The malicious crimes ordinance that brought hundreds of people to Gillette City Council meetings in May and June quietly went into effect last week. It did so without the mayor’s stamp of approval, which is a rare occurrence.
Mayor Shay Lundvall let the ordinance go into effect without signing it.
Lundvall said that while a veto was something he looked into, he decided it was not the right way to go, choosing instead to let the ordinance take effect without his signature.
“I truly don’t think it’s a necessary ordinance,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that I’m going to tolerate or allow those things in our city to take place.”
He said that in the days following the third and final vote on the ordinance, he spoke to people in the community on both sides of the issue, and decided that instead of signing it or vetoing it, he would just let it pass.
“It was, truly, me putting in the time to meet with folks and hear them out and try to learn,” he said. “At the end of the day, my conclusion was drawn, and that’s where I landed,” he said.
Public records received by the News Record showed that each council member and the mayor received hundreds of messages for and against the ordinance. While some were strongly worded, out of the records the News Record reviewed, most of the discourse appeared to be civil.
The ordinance outlaws malicious harms against any person based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, disability or age.
The city council passed the ordinance June 6 on a 4-3 vote.
Most ordinances, once approved by the city council, are signed by the mayor. But if the mayor decides for whatever reason to not sign the ordinance, and he decides not to veto it, then it takes effect at the next regular meeting.
State law reads that “if the mayor neglects or refuses to sign any ordinance and fails to return it with his objections in writing at the next regular meeting of the governing body, it becomes law without his signature.”
The ordinance was published as a legal notice in the June 24 edition of the News Record, making it official, said City Attorney Sean Brown. In his time at the city, he hasn’t seen an ordinance take effect in this way.
Former city attorney Charlie Anderson said instances like this are “pretty rare,” but he couldn’t remember a specific situation that he came across.
“The statute just gives the mayor some flexibility, an intermediate position between signing something and going through the whole process of a veto,” Anderson said.
After the ordinance’s first reading, where it passed on a 4-3 vote, Lundvall received correspondence from a couple of residents about his options as mayor to veto the ordinance, should it pass.
On May 12, former hospital board trustee George Dunlap emailed Lundvall about the potential to veto, according to a public records request made by the News Record.
“First, talking with Edd Collins (ex-mayor) he asked me if the mayor has the right to veto a vote of the council,” Dunlap wrote. “When he was mayor, he could veto any action taken by the council. To override the veto, it would take 5 votes. I would guess it might have changed over the past 30 years, but something to check into.
“Don’t just take the administration’s word for the answer, investigate the meeting rules, and make sure you see it in writing,” Dunlap added.
He also had some suggestions for how Lundvall should take public comment at the city council meeting to give both sides of the issue a chance to speak.
“YOU ARE KING. The King must rule fairly and with an iron fist. Use your position to allow the citizens to tell the council why they are for or against the ordinance,” Dunlap wrote.
Lundvall replied, saying he would run the meeting so there is “decorum and respect for both sides.”
“As for veto, I will have to look into that one,” he wrote.
On May 16, Scott Clem, former legislator and the current chairman of the Campbell County Republican Party, emailed Lundvall about the same issue.
“ONLY a commission style of city Gov’t statutorily prohibits the mayor from veto power, and you are not that,” Clem wrote. “Again, I would ask your city attorney, and make him provide you the statutory reference, otherwise you have the legal authority to do so. And be sure he doesn’t provide you with the reference from a commission style of gov’t or some other provision that doesn’t apply.”
There was a 1947 court case where the court determined there was no veto power in a city manager form of government, Clem said.
“Maybe in 1947, according to how the statutes read back THEN, there was something there that limited the mayor’s power,” Clem continued. “But how the statutes read NOW, gives you that authority. These statutory sections have been changed many times since then. I have no doubt something like this will be challenged, but this is a rare opportunity to shine, and shine bright. I think the written letter of the law is on your side.”
Even if Lundvall had vetoed the ordinance, the city council has the opportunity to override that veto. State law reads that “a veto may be overridden by a vote of two-thirds of all the qualified members of the council,” and that “the mayor does not have a vote in any matter involving the override of a veto.”
“It’s pretty clear, the votes were there to overturn any such veto,” Clem told the News Record. “I don’t know if that played a factor, with him just not wanting to drag out the process any further.”
Anderson did recall one instance of a veto during his time as city attorney. When Mike Enzi was mayor, he vetoed a liquor license. But before the city council could vote on whether to override the veto, everything was worked out.
A veto sends the “strongest message of disapproval,” Clem told the News Record, and that by not vetoing this ordinance, “Shay is going to own some of this law, whether he likes it or not.
“I know he’s a team player, and he’s not wanting to be an obstructionist,” Clem added. “But there’s a time to stand and stand on your principles, if that costs you some friends, then oh well.”
Lundvall said he made his position on the ordinance clear during the city council meetings, and that he made it even more clear by not signing it.
“By not signing it, I’m making it clear that I don’t think it’s needed,” he said.
Clem told the News Record this was the riskiest political move, because “you’ve not only upset the crowd that wanted it, now you’re upsetting the crowd that didn’t want it.”
“You alienate some of those on the no side that were your supporters,” he said. “That’s where I don’t see the wisdom in not signing something like this.”
Lundvall said he’s not going to change who he is, and that he will always make decisions based on his own research.
“I’m not going to let an extreme on one side or the other determine how I’m going to come to my decision,” he told the News Record.
He added that he’s worked hard to change the culture of the city council, and that he’s “starting something I may never see the fruits of.”
“In terms of my time in office, I want to be remembered as someone that is fair and balanced, not that you’re always going to agree with me, that’s not the point,” he said. “The point is, can they still come to meetings, have decorum, be part of the processes.”
For someone to violate the ordinance, it must be proven that some injury or reasonable threat of injury occurred, and it must have been motivated by maliciousness. The accused person must have specifically intended the injury or threat to harm someone because of a delineated class.
Someone who is found guilty of violating the malicious harms ordinance can face up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750.
The ordinance, as well as all other city ordinances, are enforced by the police department and the courts system.
Law enforcement is notified about an alleged event. It investigates the allegations, and if the officer believes there is probable cause, the suspect is charged.
A prosecutor reviews the charge and supporting evidence to determine whether he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect in fact did commit the crime. If he doesn’t think he can, then the charge is dismissed. If he thinks he can meet that legal burden, it will go to a judge for review.
The judge will decide whether to move the case forward or to drop the charges. If it moves forward, it will be tried before a jury or a judge.
Wyoming courts have not addressed the legality of hate crime legislation, Brown pointed out during a presentation before the final vote on the ordinance.
During the public comment process, many worried about potential abuses of the ordinance, with people claiming that someone has committed a hate crime against them for pretty much any reason.
Under state law, someone who is found guilty of false reporting to authorities is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a fine of not more than $750.
Councilman Jim West said he thinks “life will go on” now that the ordinance is in place, and that for most people, “it won’t affect their lives one bit.”
He foresees it being used “as a talking point” in other controversial issues, especially ones involving the Campbell County Public Library.
“Hopefully we don’t ever have to use this ordinance,” he said. “But if we do, it’s there.”
Click Here For This Articles Original Source.
