Msc Correspondence & Term Limit Docs

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Long FROM: Dan Grcensweig DATE: December 19. 1995 RE: Charter Commission The Legislature "may require that [charter] commission members be freeholders. provide for their appointment by judges of the district court, and permit any member to hold any other elective or appointive office other than judicial " Minn. Const. art. 12, § 5. It is not clear, however, whether the Legislatures powers under this language are subject to the restriction that "the legislature of this state may provide for removal of inferior officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties." Minn. Const. art. 8, § 5 (emphasis added). This latter constitutional clause has been construed to mean that an inferior officer may not constitutionally be removed from office except on these grounds. Jacobsen v. Nagel, 96 N.W 2d 569(Minta. 1959). There is no doubt that a charter commission member is an "officer." State cx rel. Peterson v. Fraser, 254 N.W. 776, 780 (Minn 1934). Significantly, appointed municipal officers are more likely than elected officers to be subject to removal without adherence to constitutional limitations on such removal. Cf. Sykes v. City of Minneapolis. 144 N.W. 453, 455 (Minn. 1913) Especially "[wjhere no tenure of office is fixed by law, and no provision is made for the removal of the incumbent, the power of removal is a necessary incident to the power of appointment." Parrish City of St Paul,87 N.W. 1124. 1125 (Minn. 1901). _ Neverthelcss, the right to remove an appomtcd officer is not unfettered. "When a statute creates an office for a fixed term, the right to remove is not incident to the power to Appoint. State-ex rel: - - village of Chisholm v. Bergeron, 194 N.W. 624, 624 (Minn. 1923). Particularly when a commission is clearly meant to have independent authority, an inference can be made that removal must only be for "cause." Id. at 625: see also State cx rel. Todd v. Essiing, 128 N.W.2d 307, 311 n.4 (Minn. 1964) (after appointment made by executive branch to fixed-term office. removal may only be for malfeasance or nonfeasance). Several factors suggest that removal of a charter commission member is restricted to at least some degree. A chatter commission member is appointed to a fixed term. Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd. 2 (1994). Moreover, the attorney general has likened that position to a "legislative office." the implication being that charter commissions should have a good deal of autonomy. Op. Atty. Gen 358-E-i (1946). Finally, Charter commissions derive made that a charterr origination ddirectly from member constitution. Hence, a reasonably strong argument DJG9?069 Mu125-t1