Agenda - Charter Commission - 01/28/1999

Home

II. Article XII, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution authorizes the legislature to provide for elective and appointive officers. Home rule cities enjoy the same authority. State ex rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Minn. 1958). In Rochester, city ordinances and the home rule charter exercise this authority by creating a number of appointive offices. Section 7.022 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter limits the number of consecutive terms a person may serve in the same appointive, office. That provision states, in part, as follows: [N]o appointed member of any board or commission of the City shall be eligible to serve on such board or commission more than six consecutive years or two consecutive terms whichever period of time is longer. As discussed above, the Minnesota Constitution does not authorize the legislature or a home rule city to adopt term limitations for elective offices. The remaining issue is whether the same conclusion applies for appointive offices. ~ The eligibility requirements provided by Article VII, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution clearly apply only to "any office elective by the people." By its very words, it does not apply to appointive offices. Furthermore, there are no provisions in the Minnesota Constitution which restrict the ability of the legislature or a home rule city to limit the number of terms of an appointive office a person may serve. Finally, the proposed Minneapolis charter provision which was considered and discussed in Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition, et al., vs. Merry Keefe, et al., did not apply to appointive offices. Based upon these facts, it is my opinion that Section 7.022 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter does not violate the Minnesota Constitution. The Charter may limit the number of terms of office for appointive offices. Perry L. Adkins ~-ity Attorney