Opinion No.
Background
- Pine Bluff Ordinance No. 5721 (1997) requires the mayor to distribute the written veto reasons to city council members the next business day after filing with the city clerk and, separately, to include veto reasons in week‑ahead mailing of ordinances to council members.
- The ordinance purports to shift timing earlier, requiring distribution to council members the Wednesday before the Monday council meeting.
- Arkansas Code Annotated § 14‑43‑504(e) requires the mayor to file veto reasons with the clerk before the next regular council meeting, and the council may override with a 2/3 vote.
- The statute mandates that the veto be presented to the council at the next meeting after the reasons are filed.
- The opinion concludes the Pine Bluff ordinance conflicts with state law and is unenforceable to the extent of the conflict.
- Assistant Attorney General’s opinion prepared and approved by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Pine Bluff ordinance exceed the mayor's statutory veto obligations? | McDaniel argues the ordinance adds procedural steps not authorized by §14‑43‑504(e). | Pine Bluff contends local control allows additional procedural requirements. | Yes; the ordinance conflicts with state law and is unenforceable to the extent of the conflict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. American Home Life Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 330, 738 S.W.2d 387 (1987) (Ark. 1987) (municipal powers are limited to those granted by statute or constitution)
- City of Little Rock v. Raines, 241 Ark. 1071, 411 S.W.2d 486 (1967) (Ark. 1967) (city ordinances depend on authority granted by legislature or constitution)
- Leathers v. Cotton, 332 Ark. 49, 961 S.W.2d 49 (1998) (Ark. 1998) (unambiguous statutory language must be interpreted according to its terms)