitutional and statutory provisions that the Governor, in whom is vested the supreme executive power of the state, has the authority to direct the State Examiner to make an examina- tion of the Montana Highway Com- mission. Not only has the Governor such authority to direct the State Examiner but the State Examiner himself has been vested with author- ity to make special examinations when in his judgment it shall be deemed necessary. Chapter 93, Laws of 1923, as amended by Section 2, Chapter 167, Laws of 1929, reads as follows: "Special examinations may be made of any county, city, town, school district, irrigation district, high school, bank, building and loan association or any other office, board or commission, whether temporary or permanent, however created, and for whatever purpose, having the control, management, collection, or disbursement of any public money of any character or description, when in the judgment of the State Exam- iner it shall be deemed necessary, and such special examinations shall be charged for at the rate of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per day for each examiner employed for the time ac- tually consumed, together with the necessary transportation * * ;' ." (Emphasis ours.) See also my opinion in Volume 15, Opinions of Attorney General, page 207. As to the second question, House Bill 532, Laws of 1935, page 488, pro- vides: "There is further appropriated from the general fund, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ............ $5,000.00 for the purpose of creating a perma- nent revolving fund to be known as the State Examiner's permanent re- volving fund. The salaries and ex- pense of all examinations of the State Liquor Control Board, the Montana Relief Commission, the Montana Fish and Game Department and of all spe- cial examinations of any state office, department or agency, shall be paid from this revolving fund, and such board, commission, department or agency, shall reimburse said fund in an amount equal to thc entire expense incurred in making such examination or examinations, so that this fund may become a permanent revolving fund for the purpose of meeting the expense incurred in making special or unusual examinations as above set forth." (Emphasis ours.) The Montana Highway Commission comes within the meaning of "any state office, department or agency" as well as "such board, commission, department or agency." It is therefore my opinion that both questions should be answered in the affirmative.