HELENA -- When the Montana House last year killed a measure to set up controversial "anti-bullying'' policies in schools, opponents thought that was the end of it.

But on Friday, the appointed Board of Public Education decided to require such a policy in all Montana schools by this fall.

"You have an express opinion of the Legislature as far as public policy, and a board that doesn't agree with it goes ahead and implements it anyway,'' grouses Rep. Gary Maclaren, R-Victor, who voted against the bill at the 2005 session.

It's not the only time a state board or agency has taken or is considering such action.

The Board of Environmental Review right now is examining rules that would impose requirements on power plants and coal-bed natural gas wells -- requirements rejected by the Legislature.

These and other actions have roused Republican lawmakers, some of whom are questioning how the executive branch can simply enact rules and regulations that appear contrary to legislative wishes.

"I think the rule-making process is used to enact law adopted by the Legislature -- rather than use the rule-making process to enact law,'' says Rep. Alan Olson, R-Roundup.

It's not a new question. State government is populated by scores of appointed boards, some of which have constitutional authority to set policy.

State agencies also constantly adopt "administrative rules,'' which spell out how laws are implemented.

Yet some Republicans say it seems like actions going against the Legislature's wishes are on the rise.

"I believe the people of Montana are very opposed to this,'' says Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman. "They elect legislators to make laws and repeal laws. They do not willingly cede that power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.''

Board chairs and members -- and state agency directors -- say they are acting within the law and for the public interest.

A leading Democrat also says it's not unusual for boards and agencies to take action "to protect the public,'' because that's the job of the executive branch.

House Democratic Leader Dave Wanzenried of Missoula also says it's natural to have tension between the executive and legislative branches of government: "It's good to debate how far the power goes.''

The anti-bullying issue may offer the clearest example of a board exercising its authority, regardless of legislative action.

During the 2005 Legislature, a bill requiring schools to adopt the policy passed the Senate, but ran into opposition in the House. It was controversial because it contained language saying anti-bullying policies should protect people harassed because of their "sexual orientation.''

A House committee removed that language and changed the bill to say school districts and the Board of Public Education should work toward requiring anti-bullying policies.

It still failed, on a 50-50 party-line vote, with Republicans voting against it.

Steve Meloy, executive director of the board, says the board actually opposed the initial bill, saying it had the power to require the policy -- and intended to do so.

"It died on our promise to take it up and now we're being criticized (for doing that),'' he says.

The board, whose members are appointed by the governor, sets policy for the state's public schools.

The policy passed by the board on Friday makes no mention of "sexual orientation'' or any other classification of person. But the board did recommend that "sexual orientation'' be included in a model policy, which it said should spell out who may be the target of bullying.

Maclaren says the board is doing exactly what the Legislature voted against.

"The Legislature is supposed to be the voice of the people, and this was their expressed will,'' he says. "I really think the solution down the road will be some sort of legislative oversight of each new rule.''

The Board of Environmental Review has yet to take final action on some contentious rules, such as ones requiring "re-injection'' of water from coal-bed natural gas wells.

Coal-bed wells produce thousands of gallons of salty water, and some environmentalists say it should be placed back into the ground or treated before it's released. Gas producers say re-injection is expensive and may not be technically sound.

The board also is looking at a new standard for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Both proposals are petitions by environmental groups. Elements of both proposals also were contained in bills that failed before the 2005 or 2003 legislatures.

Olson says he's all for environmental protection, but that big policy questions like water disposal from gas wells or mercury standards for power plants should be left to the Legislature.

"That's the job of people who are elected, not political appointees,'' he says. "Those appointed board members are political appointees.''

The chairman of the Board of Environmental Review is Joe Russell, head of the city-county health department in Kalispell. He was appointed and reappointed by GOP governors.

Russell says he sees no problem with the board deciding on the regulations, which have a thorough public process of testimony, hearings and scientific review.

Board members will consider the evidence and the consequences of any new regulation, he says.

"There is not one person on this board who is taking this issue lightly,'' he says.

As for the legislative action, Russell says there are many reasons for bills getting killed, and it's not always because the proposal is a bad idea. The board has more time and more evidence before it than the Legislature, and probably more expertise, he adds.

Still, Republican lawmakers say they see an overreaching government in many of these actions, ignoring the will of the Legislature.

"I think what it's getting down to is we have the executive branch (of government) that has grown and grown and grown,'' says Rep. John Balyeat, R-Missoula. "They really have gotten to where they have most of the power. I think there's no longer a balance of power (with the Legislature).''