Veto Override May Come to Vote; Unlikely to Pass

A veteran City Hall hand said after the April 19 special Common Council meeting to reconsider that it was the longest single-issue debate in memory.

The aldermen, after 4-1/2 hours of public comment and debate among themselves, did overturn their March 15 vote to deny the contracts with union-represented city workers by an 8-7 margin.

The following morning, Mayor Jill Didier nullified that vote with her veto, setting up a final showdown tonight as she is required to officially present her veto and allow the council the chance to override it.

However, the kind of fireworks surrounding the previous votes is unlikely to occur when the council convenes at 7:30. Several aldermen who were key to the contract turnabout say there is little to be accomplished by continuing the debate in what would almost surely be a futile effort to ratify the contracts.

There is some interest, though, in putting the matter to a vote as one last chance for aldermen to go on record for or against the contracts.

Ald. Dennis McBride (District 4), one of five signers of the petition that brought the issue back to the table April 19, released a statement following the veto saying that while he did not agree with it, he saw no purpose to be served by pursuing an override. He said that he would move to put on hold any effort toward a vote, laying the matter to rest if his motion succeeds.

However, Ald. Tim Hanson (District 3), said last week that he saw no reason to stifle a last debate and said he would welcome the chance to vote once again to ratify the contracts - win or lose.

"We've followed the process all along," Hanson said, "and the mayor followed the process, and this is one more part of the process. Why wouldn't I want to vote again for the contracts? I've voted for them twice so far."

Ald. Linda Nikcevich (District 1) has also been a fervent supporter of ratifying the contracts and was a signer of the petition to reconsider, but she said Monday she thought it was unlikely an override would even come to a vote.

"The mayor will state her reasons for the veto," Nikcevich said, "and then I expect McBride will make his move to table, and that will probably be it. I don't see a lot of interest in carrying this any further."

Nikcevich said, though, that there might be some aldermen, herself among them, who would want to register some response to Didier's justification of her veto. But that could come as brief statements in the discussion to table the matter, with no final vote to override.

Proponents of the contracts say the negotiations were advantageous to the city and  could save taxpayers about $50,000 a month. Opponents say there may be more savings to be achieved by holding off on contracts until the governor's budget repair bill is in place.

The numbers are strongly against a successful override. It would take 11 votes to overturn the veto, and at least one alderman considered a candidate to possibly change his vote said Monday that he would not.

"No, I won't change my vote," Ald. Peter Donegan (District 1) said. "We've voted on it twice already, and it just breeds so much hostility towards us."

Donegan is chairman of the Employee Relations Committee, which recommended passage of the contracts before they came to the full Common Council in March. An initial supporter of ratifying the new union agreements, he was swayed to vote against them by the public outcry at a March 15 meeting, when about 100 people showed up to voice opposition to the deals.

Council President Eric Meaux (District 2) is also seen as someone who could change sides after voting against the contracts on April 19. He made one of the stronger arguments that night in support of the contracts, but then said he was "torn" by the amount of public acrimony surrounding the do-over vote before casting his against.

Meaux could not be reached for comment.

The only other possible wild cards are Ald. Don Birschel (District 7), who had signed the re-vote petition and earnestly supported ratification but then changed his mind the day of the vote, and Jill Organ (District 4), who was absent at the last vote.

With no likely scenario that would lead to a successful override, the question might come down to whether enough aldermen want to have a final say for the record – perhaps achieving a simple majority or a tie.

Simply as part of the process, Donegan saw that as something he would consider if McBride pushes to lay the matter aside but other members wanted to make a statement.

"I will have to think about whether I will vote to hold," he said.