Can someone please explain to me why the ruling was so clear from the get-go? If I understand it right, Council didn't have approve of the deal, they could only choose not to approve it, which they did by passing a resolution. According to city charter, the mayor has a right to veto resolutions from the council [[aside from some specific cases), which he did. And from what I understand, there is no place in authority legislation that says he can't do that. So I guess I don't understand why it's so clear that he didn't have the authority to veto. I would understand if it if the legislation said he couldn't veto, and the battle was over legislation vs city charter, but it's not. I guess I don't see the conflict between the two. I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just really trying to understand why some on here feel that it is clearly the right decision.
Bookmarks