Request By:
Honorable John T. Mandt
City Attorney
City of Somerset
203 West Columbia Street
Somerset, Kentucky 42501
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of March 25 in which you raise the question as to whether or not the mayor of the city of Somerset has the power to veto an action taken by the city council, by motion, to fire the mayor's secretary. You particularly refer to KRS 85.110 (3) governing vetos by mayors in third class cities and raise the following questions:
"1. Is a motion firing the Mayor's secretary the type of measure that can properly be vetoed by the Mayor of a third class city?
"2. If so, does the fact that said secretary is the Mayor's wife raise a conflict of interest issue, which would disqualify the Mayor from vetoing this particular measure?
"3. Does the fact that the Mayor voluntarily relinquished his position as chairman during the hearing on the charges against Peggy Whitaker and the vote taken thereon prevent the Mayor from vetoing the measure?"
Our response to your initial question would be in the negative and we are enclosing a copy of OAG 76-65 covering a similar question concerning the mayor's right to veto a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to KRS 85.110 (3). You will note our position to the effect that the mayor's veto authority is limited, in our opinion, under the referred to statute, to those ordinances appropriating and involving the expenditure of money and the granting of any license, privilege or franchise. Thus, the adoption of a motion to fire an employe of the city would not be subject to veto by the mayor.
Aside from the authority cited in the referred to opinion, we also call your attention to a statement found in McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 5, § 16.42, from which we quote the following:
"The question as to whether an action is legislative or administrative so as to govern the application of the veto power has arisen frequently in regard to the action of a council in electing or appointing officers. The majority of the courts appear to favor the view that the council's action is not legislative but administrative and not subject to veto. . . ."
In view of our answer to your initial question, your second and third questions become moot.