No, 12391
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
RALPH GILDROY, a n i n d i v i d i u a l c i t i z e n ,
and t h e South C e n t r a l Montana Development
F e d e r a t i o n , a n unincorporated a s s o c i a t i o n
of c o u n t i e s , a c t i n g by and through i t s Board
of Directors,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
FORREST H. ANDERSON, Governor of t h e S t a t e
o f Montana,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellants :
Hickman and Moore, Harlowton, Montana
P e r r y J. Moore argued, Harlowton, Montana
Charles Maris, Roundup, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L, Woodahl, Attorney Geneql, Helena,
Montana
Charles Dickman, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana
Submitted: March 1, 1973
Filed: MAR 2 8 1973
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court
of Lewis and Clark County granting a motion to dissolve a tem-
porary restraining order, originally issued by the district
court of Musselshell County, and granting motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs and appellants, Ralph Gildroy and the South
Central Montana Development Federation, initiated this litigation
in the district court of Musselshell County, and on September 3,
1971, that court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
Governor Forrest Anderson from implementing Executive Order No.
2-71. Governor Anderson filed a motion for change of venue to
Lewis and Clark County and a motion to dismiss. The motions were
denied by the Musselshell County district court and that denial
was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. This Court vacated
the district court order and ordered the cause transferred to
Lewis and Clark County. On September 6, 1972, the Lewis and
Clark County district court entered the order from which this
appeal is taken,
There appears to be no dispute as to the facts. South
Central Montana Development Federation is a private unincorporated
association of persons from Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell,
Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Carbon, Yellowstone and Big Horn Counties,
whose purpose is stated to be promotion of economic and social
development in those counties, It appears a "Board of Trustees"
controls the Federation and that Ralph Gildroy is a member trustee
for Musselshell County.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 13 adapted by the 42nd Montana
Legislative Assembly in February 1971, was entitled:
"A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA RESPECT-
FULLY URGING THE HONORABLE FORWST H. ANDERSON,
GOVERNOR, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO RETAIN THE SOUTH-CENTRAL
MONTANA DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION INTACT."
It provided in pertinent part:
"That it is the wish of the Montana state senate
and house of representatives that the south-central
Montana development federation continue as it is
presently constituted [naming the eight member counties]
and that it not be divided for purposes not related
to the economic and social well-being of the people
of the area",
In August 1971, Governor Anderson issued Executive Order
No. 2-71 dividing the fifty-six counties of the State of Montana
into twelve multi-county districts, stating in pertinent part:
"A consistent use of districts is also needed for
effective coordination of a wide range of federal-aid
programs, and to meet the objectives of the Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the Presi-
dent, for implementation of federal acts providing
state assistance in planning, housing, education, wel-
fare, community development, environmental protection
and other fields1'.
Three counties of the Federation, Musselshell, Wheatland
and Golden Valley were placed in District 6 along with Fergus,
Judith Basin and Petroleum Counties. The rest of the Federation
counties were placed in and comprised District 7, under Executive
Order 2-71.
The Federation and Mr. Gildroy assert that the governor
did not heed the wishes of the legislature in districttng under
Executive Order 2-71 and assign two issues for review:
1, Whether a Joint Legislative Resolution has any force
and effect or whether it is a nullity,
2, Whether Senate Joint Resolution No. 13 directed the
governor to refrain from a particular act.
Considering the second of the two presented issues, we find,
from an examination of Senate Joint Resolution No. 13,that its
directive portion merely states:
"* * * it is the wish of the Montana senate and house
of representative-at the south-central Montana
development federation continue as it is presently
constituted * * * and that it not be divided for
purposes not related to the economic and social well-
being of the people of the area ".(Emphasis added)
It is a judicial principle too aften repeated to require
citation, that courts in construing a statute or rule will give
effect to the plain language used in its ordinary meaning and
consider the statute in its entirety to determine legislative
intent. Although Senate Joint Resolution No. 13 is neither a
statute nor a rule, this principle nonetheless applies.
A fair and reasonable reading of the entire Senate Joint
Resolution No, 13 indicates to this Court: (1) That it is not a
directive, and (2) that it does not preclude the action taken
by the Governor in Executive Order 2-71.
Perhaps, as appellants suggest, the use of term "wish" is
attributable to poor draftsmanship. However, that does not make
"wish" synonymous with "direct",
We do not believe the South Central Montana Development
Federation cannot now 'I continue as it is presently constituted."
Executive Order 2-71 is directed only to "all state agencies,
departments, boards, commissions, divisions, bureaus, offices
and other state governmental entities." The order is not directed
to counties or municipalities, nor is it directed toward private
individuals or unincorporated associations such as appellants
herein. Executive Order 2-71 does not divide the South Central
Montana Development Federation; it does provide geographic districts
for use by state agencies,
Appellants' issue concerning whether a joint legislative
resolution is a nullity, is not susceptible to a universally
applicable answer. Appellants point out that joint legislative
resolutions can properly be used for such purposes as to ratify
amendments to the United States Constitution, create committees
whose terms continue beyond the adjournment of the legislature,
and direct that studies or inventories be made by the legislative
council. Respondent points out that joint legislative resolutions
do not have the force and effect of a general law, citing State
ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P, 497.
The effect and validity of a joint legislative resolution
must be decided upon a consideration of the purpose intended to
be accomplished and in light of the applicable provisions of the
Montana Constitution,
Article VII, Section 1, of the Montana Constitution
provides that the governor "shall perform such duties as are
prescribed in this constitution and by the laws of the state."
A joint legislative resolution is not a general law
and cannot be used to control the discretion of the governor.
The order appealed from is affirmed.