JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) – Jackson leaders will be back in court Thursday for a hearing in a case that could determine whether a mayor can veto a no-vote of the city council.
A status conference is slated for Friday, July 8, at 10 a.m., in Hinds County Chancery Court in the City Council of Jackson, Miss. V. Chokwe A. Lumumba.
At the heart of the matter is whether the mayor can veto a negative action of a city council. If the judge rules in favor of the mayor, the ruling could change how local governments across the state operate.
If the judge rules in favor of the council, it would negate the city’s trash-hauling contract with Richard’s Disposal.
The council voted down the one-year emergency contract with the New Orleans-based firm multiple times in the spring.
However, the mayor vetoed the actions, and Richard’s began picking up residential trash on April 1.
On June 13, days after this week’s hearing was set, the mayor filed a motion to dismiss the case, in part, saying the council did not override his veto in the time allotted by state statute.
On April 1, the same day Richard’s began work in the city, the council twice rejected an emergency contract with the firm. At a contentious council meeting that day, the mayor vetoed the council’s first vote. The council then, on a motion to reconsider, voted down the mayor’s contract with Richard’s a second time.
Lumumba did not veto that item until April 14, according to court records.
“The city council failed to override the mayor’s veto within the time period required by Miss. Code… Therefore, as a matter of law, the contract with Richard’s Disposal is valid and cannot be contested.”
Lumumba then argues that the council had 10 days to appeal the veto to the Hinds County Circuit Court, but did not do so.
He argues that the council’s chancery court complaint “is a veiled attempt” to appeal it.
The council, though, argues that the mayor can’t veto a negative action, because it means the council took no action.
“Without any action taken by the board of aldermen, a mayor has nothing to veto. Inaction on a proposal is not subject to the mayor’s veto,” the council says, citing a Mississippi attorney general’s opinion.
Attorneys for the council go on to state that in the same opinion, the AG opined that “in exercising the ‘veto power,’ an executive officer is exercising a limited power that is only a negative, not a positive power.”
Translated, the council argues that the mayor cannot approve a contract the legislative body voted down.
The council and the mayor are both asking for summary judgments in the case.
For its part, council members are requesting that the court find “that a mayor may not lawfully veto a negative vote.”
“This matter is of critical importance not only to the city of Jackson but to every municipality in Mississippi. If the mayor is correct in his position that a negative vote can be vetoed… this would give the mayor the ability to create public policy for the city single-handedly, authority for which is granted via state statute and the Mississippi Constitution only to the city council,” the council argues.
“In attempting to veto a negative vote, in contradiction of clear law, the mayor of Jackson essentially seeks court approval to endorse his illegal efforts to impose minority rule and become a de facto dictator.”
The Richard’s contract has never been approved by the council, gaining at most only three of the seven members’ votes each time it has been brought forward for consideration.
Lumumba, though, argues that his veto should be upheld, saying he has authority to veto all official actions of the council, and that state statute defines a negative vote as an official action.
He points to Code Section 21-8-17, which he says defines ordinance as “any other official actions of the council,” and that a separate statute gives him the authority to “veto all ‘ordinances.’”
“Otherwise, the included language of ‘any other official actions of the council’ would have no use or effect,” his attorneys write.
He goes on to state in an affidavit filed on July 5 that the council “has consistently sought to encroach upon [his] statutorily mandated authority” to handle matters that are to be handled by the executive branch.
“The city council and I have been in prolonged conflict regarding our respective legal authority pursuant to Mississippi laws since September 2021, when I declared a local emergency regarding the collection of residential waste,” he said.
Late last summer, the council twice rejected the mayor’s proposal to hire FCC Environmental Services, in favor of keeping Waste Management.
Waste Management previously held the contract and came in second during the proposal evaluation process.
After FCC was voted down, the mayor was supposed to enter into negotiations with Waste Management. FCC had won the evaluation process, but the council rejected the proposal, in part, because it would have reduced trash pickups from twice to once a week.
The mayor declared a state of emergency on September 17, 2021, saying talks had broken down and no agreement would be reached to continue collections after Waste Management’s contract expired on September 30.
The case eventually made its way to court, and the council and mayor agreed to give Waste Management a six-month emergency contract.
The same story played out again in the fall and spring when the council again rejected the mayor’s proposal for waste-hauling, this time, Richard’s Disposal.
In another lawsuit this spring, Special Appointed Judge Jess Dickinson ruled that a contract was not binding without the council’s approval. However, he included a footnote saying that the mayor could theoretically veto the body’s no vote.
Dickinson later vacated that ruling, saying he should not have addressed the veto question because it was not before him.
The latest suit was filed by the council on May 11.
Want more WLBT news in your inbox? Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.
Copyright 2022 WLBT. All rights reserved.
