Goff, J.
Turning to the judiciary to remove a duly-elected public official from office is a radical departure from our usual democratic process because it risks silencing the collective voice of the people, spoken in each election. As such, it is a remedy rarely sought and even more rarely granted. This appeal involves such a request by the State to remove the Town of Yorktown’s Clerk-Treasurer, Beth Neff, but it does not fall within the exceptionally rare category of cases that warrant removal. Under the statute relied on by the State for this removal action, a public official may be removed from office for only a general failure to carry out his or her required duties. Because the State has not shown that Neff’s failures and errors constitute such a general failure, she is not subject to removal.
….
With this cautious approach in mind, we consider two related questions in this appeal. First, under what circumstances do the Indiana Constitution and the Removal Statute allow for the judicial removal of a public official? Second, should Neff have been removed? We address each question in turn.
I. The Removal Statute applies only in limited situations.
The judiciary’s removal power originates from two provisions of the Indiana Constitution. Article 6, section 7 provides, “All State officers shall, for crime, incapacity, or negligence, be liable to be removed from office, either by impeachment . . . or by a joint resolution of the General Assembly . . . .” Article 6, section 8 states more generally that “[a]ll State, county, township, and town officers, may be impeached, or removed from office, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.” We have said that these two sections should be construed together. McComas v. Krug, 81 Ind. 327, 333 (1882). Thus, as relevant here, our Constitution provides that county, township, and town officers may be impeached, or removed from office, for crime, incapacity, or negligence in such manner as the legislature may prescribe. Id. (construing Article 6, sections 7 and 8).
While our Constitution lays the general foundation for removal, the Removal Statute supplies the specific mechanism applicable here by which a public official may be removed. At issue in this case is Subsection (a)(2) of the Removal Statute which allows for removal of an officer for “refusing or neglecting to perform the official duties pertaining to the officer’s office[.]” I.C. § 5-8-1-35(a)(2); accord I.C. § 5-8-1-35(b). When the State files an action according to the Removal Statute, the trial court must hear the case within twenty days in a summary proceeding, I.C. § 5-8-1- 35(a), where “the rules of civil procedure have been held inapplicable . . . .” State ex rel. Durham v. Marion Circuit Court, 240 Ind. 132, 139, 162 N.E.2d 505, 508 (1959) (citing Beesley v. State, 219 Ind. 239, 37 N.E.2d 540 (1941); State v. Perry Circuit Court, 204 Ind. 673, 185 N.E. 510 (1933)). Because of the unique nature of the summary proceedings and the penalty mandated by the legislature, the Removal Statute must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant and not expanded further than the legislature has expressly provided. Ayer, 231 Ind. at 5–6, 106 N.E.2d at 442; Beesley, 219 Ind. at 244, 37 N.E.2d at 542.
….
While applying the rule and guidelines in previous cases, we provided two examples of situations that did not warrant removal and one hypothetical example that would. In McRoberts, we held that the alleged failure of several members of the Gibson County Council to appropriate $300 for the travel expenses of the County Superintendent did not warrant removal. 207 Ind. at 295–300, 192 N.E. at 429–31. “The petition . . . specifie[d] but one instance where it [was] claimed and alleged that [the councilmen] failed to perform the duties of the office[,]” and that was not enough to remove them. Id. at 299, 192 N.E. at 430. In Ayer, we held that a Hammond Township, Spencer County, trustee could not be removed under the Removal Statute for his alleged refusal to consider the employment applications of two teachers unless they donated to his political campaign. 231 Ind. at 4–5, 8, 106 N.E.2d at 442–443. These allegations did not allege a general failure by the trustee to perform the official duties of his office, and the Removal Statute did not apply. Id. at 12, 106 N.E.2d at 445–46. On the other hand, in both McRoberts and Ayer we gave the same hypothetical example of when an officer would be subject to removal under the Removal Statute: “where a sheriff closes his office and remains away and refuses and neglects to discharge the duties thereof, and has no one to perform his official duties.” McRoberts, 207 Ind. at 299, 192 N.E. at 430; Ayer, 231 Ind. at 12, 106 N.E.2d at 445. Such a complete abandonment of the office “would come squarely within the statute.” McRoberts, 207 Ind. at 299, 192 N.E. at 430. These three examples provide the poles at opposite ends of the wide spectrum of errors and failures that could potentially fall within Subsection (a)(2) of the Removal Statute. This case, however, falls in between these poles and thus presents a much closer question.
