17-104
Montana Attorney General Opinion 17-104
Length: 778 wordsOfficial source
Cite as 17 Mont. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 104
Opinion No. 104.
Counties-Sessions--County Commis-
sioners--Meetings--Special,
Number of.
HELD:
County commissioners are
not limited in the number of special
meetings they may hold.
. Hon. S. L. Kleve
State Examiner
Capitol Building
Helena, Montana
Dear Sir:
May Ii. 193i.
On March 6, 1937 this office rendered
you an opinion holding that the Board
of County Commissioners (counties of
first, second. third, and fourth class not
included nor subject to) could hold
only one special meeting in each month,
in addition to the regular monthly
meeting.
(Opinion No. 80.)
This office now withdraws its opinion
of said date, to that part as specified
above, and substitutes the following
opinion in lieu thereof.
Sections 4462 and 4463, R. C. M. 1935,
constitute the only statutory authority
for meetings of a Board of County
Commissioners. The language used in
Section 4462 demands liberal construc-
tion: for instance. we find the words
"but' the Board may at any time. hold
an extra session." The words "may at
any time" negatives any implication
that only one special session should be
held each month, and that the session
must be held immediately after a regu-
lar session.
The words "may at any
time" must be construed liberally, and
in their common sense meaning. with a
view of meeting the exigencies con-
fr0nting- the Board in each particular
county. The words "may at any time"
must mean that the Board can meet
from time to time. and at such times.
as in their sound discretion is ncces-
sary.
The legislature in Section 4462
used a word of discretion when they
used such a word as "may" and not a
word of mandate.
It is obvious that a county having a
population of twelve to fifteen thousand
people would have more work to be
performed than would a county of from
two to five thousand, although both
counties may be in the same classifica-
tion. The amount, or number, of duties
that may arise, and the time needed to
perform those duties, cannot be mathe-
matically forecast.
In addition to the
routine duties. made mandatory, to be
performed by the Board of County
Commissioners. there will be many
emergency duties, such as arise from
the destruction of bridges and roads by
floods, destruction of county buildings
by fire-all of which require immediate
attention and none of which
can be
forecast by any Board. The perform-
ance of all of these duties is made man-
datory upon the Board, and failure to
perform such duties would mean legal
liability either upon the individ ualmem-
bers of the Board or the county. If the
Board can meet only at specified and
limited times. the Board in many cases
would find it impossible to perform
these duties. or. if these duties arose at
a time when the Board was not in
session, it certainly follows that if it is
the duty of the Board to perform the
duties, and if they were not permitted
to meet. they would be acting in an
absurd position. and the county's func-
tioning would become impaired and
perhaps impotent.
The electors of each county have
placed a mandate upon these individual
members of the Board to perform the
~xecutive functions of the county, and
It must be assumed that this Board will
perform its duty, and it certainlv fol-
lows that the Board of County"Com-
missioners is in a better position to
judge the necessity of its meeting. and
the amount of work and duties to be
performed. than is this office.
Former Attorneys General have taken
a contrary position upon this matter.
and our Supreme Court has never
adjudicated the same. However. in the
case of Gallatin County vs. R. J. Pasha,
in the Ninth Judicial District of the
State of Montana. in a very carefully
reasoned opinion, it was held that the
Board of County Commissioners could
meet for such number of special ses-
sions. and at such times. upon the giv-
OPl:\'IONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
113
ing of two days' notice, as the work
demanded.
In this opinion, the court
mentioned other authorities, and cited:
Morse vs. Granite County, 44 )'10nt.
78;
Jones vs. Carver, 38 Pac. 332.
It is, therefore. my opinion that the
Board of County Commissioners. in any
class county, can call special sessions
upon the giving of two days' notice, and
said notice of meeting may be given
while the Board is either in or out of
session, and in such numbers and at
such times in each month as necessity
decrees, and that the Board of County
Commissioners, in any class county, is
not limited to the numbet; of special
meetings it can hold.