Fifth & Huron

Stopped. Watched. icon

City clerk’s office. City clerk Jackie Beaudry shows me the card catalog of past mayoral veto messages. [photo 1] The most recent entry of April 23, 2001 predates the start of her service as city clerk by four years. That 2001 veto was tendered by John Hieftje. The reason given in his official message refers to a “technical issue” with the ordinance that was passed, citing support from the city attorney and city administrator. [photo 2] Occasion for the clerk to have the files handy: Hieftje’s recent announcement he’d be vetoing a change to the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

» Want more items like this one? Visit the Stopped. Watched. page.

The following terms describe the content of this article. Click on a term to see all articles described with that term: , ,


  1. December 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm | permalink

    Minutes indicate that the council voted for the ordinance change on April 16, 2001, the mayor vetoed it on April 23, 2001, and the overriding vote came at the council’s May 7, 2001 meeting. But it’s worth noting that the April 16, 2001 vote didn’t appear to be controversial, with as it passed on just a voice vote. No roll call was taken. And the veto message indicated that Hieftje anticipated that a second reading of the same ordinance, presumably with a rectification of the “technical issue,” to come forward at the May 7, 2001 meeting. So it looks like the 2001 veto was not exercised for the same kind of reason as this current situation, where the mayor’s position is actually at odds with a majority of the councilmembers.

  2. December 6, 2013 at 11:24 am | permalink

    Is the Mayor expecting support from the city administrator or city attorney for this veto?