|
be removed except for malfeasance or nonfeasance in office. Sykes v. City of Minneapolis , 124 Minn. 73, 77,
<br /> 144 N.W. 453, 455 (1913). Thus, the legislature is given broad power to provide for removal of elected local
<br /> officials, so long as the basis therefor is "malfeasance"or"nonfeasance" in office.
<br /> • There is no constitutional requirement that removal of elected officials be by the vote of the electors. However,
<br /> there does appear to be such a requirement in the state statutes authorizing removal of elected officials pursuant
<br /> to city charters.
<br /> Article 12, section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that"the legislature may provide by law for the . . .
<br /> organization . . . of local government units and their functions . . . [and]for their elective and appointive officers. .
<br /> . ."Article 12, section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that any local government unit when authorized
<br /> la law may adopt a home rule charter city. This language allows the legislature to exercise control over the
<br /> actions of a home rule charter city. The legislature has specifically addressed the authority to provide for removal
<br /> of elected city officials by charter through the enactment of Minn. Stat. §410.20 (1994), which provides in part:
<br /> [S]uch commission may also provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and for removal of the officer
<br /> by vote of the electors of such city.
<br /> This language indicates that the charter commission has the authority to provide for the"removal" of elective
<br /> officials only by the vote of the electors. However, there may be some question as to whether the power to
<br /> provide for"recall" might permit some process for removal without the vote of the electors.
<br /> We think it does not. While there appears no direct authority in Minnesota on the meaning of the term "recall,"
<br /> examination of case law from other jurisdictions leads to the conclusion that"recall" is synonymous with
<br /> "removal"and requires the vote of the electors. See generally , 36 Words and Phrases, "Recall."
<br /> In Poprosky v. Shea, 21 Conn. App 351, 354, 573 A.2d 756, 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990), the court defined
<br /> "recall"as"a procedure where an elected official may be removed at any time during his term of office by a vote
<br /> of the people. . . ." In Collins v. Morris, 263 Ga. 734, 735, 438 S.E.2d 896, 897 (Ga. 1994), "recall"was defined
<br /> as "a procedure whereby it is the voter themselves who make the ultimate determination as to whether an official
<br /> should retain his office for the duration of the term to which he was elected." In Wallace v. Tripp , 358 Mich.
<br /> • 668,678, 101 N.W.2d 312, 314 (Mich. 1960), the court looked to the definition of"recall" in Webster's New
<br /> International Dictionary (2d Ed.) which defined "recall" to be "the right or procedure by which a public official . . .
<br /> may be removed from office, before the end of his term of office, by a vote of the people. . . ." The Wallace
<br /> definition appears in Black's Law Dictionary, 1433 (6th Ed. 1990), along with the following derived from Jones v.
<br /> Harlan, 109 S.W.2d 251, 254 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937): "A method of removal of official in which power of removal
<br /> is either granted to or reserved by the people."
<br /> Minn. Stat. §410.20 gives no indication that the term "recall" is intended to have a meaning other than that
<br /> related to the removal procedure requiring the vote of the electors. Thus, in our opinion, "recall,"as set out in
<br /> Minn. Stat. §410.20, requires the vote of the electors.
<br /> Furthermore, it is our view that the removal provisions set out in Minn. Stat. §410.20 are the exclusive methods
<br /> for removal of elected officials which a charter may provide. The power of the legislature to provide for the
<br /> removal of officers is exclusive pursuant to art. 8, § 5. State v. Essling , 268 Minn. 151, 128 N.W.2d 307, 311
<br /> (Minn 1964), citing Sykes v. City of Minneapolis, 124 Minn. 73, 144 N.W. 453,455, (Minn. 1913).
<br /> As the subject of removal of officers is within legislative control, where that body prescribes a manner and
<br /> method of removal, it is exclusive. Brandt v. Thompson , 91 Minn. 279, 97 N.W. 887 (1904). In this case, the
<br /> legislature has prescribed a method of removing elected officials in a home rule charter city in Minn. Stat. §
<br /> 410.20. Following the holding in Brandt, the removal of elected officials by the vote of the electors, as set out in
<br /> Minn. Stat. § 410.20, would be exclusive, and the proposed charter amendment would not be permissible as it
<br /> does not allow the electors to vote on the issue.
<br /> This conclusion finds further support under the doctrine of expressio unius est exlusio alterius which provides
<br /> that, in statutory interpretation, there is an inference that all omissions should be understood as exclusions.
<br /> Sutherland Stat. Const. §47.23 (5th Ed). A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way
<br /> carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing any other way. Sutherland Stat. Const. § 47.23 (5th
<br /> Ed). In this case, it means that because Minn. Stat. § 410.20 allows for the removal of elected officials by the
<br /> vote of the electors, the presumption arises that this is the exclusive method of removal of elected officials.
<br /> QUESTION TWO
<br /> Must the reasons for removal of an elected city official pursuant to the charter amount to malfeasance or
<br /> 2 of 3 http://www.ag.state.mn.us/office/opinions/0... 6/4/2003 5:58 PM
<br />
|