2001 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE DOCTRINE The common law rule in Minnesota is that a person may not hold incompatible offices. The rule has been expressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court as follows: "Public offices are incompatible when their functions are inconsistent, their performance resulting in antagonism and a conflict of duty, so that the incumbent of one cannot discharge with fidelity and propriety the duties of both." The Minnesota Attorney General has further described the rule as follows: "Offices are incompatible if one is subject to the other's supervision or control, or if their functions are inconsistent, if one can interfere with the other, or if their duties clash, thus inviting the person to prefer one obligation to the other." This rule includes two tests. (1) Are the positions at issue "public offices" within the meaning of the rule? (2) Are the two offices incompatible (i.e., are their functions inconsistent)? Public office means generally an appointed or elected political position involving independence, legislatively established decisional authority, a fixed term of service, etc. For example, the office of mayor or council member of a city and the office of Metropolitan Council member both are public offices within the meaning of this rule. The question of incompatibility of office depends upon the circumstances of the case. Generally, courts examine the character of the two public offices, their relation to each other, the subordination of one to the other, and the nature of the duties and functions which attach to them. The Minnesota Attorney General has stated that if one of the units of government is in a position to receive financial or other assistance from the other public agency, an incompatibility is present. The Attorney General has also stated that the possibility of conflict between the official duties of the two offices is sufficient to render the two positions incompatible. So, it is important to consider whether there is a possibility of conflict whether or not the conflict is likely to occur. An examination of the duties of a Metropolitan Council member and, again for example, those of a local elected municipal official shows that these two offices indeed appear to be incompatible. For example, cities submit amendments to their local comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for its review and approval. The Metropolitan Council reviews applications of local governmental units under certain federal programs. In addition, the Council has made loans and/or grants to local units of government, such as financial aids made available through our local planning assistance office. The Council also sets policies or establishes rates which may affect other local government units (e.g. bus routes and wastewater treatment rates). Accordingly, a court could reasonably conclude that the positions of a local municipal official and Metropolitan Council member are incompatible.