City Attorney Absurdity
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 11/17/08 @ 10:56 am - Filed Under City Council
Fort Wayne city attorney Carol Taylor has said the mayor could use his line item veto power to restore the previously cut PIO position:
Purcell said the administration will ask for her position to be reinstated.
While Purcell has said he hopes the position can be returned amicably, City Attorney Carol Taylor recently told the council that Henry has line-item veto authority on the budget. Purcell said the city would prefer not to use the “unattractive option” of a line-item veto, but he didn’t rule it out.
I sincerely hope the city attorney was not suggesting that the mayor can veto something in order to increase a line item in the budget. The mayor might be able to strike the city council assistant position or some other act of retribution but the idea that he can veto a line that doesn’t exist is ridiculous. Councilman Mitch Harper had a response to this idea that was 100% welcome and deserved:
Councilman Mitch Harper, R-4th, said Taylor’s reading of the law is wrong. He said a mayor can’t veto a council cut to put more money in the budget. Harper, an attorney, said a mayor can only eliminate something from the budget.
“It’s ridiculous, it’s absurd,” Harper said of the notion that a mayor could veto a cut. “Any attorney who asserts that is not a very good attorney.”
I’m not sure exactly what the deputy mayor was suggesting since his quote was somewhat ambiguous, but here’s the thing, as any 2nd year political science student would know, you can’t veto something into a bill. The city budget ordinance is blank slate and as appropriations are added the mayor is probably within his right to remove them. That’s the definition of line-item veto - you get rid of that line item.
But the mayor cannot veto a line item in order to add appropriations. The fact that we have a city attorney that would even suggest such a notion (if that’s what the deputy mayor was saying) is quite scary. Taylor would be asserting powers to the mayor of Fort Wayne that Bush and Cheney could only dream of.
The mayor will be presented with a budget and if he wants to eliminate certain line items then he should go for it but he cannot assert some sort of kingly right to insert money into the budget without council approval…
Comments
30 Responses to “City Attorney Absurdity”
Leave a Reply
Can I please say that any attorney (Harper) who publicly asserts that another attorney (Taylor) is “not a very good attorney” because such attorney (Taylor) takes a position contrary to another attorney (Harper), is not a very good attorney (Harper).
There, figure that one out.
Some positions are so ludicrous that they only deserve contempt…
First, it is very unprofessional for Harper to make such a statement.
Second….you know, this could be legal.
In essence, the Mayor is vetoing a cut- it would then go back to council where it would need 6 votes to override.
Since the Mayor has to sign off on the final budget (I believe), he certainly has a right to veto it.
This will be interesting.
Obviously the Mayor needs to pay outside counsel $30,000 for a second opinion.
Harper’s correct in his view on this matter, so he had every right to say it. Pruitt is correct as well.
Henry is sure showing his a$$ on this one. How is it we did fine with one PIO in the past? We don’t need three. How come Henry can only spend more and doesn’t have the ability to tighten his belt?
Penny-
Henry is not spending more- the budget is essentially flat.
Kevin,
That is incorrect. First the mayor cannot veto a “cut” because there is no “cut” - not in any legal sense. There is a budget that is created with specific line items. The fact that the line items are different that what the mayor suggested with his proposed budget doesn’t matter because the proposed budget was not an ordinance or any other type of legal document - it was a template the council considers as a courtesy to the mayor.
He can get rid of line items if he wishes but he can’t change them or add items.
Second, the mayor cannot veto the entire budget - he only has line item veto authority.
But…even if the budget is essentially flat, if you add a another PIO at $30k it’s still gonna cost $30k right? Unless he doesn’t cash his paychecks I guess. His salary ain’t gonna magically appear out of nowhere.
The mayor did propose a flat budget overall but the headcount for his staff grew from 18 in 2008 to 19 2009.
If accepted the actual dollars for his department would grow by $71k which is over 6% and would be one of the largest increases in all of city government.
No matter how you slice it that means we are paying more of our tax dollars to the mayor’s office.
I happen to believe the PIO position should be reinstated but it should be done within the bounds of law (and common sense)…
Jeff, I see your point- but I am still not sure that the Mayor could not veto.
I am sure that when the legislature laid out the rules, they just did not think about this situation.
Kevin,
Well I’ve certainly been wrong before so nothing would surprise me at this point.
Heck at one point I actually thought the US Constitution forbid warrantless wiretapping and that the vice-president was part of the executive branch…
Good point!
Just can’t let go of the Bush-Hitler stigma can ya boys?
Wait until “The Messiah” decides that wiretap program is just frickin’ okey dokey, now THAT will be funny. He’s only had a couple of briefings and he’s already steering into the “right” lane.
As for the VP slot, I’m on pins & needles waiting to see what “greasy” does with that job. He’s such a talented equal opportunity offender, it should be hysterical every time he opens his mouth. In fact, he’s probably prepping for middle east courtesy tours by hanging out in those 7-11’s he speaks so highly of.
This 4 years is gonna be hilarious, of course that’s if we survive it.
