Thе issue in this consolidated appeal is whether the University of Minnesota is a “political subdivision” of the state to which the Veterans Preference Act, specifically Minn.Stat. §§ 197.455 and 197.46 (1990), ap *800 plies. After over eighty years of non-application of the Act to the University of Minnesota, we are asked to examine and determine the validity of the University's claimed exemption from the Act. The court of appeals has affirmed an order of the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs and an order of the district court holding that the Aсt does apply to the University. We reverse.
In Winberg v. University of Minnesota (CX-91-2009), Roger Winberg, an honorably discharged veteran, applied but was not hired for fifteen different vacant positions advertised by the University of Minnesota from 1987 to 1991. He was not granted veterans preference points by the University or notified of the reasons for rejection of any of his applications. Win-berg petitioned the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs for relief. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (AU) determined that the University was either a political subdivision under Minn.Stat. § 197.455 (1990) or a state аgency within the meaning of Minn.Stat. ch. 43A to which the Veterans Preference Act applies. Because there was no showing that Winberg would have been eligible for any of the positions even if preference points had been granted, the AU recommended оnly that the University be ordered to comply with the Act in the future.
The Commissioner adopted the AU’s findings and ordered the University of Minnesota to revise its hiring practices to comply with the Act in all respects, including awarding veterans preference points and giving reasоns for rejection. The University appealed the decision by writ of certiorari to the court of appeals.
In Martin v. University of Minnesota (C3-91-2224), George Martin, Jr., an honorably discharged veteran employed for thirty years by the University of Minnesota, requested a veterans preferenсe hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 197.46 (1990) when he was notified that he was going to be laid off because his position was being abolished in a departmental reorganization. The University denied the request for a hearing on the ground that section 197.46 does not apply to the University. Mаrtin sought a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief in district court. The district court, after a hearing, concluded that the University is a political subdivision of the state to which the Veterans Preference Act applies and enjoined the University from terminating Martin’s employment until he is provided a hearing pursuant to section 197.46. The University appealed the order of the district court and requested the consolidation of the Martin and Winberg appeals.
A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed both orders.
See Winberg v. University of Minnesota,
The dissenting judge, on the authority of our case law, concluded that “political subdivision” cannot be defined to include the University.
Id.
at 331 (Huspeni, J., dissenting). The dissent notes that our courts have found an entity to be a political subdivision under the Act only where the entity has the power to tax or to cause taxes to be levied.
Id.
(citing
Dahle v. Red Lake Watershed Dist.,
*801
Since 1907, Minnesota veterans have been afforded a preference, by law, in public еmployment.
See
Act of April 19, 1907, ch. 263, §§ 1, 2, 1907 Minn.Laws 355. The “laudable purpose” of this legislation was “to give a well-earned preference in appointments in the public service to those who have honorably served the nation in its time of peril.”
State ex rel. Rangas v. McDonald,
The provision at issue in Winberg’s case gives veterans a credit of five or ten points on their examination ratings when applying for public employment. It reads:
The provisions of section 43A. 11 granting preference to veterans in the state civil service shall also govern preference of a veteran under the civil service laws, charter provisions, ordinances, rules or regulations of a county, city, town, school district, or other municipality or political subdivision of this state, except that a nоtice of rejection stating the reasons for rejection of a qualified veteran shall be filed with the appropriate local personnel officer.
Minn.Stat. § 197.455 (1990) (emphasis added). Martin’s case involves the provision of the Veterans Preferencе Act which requires public employers to hold a hearing before terminating a veteran’s employment. That section, in relevant part, provides:
No person holding a position by appointment or employment in the several counties, cities, towns, schоol districts and all other political subdivisions in the state, who is a veteran separated from the military service under honorable conditions, shall be removed from such position or employment except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upоn stated charges, in writing.
Minn.Stat. § 197.46 (1990) (emphasis added). Nowhere in the Veterans Preference Act has the legislature specifically named the University as an entity to which the Act applies. Sections 197.455 and 197.46 name only counties, cities, towns, school districts, municipalities, and political subdivisions. Is the University a political subdivision of the state for purposes of the Act? We hold that it is not.
