Justice of the Peace says separate EIN required; commissioners agree to file documentation

Kathy Rosencrantz, Carter County justice of the peace, told the County Commission she had secured a separate IRS employer identification number (EIN) for the Justice Court trust account and asked the commissioners to correct minutes and public statements that had suggested the EIN was improper.

Rosencrantz said the justice court’s trust account is managed under the judicial branch and described Montana Supreme Court directives, the Montana Uniform Trust Code and the IRS EIN guidance as the legal and administrative support for keeping a separate EIN. “That EIN number is under Carter County Justice Court. It is not under Kathy Rosencrantz,” Rosencrantz said during a public comment segment, adding the separate account preserves confidentiality for defendants and trust funds.

Rosencrantz described steps she had already taken: contacting the IRS Business Entity EIN line, working with First Community Federal Credit Union and receiving documentation from the Supreme Court project manager showing courts should hold discrete trust accounts under the court’s name. She said the county auditor initially left a voicemail questioning the practice but later told the justice court by email he was satisfied with the separate EIN.

County officials and court administrators discussed procedures for sharing the Supreme Court directive with county staff so auditors have a consistent paper trail. Rosencrantz asked for three items: an acknowledgement that justice courts operate independently under state law and Supreme Court directives; a correction in the meeting record to reflect the auditor’s updated confirmation; and a public apology printed in a newspaper for damage she said the prior public comment caused to court staff reputations. She said she remained willing to collaborate, but asserted that judicial financial independence is required by Montana law and court rules.

Commissioners asked Rosencrantz to provide a copy of the Supreme Court email she cited and requested that Rosencrantz drop off the documents so they could be added to county files. County staff said they would include the record excerpts and work with the county auditor to ensure the audit trail is clear for future audits. Rosencrantz agreed to provide written materials; she said she would drop them off the next day.

The commission did not take a formal vote on Rosencrantz’s requests at the meeting but asked staff to collect the referenced Supreme Court correspondence and the auditor’s emails and to report back at a future session.

Ending: County staff and the justice court agreed to exchange the Supreme Court directive and related email records so the auditor’s file, the county minutes and any future public notices reflect the updated confirmation. Rosencrantz said she would provide the documentation requested by the commission.