He (THE ONE) said he was going to close Gitmo, now his staff is looking at ways to keep it open. He also said an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, not it will be 2011. It’s easy making promises, not let’s see how long it take Obamaprah to start blaming Bush for failing to keep his promises.
Right turn Clyde!
Left turn Henry!
Jeff Pruitt;
What you fail to take account of is the fact that Bush secretly suspended the Constitution. And of course, he did this for our own good because too much freedom is harmful. Now, everything is legal because there is no law. God bless King George - I just wonder if he ever contemplated the possibility that he would be turning over his crown to a Democrat.
Tim Zank;
What will really be hilarious is that while Obama makes use of all the far reaching powers that Bush handed to him, the Republicans who consented to it will be talking about abuse of power and other such nonsense. And of course, at the same time the Democrats who complained about it under Bush will now be silent under Obama.
The truth is, President Bush has taken this country very far along the path to fascism. And President Obama will be very reluctant to give up these same powers once he has them.
And the biggest problem of all is that most politicians and most citizens seem to see this as a political issue rather than a Constitutional issue.
Phil..Fascism?
Please. As is always the case, you can’t name one “freedom” that has been taken from you, or any American citizen or one thing in your life that is now restricted as a result of any thing George W Bush did. High tech surveillance of cell phone patterns coming from Afghanistan or Iraq doesn’t exactly equate to Dick Cheney sitting in a dark room below the White House listening to what you order on your pizza. Jesus you people are paranoid. Must have been too many Oliver Stone movies.
See what happens when I don’t follow my own rule to stay on topic?
Please, no more Bush battles on this thread. I promise there will be ample opportunity on future posts to argue these points…
Absurd,
I went and read that section of Indiana code and I do not see where the City Attorney is coming from.
Mike Sylvester
I have to agree with Mike…. I found Mitch’s statement pretty strong and hence think he may have well read this section over pretty good.
I have not heard of anyplace here in Indiana a Mayor doing a line item veto. My only guess, is if he wanted to he could make deeper cuts over what the Council had passed. Or drop a line item. But I do not see how he could increase a budget line….
Then again if Council has not passed and he has not signed the new budget in time does it not revert back to the 2008 approved budget? I thought someone may have said this or it was printed some place.
JQ-
If the Mayor does NOT sign an ordinance, it is considered a veto.
I would assume that this applies to the budget ordinance as well.
Kevin…sounds like semantics, no?
Tim,
well, I was trying to answer JQ’s question. I am not sure what happens if the budget gets a veto though…or if you really can veto the budget.
But, yeah, not signing or vetoing are the same thing!
If the budget is vetoed then, pursuant to state law, the Council may vote to override (requires 2/3 majority or 6 votes) which is the normal way of addressing a veto. A wrinkle is that the budget must be adopted by a certain date (this year it’s 12/1, usually it’s earlier). An override would need to occur by 12/1. If for whatever reason the budget is not adopted by 12/1(Council doesn’t pass it, or Council passes and the Mayor vetoes and we don’t override) then the 2008 budget continues into 2009.
The question of whether the Mayor can add an item back in is easiest to think of in a non-budget context. A veto is simply the Mayor saying “no.” It’s not the Mayor saying “I want something else.” For instance, if Council were to pass an ordinance saying that all neighborhood presidents were to get fresh flowers every Monday, the Mayor could veto it which would mean, sadly, no flowers. The Mayor could NOT substitute chocolates for flowers, nor could he say that the flowers would be delivered to both neighborhood presidents and neighborhood treasurers. In that context, I think it’s easier to understand why a line item veto is simply that: saying “no” to a particular expense. It would not include the ability for the Mayor to re-insert a spending item cut by the Council.
good explanation karen.
i’m still betting outside counsel gets paid to review the situation. why not? council and the press never review outside counsel bills.
by the way, anybody know how much more we have paid to Harrison Square consultant Steve “trust me, I have reviewed the financials so you don’t need to” Brody?
Karen,
Are you sure the mayor can veto the budget ordinance? I originally thought he could but Tom Smith said he could not and I took his word for it since he’s been doing this a while.
He actually stated that publicly at the beginning of the first budget meeting this year.
Obviously Carol Taylor has done her homework while all of you are sitting around blogging each other asking whether a veto can actually happen. Rather than talking to each other, possibly you should be doing some research before the meeting… (esp. the city counsel members)
Mark - Mr. Brody is the “Project Manager” for the whole boondoggle. Seems like we should be able to fire him for malfeasance, since the “private” part is going South due to “Fort Wayne Dreaming” a la 2006-2008.
Joe Blow,
You can’t be serious. Taylor allegedly suggested that the mayor could veto something into a bill. I don’t need to do any research to realize that isn’t how it works - I took high school civics…
Joe Bonahoom, City Council attorney, has reviewed the statute and is my source for saying that the Mayor has authority to veto the budget. I don’t know that it’s ever happened before, at least not in the 20-some years that I’ve been paying attention in Fort Wayne.
[...] that a veto can remove something from the budget but it can’t put something back in. Here was my take at the time: I sincerely hope the city attorney was not suggesting that the mayor can veto something in order [...]