Providing that the highway patrol chief serves at the pleasure of the AG
Summary
HB 577 would change the appointment and tenure of the Montana Highway Patrol chief. Under current law, the attorney general selects the chief, who must hold the rank of colonel and serves under a for-cause removal framework tied to the state personnel provisions referenced in the statute. The bill replaces that structure with a simpler rule: the Highway Patrol chief would serve at the pleasure of the attorney general, meaning the chief could be removed without the existing for-cause process.
The bill also includes an applicability clause stating that it would apply only to appointments made on or after the effective date. That means it would not retroactively alter an existing chief’s appointment, but it would govern future selections if enacted. In practical terms, the measure would increase the attorney general’s direct control over the leadership of the Highway Patrol and reduce job protections for the chief position.
Impact
HB 577 would amend section 44-1-201 of the Montana Code Annotated, changing the legal standard governing the Highway Patrol chief’s tenure from a for-cause appointment to an at-will, pleasure-of-the-attorney-general arrangement. This would affect the relationship between the attorney general and the Highway Patrol leadership, potentially making the chief position more politically responsive and less insulated from removal. The bill would not appear to change the rank requirement of colonel, but it would alter the statutory protections and appointment framework for future chiefs.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance and encountered little visible support in committee, as the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously 20-0 to table it. There are no committee transcripts provided, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments for or against the measure. The unanimous tabling vote and the bill’s later status as dead in process indicate that the proposal did not gain traction in the legislative process.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the balance of authority between the attorney general and the Highway Patrol chief. Supporters would presumably favor giving the attorney general greater managerial control and flexibility over a key law enforcement leadership position, while opponents would likely object to removing for-cause protections and making the chief more vulnerable to political dismissal. Because the bill was tabled unanimously and no hearing transcript is available, the specific objections are not documented in the provided materials, but the tenure change itself is the main issue raised by the text.