Meridian City Hall

Meridian Mayor Jimmie Smith and the City Council may soon find themselves in court after council members on Tuesday overturned two vetoes issued by the mayor on council actions.

Smith vetoed two Oct. 17 council orders, one concerning the placement of no littering and no dumping signs and the other requiring the council receive prior notice before any city workers were given pay raises. In both vetoes, Smith said the council had exceeded its authority.

Meridian operates on a “strong mayor” form of government in which the mayor acts as the executive branch and has control over the day-to-day goings on in city government. The City Council’s duty under the strong mayor system is to act as the legislative branch, setting policy, controlling the budget and implementing city ordinances.

The council, however, does not have the authority to order city workers to perform specific tasks or dictate which projects take priority over others.

City Attorney Will Simmons said council orders go into effect 10 days after they are passed, unless the mayor chooses to veto the order. After a veto is issued, the council can overturn it by a two-thirds vote, or 4-1, if all five council members are present.

After a vote to overturn, either party can appeal the outcome in circuit court, Simmons said.

In the council order regarding the placement of no littering signs, Simmons said, language requiring the “immediate placement” of the signs could be seen as overstepping the council’s authority.

Councilwoman Ty Bell Lindsey, who made the motion for the order in the Oct. 17 meeting, said her use of “immediate” was intended to emphasize the importance of the sign. Lindsey had previously requested the signs be installed in her ward but had seen no action from the city on installing them.

The council voted 4 to 1 to overturn the mayor’s veto, with Councilman George Thomas voting against the motion.

In a separate action, the council voted to amend the language in the original order to remove the word “immediate.” The motion passed with four yes votes and Thomas voting present.

The mayor’s second veto stemmed from the council’s order on Oct. 17 requiring advance notice of any pay raises before they go into effect.

City administration had already explained to the council pay raises are frequent occurrences. Police officers’ pay increases as they reach years of service. Firefighters, who are represented by a union, have certification and education raises written into their contracts. Many other departments also reward employees for learning new skills and staying in their jobs.

The city’s system of tracking employee pay is not designed to meet the conditions of the council’s order, Smith said in the Oct. 17 meeting, and it gave the impression the council was attempting to “micromanage” city employees.

Councilman Joe Norwood Jr., who serves as council president, reiterated Tuesday that the council wanted prior knowledge of pay raises and was not requiring prior approval. Council members already get a daily email with updates on goings on within the city, he said, and information on any raises can be added on to that.

Action from the council is not needed for the raises to go into effect, Norwood said, it just wants to know when raises are being given.

The council voted unanimously to overturn the mayor’s veto of the order for advance notice of raises.

Smith said he understood the council’s approach wasn’t personal and his decision to veto the two orders were also not personal. The city council, he said, does not believe it overstepped its authority, while he does.

Unfortunately, Smith said, the next step will be to involve the judicial branch.

“We’re going to probably end up in court over those two vetoes,” he said.

Simmons said his firm will not be able to represent the mayor nor the city council should the matter make it to circuit court, and both parties will need to find outside legal representation for that fight.