Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c-- <br /> <br />c-- <br /> <br />construction" which the legislature had codified. Odegaard, 23 N.W. at 526-27 (citing Minn. <br /> <br />Gen. Stat. 1878, c. 4, ~ 1). See also Village of Chisholm. 217 N.W.2d at 683 (citing Minn. Gen. <br /> <br />Stat. ~ 10933 (1923)); Tucker, 97 N.W. at 408 (citing Minn. Gen. Stat. ~ 255 (1894)). <br /> <br />However, the Legislature repealed this rule of construction in 1941. Id.; 1941 Minn. <br /> <br />Laws c. 492, 44; M.S.A. ~ 10933, subd. 22 (1927). At the same time, it enacted a rule of <br />construction id~ntifying local units of government with precision.! 1941 Minn. Laws c. 492, ~_ <br />44, now Minn. Stat. ~. 645 .44, subd. 3 (2007). Moreover, in the interim, the Legislature <br /> <br />consolidated towns, boroughs, villages, and cities into two forms -cities and towns - each with <br /> <br />distinct powers. See Minn. Stat. ~~ 365.01 et seq.; 410.015. See also Minn. Stat, ~ 415.01 ("[a] <br /> <br />town must not exercise the powers conferred in chapters 365 to 368 within the territory <br /> <br />embraced within the limits of any city, but a city has and may exercise within its limits any of tl;1e <br /> <br />powers conferred by these chapters upon towns"). The plain meaning of "town," as used in <br /> <br />Minnesota law, refers only to the specific unit oflocal government also known as a township. <br /> <br />In support of its interpretation, Plaintiffs submitted a letter from the Minnesota <br /> <br />Department of Education (hereinafter ''MDE''), legislative committee testimony and an affidavit <br /> <br />from the sponsor of this legislation, former state senator and current Minnesota district court <br /> <br />judge, the Honorable Thomas M. Neuville. The Court cannot consider such extrinsic evidence <br /> <br />ofthe Legislature's intent when, as here,.a statute is unambiguous. See Minnesota Ass'n of <br /> <br />Professional Employees v. Anderson. 736 N.W.2d 699, 701 (Minn. App. 2007). <br /> <br />Creating an admissions preference that applies only to charter schools located in <br /> <br />townships maybe an underinclusive policy. However, the court's role is limited to interpreting a <br /> <br />statute, not passing on its "wisdom and utility." Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, 645 N.W.2d 495, <br /> <br />t Defendant argues that the legislature simultaneously enacted the opposite role of construction. However, Minn. <br />Stat. ~ 645.44, subd. 3 (2007) is silent on the general use of the term "town" or "city." <br /> <br />5 <br />