1. Local Governance recommendation

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 98-14 May 12, 1998 Page 9 combination, elimination, appointment or election of county officials in a more flexible manner than existing conditions. Id. (Statement of Rep. Conmy).. Therefore, the intent of the amendment and reenactment of Article VII was to place the question of whether particular county offices should exist, or be elective or appointive, within statute and under control of the Legislature, as opposed to placement of these offices in the constitution which is beyond the Legislature's control. However, an argument may.be made that the constitutional requirement of Article VIII, Section 7 that no optional form of government for a county shall become operative until it has been submitted to the electors at a special or general election and approved by a majority of those voting thereon requires there be an election before an elective county office may be redesignated as an appointive office or have its duties combined with another office. This argument assumes that elimination~or'PTeinstatement of an elective 'county office- constitutes a change in the form of county government. Article VII, Section 9, quoted earlier, uses the disjunctive "or" between the phrases "form of government" and "elimination or reinstatement of elective county offices." The language used in Article VII, Section 9 implies that the term "form of government" is distinct from, and has a different meaning than, the phrase "elimination or reinstatement of elective county offices." Because Section 9 and Section 7 were adopted by the same constitutional amendment, it is reasonable to construe these provisions as part of a whole. All sections of a single enactment must be construed to have meaning and be read to give effect to each of its provisions whenever fairly possible. County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc'y, 371 N.W.2d 321, 325 (N.D. 1985). Laws are construed as a whole to give meaning to each word and phrase. MedCenter One v. N.D. State Bd. of Pharm., 561 N.W.2d 634, 638 (N.D. 1997). This means that the term "form of government" in Section 7 means something different than the term "elimination or reinstatement of elective county offices." Further, the phrase "form of government" has been interpreted in regard to city government as applying to the governing body and executive officer, but not including city officers. Litten v. City of Fargo, 294 N.W.2d 628, 634 (N.D. 1980). Litten involved Fargo's attempt to change its form of government by using its home rule charter instead of following the general statutes specifying the requirements for a city to change its form of government. Id. at 630. An argument was made that the home rule power contained in N.D.C.C. ~ 40-05.1-06(4) relating to a city's authority over city officers, agencies, and employees permitted a change in the form of government under home rule. Id. at 632-633. The North Dakota