Montana Attorney General Opinion 17-129

Opinion No. 129. E1ections-Bonds-Schoo1s and School Districts. HELD: 1. Since the enactment of Chapter 172, Laws 1937, only those electors may vote or sign petition for bond election in school district. who have registered since June I, 1937, and who are taxpayers whose names appear on last assessment roll next preceding the election. 2. To authorize issuance of school bonds, 40% of qualified electors of the district entitled to vote must have voted thereon. 3. One must reside within the dis- trict to be a qualified elector, even tho he may own property within the dis- trict. July 30, 1937. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 16 Mr. R. E. Sonneman, Superintendent Harlowton, Montana Gentlemen: You have submitted to this office the inquiry as to ho\\' you shall cletermine and base the number of signers upon a petition to bond a school district for the construction of a new high school and gymnasium, and further, upon what basis shall the number of voters be determined at such election. You also desire to know as to whether or not at such election a land owner within the district, but who resides without the district, may vote. Section 1252 provides that no election for the issuance of bonds of any school district shall be called, except upon presentation to the board of school trustees of a petition signed by at least twenty per cent of the qualified regis- tered voters who are taxpayers upon property within said school district. Section 1253 provides that in all elec- tions held for the issuance of bonds of any school district, only qualified reg- istered electors, who are taxpayers upon property therein, and whose names appear upon the assessment-roll for the year next preceding such elec- tion, shall be entitled to vote thereat. Chapter 7 of the 1937 Session La.ws provides that whenever the questIOn of issuing bonds is submitted to the qualified electors of a school district at either a general or special school elec- tion not less than forty (40) per centum of the qualified electors en- titled to vote on such question at such election must vote thereon, otherwise such question shall be deemed to have been rejected; provided, however, that if forty (40) per centum or more of such qualified electors do vote on such question at such election, and a m~­ jority of such votes shall be cast 111 favor of such proposition, then such proposition shall be deemed to have been approved and adopted. Under sections 1252 and 1253 both the petitioner and the voter must be a qualified registered elector, and the question to be determined is, who are qualified registered electors. Chapter 172 of the 1937 Session Laws provides that in all the counties within the state the county clerk shall cancel all registrations of electors in the coun- ty. The county c.1erk is r~quired .by said chapter to gIve a notIce stat1l1g that all registrations of electors will be canceled as of the first day of June, 1937 and the statute brther expressly prov'ides in section I that: H* * * duly qualified electors, de- sIring to vote at any subsequent elec- OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 141 tion in the State of Montana, are re- quired to register in the manner and form provided for under the general registration laws. * * *" On June 1 all of the old registrations were canceled. and in order to entitle a person to vote again he is required to register. Therefore, if the person has not re-registered after June I, and until such time as he does register, he can- not come within the terms of Sections 1252 and 1253 and be deemed "quali- fied registered elector," and therefore in determining the number of signers upon a petition, as well as determin- ing the number of persons who vote in the proposed bond election, you shall base your computation upon the num- ber of persons who have actually reg- istered since June 1, 1937. You are advised that a person not residing within the school district, and having his residence without the school district, although he owns real estate or property within the school district, is not entitled to vote at a school elec- tion. 'Opinion No. 130. Cities and Towns--Contracts--Emer- gency-Public Officers--Pur- chase of Warrants. . HELD: The question of existence of an emergency to justify the making of a contract by a city council without q.lling for competitive bids is one of fact upon which we cannot express an opinion. Where resolution or measure passed by city council merely recited that an emergency existed, it is a conclusion and does not substantially comply with the requirements of Section 5060. A contract extending over a period of twenty years for repair of water plant made by city council is in viola- tion of Section 5070 and is void and payment of warrants on said contract should not be made by the city treas- urer. Contract for an even sum of $500 for a road grader made by town council does not violate Section 5070. The purchase of city warrants by a bank. the vice-president of which is the mayor of the town issuing the war- rants, does not constitute a violation of Sections 5069 or 447 R. C. M. 1935. Hon. W. A. Brown State Examiner The Capitol Dear Mr. Brown: July 30. 1937. You have submitted the following: "To enable this department to properly criticize the legality of pro- ceeding relative to certain contracts and also payment of certain warrants which are hereinafter more fully set out, we would like to have your opin- ion relative thereto. "The contracts referred to are in connection with the water tank and connection of the new wells. The first of these contracts was let at a special meeting, all members of the Council being present. The contract called for an expenditure of $3,185.00 and was let under the referred au- thority of Section 5060 R. C. M. 1935. There was also a contract let with the same contractor, W. A. Davis, for the inspection and repair of the tank over a period of twenty years at a fixed price of $150.00 per year. (These con- tracts were let July 10, 1936.) "Another special meeting was held July 15, 1936, the minutes showing that Alderman Berger was absent and at this meeting another contract was let to Mr. Davis to connect the new well with the city mains, move the pump house and other matters, for the sum of $2,000.00. "On July 16, 1936, at a regular meeting the Council approved and paid to Mr. Davis the sum of $1,000.00 on the first mentioned contract and the sum of $50~J.00 on the second mentioned contract. "At another special meeting held July 22, 1936, Councilman Berger was absent. The minutes of this said meeting and the special meeting of July 15. 1936, do not show that they were properly called or that Mr. Berger had been notified. At this meeting the Council approved twenty claims for Mr. Davis against the Town for $100.00 each. claims dated July 22. 1936, the first one payable August 9. 1936. and one each month thereafter. At the same time approval was made of thirty claims against the Town for $50.00 each. the first being payable August 14, 1936, and one each month thereafter. At this meet- ing on July 22nd the Council also