1. Local Governance recommendation

02(2)), by signatures of 10% of the applicable electorate, and the 25% specified in ND Constitution Art. VII, 99. While that AG opinion is not directly relevant to Cass County, because Cass is a home rule charter county and because the opinion relates to elimination and not conversion from elective to appointive, it is nonetheless informative. In Cass County's case, in the HRC the electorate gave the power to the Commission to convert those elective offices into appointive offices through a suitable ordinance. Someone could argue the Commission must first pass an ordinance implementing the Commission's ability to exercise the power described within HRC Art. 6, 91, 113, before it can consider an ordinance to actually convert the offices. However, that appears to me to be a strained argument, given that HRC Art. 6, 91,113 is specific and clear about the power granted to the Commission. Accordingly, it is my opinion the Commission does not first need an implementing ordinance before enacting an ordinance to actually convert the offices. The statute applicable to non-home rule charter counties addresses not only the power of commissioners to address such a conversion through a resolution process, but also the power of the electors to put such a conversion on the ballot through an initiative process. NDCC 911-10.2- 02(2). That process contemplates the petition must signed by 10% of certain electors. In a similar fashion, Cass County's HRC also contains an initiative and referendum process, HRC Art. 4. That process requires signatures of 15% of a similar electorate. While 15% is more restrictive than the 10% required under NDCC 911-10.2-02(2) for a similar process, it is my opinion that there is no conflict because the statutory provision applies to non-home rule charter counties. It is my further opinion the HRC does not conflict with ND Constitution Art. VII, 99, because the HRC requirement for 15% elector signatures gives greater power to the electorate than the 25% referenced in the Constitutional provision. Given my opinion that there appears to be no legal impediment to the Commission considering such an ordinance, I offer the following further thoughts on how to do so, should that seem an appropriate step. The mechanism for adopting an ordinance is described in HRC Art. 3, and is familiar to you. Beyond that, and although they are not requirements, you might want to consider any or all of the following additional suggestions: · Clearly define the reasoning behind converting from elective to appointive offices, including, among other things, the existing office organization, functions and procedures for providing government services; the proposed Page 2 of 3