HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 03 05 Don Charter Review Whit
Charter Review Committee
Mayoral Veto
Date: January 2, 2005
Sub Committee Members: Hal Cloer, Donald Montgomery
Issue Statement:
Should the mayor retain the power to veto ordinances passed by the council, subject to being
over-ridden by the council?
Background:
The present Ashland City charter states that "The Mayor shall, within five days after the passage
of any ordinance, either approve or veto the same, and no ordinance shall go into effect until
approved by the Mayor or passed by the Council over his/her veto. The Mayor shall, in case
he/she vetoes any ordinance or resolution, file such veto with the City Recorder, … which veto
and message of disapproval shall be read at the next meeting of the Council … be put upon its
passage again; and, if two-thirds of the Council members shall vote in the affirmative, it shall
become law without the Mayor's approval …" In contrast, the 2004 edition of the Model Charter
For Oregon Cities states that "The Mayor is a voting member of the Council and has no veto
authority". In a 2003 National survey of municipalities by the ICMA, it was determined that
mayors in 29% of the cities reporting had veto authority, and this authority was particularly
common in cities with populations of 250,000 - 1,000,000. It was further found that most mayors
in mayor-council cities (58%) (e.g. Ashland) have a veto as do mayors in 12% of council-
Where the mayor does have a veto, an over-ride almost always (90%)
manager cities.
requires a supermajority.
Pros and Cons:
Have Veto Power
Pros:
Provides Mayor an opportunity to exercise political influence on matters
before the Council.
Provides Mayor with the ability to return a matter to the Council and provide
the Council the opportunity to rethink it's previous decision.
Cons:
If power abused by the Mayor, can adversely restrict the Councils' ability to
act on matters affecting the effective management and livability of the
community.
1
May preclude Mayor from having ability to vote with the Council, with the
exception of as a tie-breaker.
May create a separation between Mayor and Council that could affect/distort the Mayors'
participation in Council deliberations.
Does Not Have Veto Power
Pros:
Could permit the Mayor to vote on all matters before the Council.
Cons:
May preclude the Mayor from having the opportunity to impose his/her political
influence on matters before the Council.
May limit the opportunity for the Council to reconsider a previous decision.
Budget Implications:
None
Summary:
The present Ashland City charter provides for the Mayor to exercise a veto power on matters
decided by the Council, with a vote of two-thirds of the Council to overturn the veto. This
provision precludes the Mayor from having a vote on the Council except in those instances of a
tie vote. Most cities with a government structure such as Ashland do provide for a mayoral veto
power, although requiring a supermajority vote to overturn the veto. Providing the Mayor with
veto power precludes having the Mayor vote on the Council. Without veto power, the Mayor is
unable to return a previously decided matter to the Council for reconsideration or exercise his/her
political influence with the Council.
Attachments:
2