EDITORIAL/Mayor’s verbal veto invalid

Aldermen fired municipal court clerk Marilyn Jackson in a 3-2 vote at their Aug. 18 meeting and Mayor James A. Young said at the time he would veto the decision, although he never filed official paperwork within the required 10 days. Jackson remains on the job.

State law says the veto window begins at the time of the vote and the mayor has 10 days to veto in writing to the City Clerk.

Mayor Young, Ward 4 Alderman Cassie Henson and Alderman-at-Large Leroy Clemons want to dispute that longstanding precedent.

City Attorney Robert Thomas produced several Attorney General opinions at last week’s meeting supporting the argument that the time limit starts at the time of the vote.

Adding to the confusion, the mayor actually vetoed the minutes of the Sept. 1 minutes believing that action would nullify the passing of the minutes of the Aug. 18 meeting thus preserving Jackson’s job.

Why is the mayor so desperately interested in preserving Jackson’s job?

“All I can tell you is what the law says,” Thomas said. “There is no verbal veto in state law. The law says the veto will be in writing and given to the city clerk.”

The law says the veto will be in writing and given to the city clerk. What’s so difficult to understand about that for Young, Henson and Clemons?

“The mayor vetoed the minutes of the last meeting,” Thomas said. “You have a problem with that. The veto voided the minutes of the whole meeting. If we don’t do something, we are in trouble.”

Why all of the desperation and confusion over a court clerk?

“We want them (the Attorney General) to take all of the opinions that we brought in and decide which is right,” Young said, an obvious misunderstanding of process, the role of the AG and the rule of law.