II. Neff’s failures and errors do not rise to the level required for removal pursuant to the Removal Statute.
Neff’s case is a particularly close call because she was undeniably ineffective in carrying out certain parts of her job. Moreover, her shoddy performance cost Yorktown tens of thousands of dollars. Given these facts it is not surprising that the local prosecutor would look to the Removal Statute to prevent further economic harm. However, a careful analysis of Neff’s conduct, as it relates to her official duties as Clerk-Treasurer, demonstrates that she was still carrying out the essential functions of her job and, thus, did not generally fail to perform her official duties.
….
…The State did not allege any deficiencies in Neff’s performance of these eleven specific duties. Rather, its allegations related to three additional duties imposed on town clerk-treasurers by other statutes. See I.C. § 36-5-6-6(a)(12) (providing a catch-all provision incorporating other duties). These other statutes required Neff to “reconcile at least monthly the balance of public funds, as disclosed by [her records], with the balance statements provided by the respective depositories[,]” I.C. § 5-13-6-1(e), to follow the SBOA’s directions, I.C. § 5- 11-1-10(2), and to use the systems of accounting and financial reporting adopted by the SBOA, I.C. § 5-11-1-21. The State focused on these final three duties in this removal proceeding.
To determine whether Neff’s alleged failures to carry out her duties amounted to “a general failure to perform official duties” that would subject her to removal, we consider Neff’s duties and actions in light of the three specific removal guidelines discussed above. First, an officer may be removed under the Removal Statute only for failure to perform multiple required duties. Second, the officer’s failures must constitute nonfeasance rather than malfeasance or misfeasance. Third, this nonfeasance must significantly impact the day-to-day operation of the officer’s office. We address each guideline below.
A. Neff’s failures and errors involved multiple duties.
The State alleged and the trial court found that Neff’s failures related to multiple duties. The State alleged that Neff failed to complete monthly account reconciliations, follow the SBOA’s directions, and adopt and use the systems of accounting and financial reporting required by the SBOA, and the trial court entered findings consistent with these allegations. As noted above, each of these relates to a separate duty of a town clerk-treasurer. See I.C. §§ 5-13-6-1(e), 5-11-1-10(2), 5-11-1-21. Thus, the first guideline in the removal analysis is met.
B. Neff’s failures and errors resulted in nonfeasance of at least one duty, but we need not determine the full extent of her nonfeasance.
While the trial court’s undisputed factual findings support the conclusion that Neff committed nonfeasance of at least one specific duty, they are less clear regarding whether Neff committed nonfeasance of multiple duties. As discussed above, the State alleged, and the trial court found, that Neff failed to complete the required reconciliations, follow the SBOA’s directions, and adopt and use the accounting and financial reporting systems adopted by the SBOA as required in the SBOA Manual. Because Neff failed to complete monthly accounting reconciliations when she had a duty to do so, she committed nonfeasance of this duty…
C. Neff’s failures and errors did not have a significant impact on the day-to-day operation of her office.
Neff’s failure to carry out three of her duties did not have a significant impact on the day-to-day operation of her office because those duties were not essential to the regular functioning of her office. Those three duties— completing reconciliations, following the SBOA’s directions, and adopting and using certain accounting and financial systems—dealt with maintaining proper oversight rather than ensuring the daily functioning of her office. In other words, the fact that Neff failed to reconcile accounts and follow the SBOA’s directions had no impact on the ability of a Yorktown resident to pay his or her water bill. Because Neff’s nonfeasance did not have a significant impact on the day-to-day operation of her office, the third guideline in the removal analysis is not met, and she did not generally fail to perform her official duties. Thus, she was not subject to removal. [Footnote omitted.]
….
Conclusion
The judiciary has the power to remove a public official only in extreme situations, and we wield this power only after careful and cautious consideration. For a public official to be removed pursuant to Subsection (a)(2) of the Removal Statute, the State must show that the official has generally failed to perform his or her official duties. Here, Neff’s failures and errors did not result in such a general failure, so the Removal Statute does not apply. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Neff.
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Slaughter, JJ., concur.