The University of Minnesota is a unique constitutional corporation, established by territorial act in 1853 and perpetuated by the state constitution in 1857. The people of Minnesota thereby conferred the entire control and management of the University’s affairs and property upon the board of regents, leaving no such power to be exercised by the legislature.
State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase,
The legislature recognizes the University’s unique constitutional status and, in the great majority of laws it passes affecting the University, it expressly includes or excludes the University or its board of regеnts as subject to or not subject to the law. 2 Thus, if the legislature *802 had intended the Veterans Preference Act to apply to the University of Minnesota, it most likely would have included the University by specific reference. Using Minn. Stat. § 645.27, a rule of statutory construction which provides that “the state is not bound by the passage of a law unless named therein,” the University, which is itself a constitutional arm of the state, would not be hound by the Veterans Preference Act unless explicitly named.
Furthermore, the Act does not seem to have been drafted with the University in mind. As the University points out, the terms “school,” “teacher,” and “superintendent of schools,” found in section 197.-46, while appropriate to the primary and secondary school systems, do not fit the University or its job classifications. We find this significant because the Public Employers Labor Relation Act, which specifically establishes bargaining units for University of Minnesota employees, does not use the term “teacher” but “professor”, “associate professor”, and “assistant professor” when referring to academic employees. Minn.Stat. § 179A.11, subd. 1(8). (1992)
Nor does the case law suggest that the University should be considered a political subdivision of the state to which the Act applies. The only case defining “political subdivision” for purposes of the Veterans Preference Act is
Dahle v. Red Lake Watershed Dist.,
Finally, the term “political subdivision” is commonly understood to mean an entity with a prescribed area and authority for subordinate local government. “Political subdivision,” as used in the Veterans Preference Act and other Minnesota statutes, consistently refers to such traditional units of the state as counties and cities. Although Chapter 355, governing social security coverage, defines “political subdivision” to include “any instrumentality of the state,” Minn.Stat. § 355.01, subd. 10 (1992), this definition applies only for the purposes of that chapter. Minn.Stat. § 355.01, subd. 1 (1992).
Respondents Winberg and Martin and the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs contend that the legislature implicitly intended to include the University in the Veterans Preference Act as a “political subdivision” of the state, even though it was not exрressly named. They cite
Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Comm’n,
Respondents also point to the Open Meeting Law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act as laws of general applicability based on broad public policy whiсh apply to the University. The cases cited by respondents,
Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota,
The legislature has had countless opportunities in the last eighty-six years to specifically include the University within the purview of the Veterans Preference Act. It has not done so, nor will we. We hold that the University of Minnesota is not a “political subdivision” of the state to which the Veterans Preference Act, including Minn.Stat. §§ 197.455 and 197.46, applies.
Because we hold the Veterans Preference Act does not apply, we need not consider again the extent to which the legislature can constitutionally control the University. 3 The Commissioner of Veterans Affairs erred in ordering the University of Minnesota to revise its hiring practices to comply with the Act. The district court improperly granted injunctive relief in Martin’s case. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
Reversed.
Notes
. The court of appeals specifically found that the Act does not apply to the University as a state agency through Minn.Stat. ch. 43A. The issue of state agency was not appealed to this cоurt.
. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 14.03, subd. 1 (1992) (Administrative Procedures Act, in sections 14.-001-.69, does not apply to the University of Minnesota); Minn.Stat. § 16B.33, subd. 1(a) (1992) (meaning of "agency” includes the University of Minnesota); Minn.Stat. § 79.34, subd. 1(2) (1992) (for purposes of creating Reinsurance Association, "state” means the administrative branch, legislativе branch, judicial branch, and University of Minnesota); Minn.Stat. § 15.15 (1992) (not applicable to the regents of the University); Minn.Stat. § 43A.24, subd. 2 (1992) (board of regents determines whether certain University employees are eligible for life insurance and health care benefits); Minn.Stat. § 169.965, subd. 1 (1992) (regents may make, *802 аdopt, and enforce rules, regulations, and ordinances regarding traffic and parking).
. That the internal management of the University has been constitutionally placed in the hands of the regents alone, as set out in
Chase,
was reaffirmed in
Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. Lord,