Lumumba claims that the city council’s entire argument is based on a misapprehension.
The saga continues between Mayor Chokwe Lumumba and the City Council of Jackson over whether or not the Mayor has authority to veto a “no” vote of the council. The particular incident pertains to a contract with Richard’s Disposal that the mayor moved forward with, without approval from the council.
Richard’s Disposal has been collecting trash in the City of Jackson since April. They recently threatened to end service after not being paid by the city for over six months of work. The city and the garbage company were able to come to a temporary agreement to continue trash collection when the city paid Richard’s $4.8 million of the $12 million the city owes.
RELATED: Jackson City Council files appeal brief
The mayor has filed his response to the city council’s brief in the appeal he filed after a judge ruled in the city council’s favor that the mayor does not have veto authority of a negative action made by the council.
Lumumba and his team are of the opinion that he does have the authority to veto any action made by the council due to executive privilege. His response to their brief reads as follows:
“The City Council incorrectly argues that the plain language of Miss. Code Ann. §21-8-17(2) prohibits the Mayor from vetoing actions not adopted by the council and that by his argument, the Mayor has “creative legislative power.” However, the City Council’s entire argument is based on 1) its misapprehension that the ordinance it adopted to create the procedure required for the adoption of city ordinances in Sec. 2-66 of the Jackson Code of Ordinances is applicable to the veto authority granted to the Mayor in Miss. Code Ann. §21-8-17(2); 2) the City Council’s votes to approve or disapprove the contracts for the emergency and regular collection of residential solid waste are a legislative function; 3) its belief that the City Council’s actions to deny the ratification of the contracts for the emergency and regular collection of residential solid waste were not official actions; and 4) its mistaken belief that if the Mayor were allowed to veto the City Council’s official action of denying the ratification of contracts, he would be creating law”
You can read the full response below:
web0001.SCT.2022-CA-855.74304.0 (1) by yallpolitics on Scribd
Sarah Ulmer
