![]() "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition." Matthew Spalding (Editor), Edwin Meese III (Foreword), Kindle Edition, Revised edition, Regnery Publishing, 16 September 2014. If the committee approved the legislation, the mayor would have to put it on the agenda for a full council meeting within four regularly scheduled meetings.īased on the amendment language, if those actions don’t happen, then the Clerk of Council would do it. Once the mayor referred to the legislation, that committee chair - appointed by the mayor - would then have up put to four regularly scheduled meetings to put it on the agenda. A committee usually has only a handful of City Council members on it. Under the new plan, once legislation got filed, the mayor would have to refer it to the appropriate committee within four regularly scheduled meetings. How the new legislative process would work The board will vote to certify the item during its regular meeting on Tuesday, Sept. The ballot language now goes to the Hamilton County Board of Elections for approval. “The most important thing is we have an opportunity in November to make sure that if we get a mayor in the future, who is insistent on doing what they want, rather than what an elected City Council have discussed and democratically arrived at, that they don’t have the power to just stop legislation that doesn’t fit their needs,” Frost said. He believes Keating’s proposal would’ve been positive for the city as it would have eliminated the threat of a “pseudo pocket veto,” a term he used to describe a mayor allowing legislation to linger for up to the allowable 16 total weeks until a council term expired.īut he said getting something on the ballot is important because the “pocket veto has been absolutely abused in the past.” Thursday was the last day for City Council could approve if it wanted it to be on the November ballot.įrost wishes City Council would have had more than three days to consider the proposal before voting. If voters approved both, the one with the most votes would’ve gone into effect. As a result, Council never voted on that version of the legislation.Ĭouncil could have sent both measures to the ballot. Eight of the nine City Council members voted in favor of the suspension, with Keating being the only one who voted no. Pureval put Keating’s version up to a roll-call vote to suspend it indefinitely. Prior to Thursday’s vote, Council member Liz Keating proposed an alternate version of the amendment that would’ve required a referral to council within two meetings. Cramerding made a similar comment after the announcement of the legislation Tuesday morning. Pureval said Thursday the goal of the four-week period is to allow for discussions between the mayor, council members and residents or other stakeholders to allow time to work out any perceived issues with the legislation prior to it making it to a vote. ![]() That version recommended requiring the mayor to assign all legislation to a committee within 14 days. The Charter Review Task Force first recommended eliminating the pocket veto in 2015. Mayor Aftab Pureval (speaking) stands with three members of Cincinnati City Council on Tuesday, Sept.6, to announce plans for a charter amendment to get rid of the so-called "pocket veto." (Spectrum News 1/Casey Weldon) The pocket veto is an unintended byproduct of the so-called “stronger mayor” charter amendment of 20 years ago, according to Bill Frost, president of the Charter Committee of Greater Cincinnati. As proposed, the legislation provides timelines for the referral of legislation to City Council for a vote. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |