Oct. 10, 2007
"Shall a Charter Be Framed?" Been There, Done That
Supreme Court: Such an Ordinance Could Be Vetoed
By Tony Rutherford
Huntington News Network Writer
And
By Tony Seaton
Huntington News Network Video Producer
Introduced by council member James Ritter, the proposal would put the charter change question --- yes or no --- on the November 2008 ballot. According to the ordinance, voters would then cast ballots for 11 individuals to serve on a charter board.
First, city attorney Scott McClure told council, it would be wise to change the wording of the proposed ordinance to match already-vetted-by-the-courts language so that it could withstand a challenge to it's validity. He also pointed out that such a vote would have to happen in the general election, not the primary as currently worded. With those changes proposed, seconded and approved, council moved on the subject at hand.
“I like Ashland’s [form of government],” Ritter said, explaining they have a paid mayor, a paid city manager and a city council. Queried about any behind-the-scenes urging for him to sponsor such an ordinance, Ritter said that the request came at a citizen’s group meeting. “I think it’s good to let the people decide.”
Councilwoman Mary Neely said she had worked with both strong mayor and city manager forms of government and sided with councilman Ritter. But Pete Vaughan of Huntington, who is follows city government closely, said the idea that city managers are "more professional" is a misinformed opinion
Ritter expressed his belief that state law would not allow the mayor to veto an ordinance involving a charter board. The mayor looked somewhat incredulous as he listened and he told Ritter that he was incorrect. Mayoral candidate Tom McCallister also begged to differ with Ritter. He said it would be subject to a veto.
He should know: he was involved in just such an issue in 1991 when he was a city council member challenging the right of then-mayor Bobby Nelson to veto council ordinances. He lost.
The West Virginia Supreme Court overruled Judge Dan O’Hanlon, who's ruling had sided with McCallister finding that the Mayor has the power to veto ordinances and resolutions of city council.
Judge William Brotherton wrote in McCallister v. Nelson (411 S.E.2d 456, 1991) that the “Mayor’s veto power shall extend to disapproving or reducing any individual appropriation item in the budget or any ordinance or resolution of council , but shall not extend or apply to any appropriation or resolution authorized pursuant to Section 3.16 of the Charter.” (Editor’s Note: 3.16 concerns the authority of the city council to conduct an investigation).
The opinion concludes: “A charter provision which authorizes a veto by a mayor of a municipality to an ordinance or resolution of city council is reasonably implied and fairly incidental to the granted or enumerated powers within W.Va.Code § 8-1-7 and the West Virginia Constitution. Therefore, we reverse the April 23, 1990, ruling of the Circuit Court of Cabell County and hold that the provision of the charter of the City of Huntington, which provides the mayor with the power to veto ordinances and resolutions of the city council, is a valid exercise of municipal authority under W.Va. Code § 8-1-7 (1990).”
Speaking with HNN after the council meeting, McCallister reiterated what he'd told council Tuesday night. There are other provisions within the current City Charter that allow for revisions or a vote. At any time citizens can collect signatures of a percentage of registered voters and call a charter election at any time. In addition, council itself can amend the charter if no one objects.
Council member James Insco told council he was “shocked to see this back on the agenda,” adding that the city has more important business to attend to, such as budget gaps and insurance decisions.
“I believe in the form of government we have,” Insco said after the meeting. “I believe it works. Is it working now to the best of its ability? Everybody has their own opinion. If city manager was such a good form of government, the council member that proposed it has been on council for sixteen years [so] how come it’s just now coming about?”
Supreme Court: Such an Ordinance Could Be Vetoed
By Tony Rutherford
Huntington News Network Writer
And
By Tony Seaton
Huntington News Network Video Producer
Introduced by council member James Ritter, the proposal would put the charter change question --- yes or no --- on the November 2008 ballot. According to the ordinance, voters would then cast ballots for 11 individuals to serve on a charter board.
First, city attorney Scott McClure told council, it would be wise to change the wording of the proposed ordinance to match already-vetted-by-the-courts language so that it could withstand a challenge to it's validity. He also pointed out that such a vote would have to happen in the general election, not the primary as currently worded. With those changes proposed, seconded and approved, council moved on the subject at hand.
“I like Ashland’s [form of government],” Ritter said, explaining they have a paid mayor, a paid city manager and a city council. Queried about any behind-the-scenes urging for him to sponsor such an ordinance, Ritter said that the request came at a citizen’s group meeting. “I think it’s good to let the people decide.”
Councilwoman Mary Neely said she had worked with both strong mayor and city manager forms of government and sided with councilman Ritter. But Pete Vaughan of Huntington, who is follows city government closely, said the idea that city managers are "more professional" is a misinformed opinion
Ritter expressed his belief that state law would not allow the mayor to veto an ordinance involving a charter board. The mayor looked somewhat incredulous as he listened and he told Ritter that he was incorrect. Mayoral candidate Tom McCallister also begged to differ with Ritter. He said it would be subject to a veto.
He should know: he was involved in just such an issue in 1991 when he was a city council member challenging the right of then-mayor Bobby Nelson to veto council ordinances. He lost.
The West Virginia Supreme Court overruled Judge Dan O’Hanlon, who's ruling had sided with McCallister finding that the Mayor has the power to veto ordinances and resolutions of city council.
Judge William Brotherton wrote in McCallister v. Nelson (411 S.E.2d 456, 1991) that the “Mayor’s veto power shall extend to disapproving or reducing any individual appropriation item in the budget or any ordinance or resolution of council , but shall not extend or apply to any appropriation or resolution authorized pursuant to Section 3.16 of the Charter.” (Editor’s Note: 3.16 concerns the authority of the city council to conduct an investigation).
The opinion concludes: “A charter provision which authorizes a veto by a mayor of a municipality to an ordinance or resolution of city council is reasonably implied and fairly incidental to the granted or enumerated powers within W.Va.Code § 8-1-7 and the West Virginia Constitution. Therefore, we reverse the April 23, 1990, ruling of the Circuit Court of Cabell County and hold that the provision of the charter of the City of Huntington, which provides the mayor with the power to veto ordinances and resolutions of the city council, is a valid exercise of municipal authority under W.Va. Code § 8-1-7 (1990).”
Speaking with HNN after the council meeting, McCallister reiterated what he'd told council Tuesday night. There are other provisions within the current City Charter that allow for revisions or a vote. At any time citizens can collect signatures of a percentage of registered voters and call a charter election at any time. In addition, council itself can amend the charter if no one objects.
Council member James Insco told council he was “shocked to see this back on the agenda,” adding that the city has more important business to attend to, such as budget gaps and insurance decisions.
“I believe in the form of government we have,” Insco said after the meeting. “I believe it works. Is it working now to the best of its ability? Everybody has their own opinion. If city manager was such a good form of government, the council member that proposed it has been on council for sixteen years [so] how come it’s just now coming about?”
