Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayoral Veto Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sugar Grove mayor issues written veto, halts flag resolution pending appeal
Summary
Village President Sue Stilwell issued a written veto of a board resolution concerning a flag action, and trustees and legal counsel debated whether subsequent actions were stayed by an administrative appeal; counsel described the question as an issue of first impression.
Sugar Grove Village President Sue Stilwell issued a written veto of a recent resolution related to a flag matter and told the board “no further action regarding the flag shall proceed until the pending appeal is heard and resolved.”
The veto drew immediate procedural questions from trustees and legal counsel about whether the filing of an administrative appeal automatically stayed all subsequent transfer- or action-related proceedings. Trustee Heidi Lundy asked counsel to advise whether the board could take action on an item not on the published agenda and whether the veto required placement on a future agenda. Legal counsel said the matter raised complex procedural issues and described it as “an issue of first impression,” saying there is “not a lot of case law out there” about appeals followed by subsequent actions and vetoes by a change in administration.
“Respect for law and process demands this be done,” Stilwell wrote in the veto, adding the action was necessary “to uphold the village code, protect the rights of all parties, and reaffirm that decisions must follow lawful process, not political or private interest.”
Counsel explained that, under relevant statutory requirements discussed at the meeting, a vote to overturn a veto requires a supermajority and would be scheduled for the next meeting of the body. Counsel also said some courts and access counselors have litigated related open-meetings and appeal questions but that the current facts presented gray areas that lack controlling precedent.
Trustees debated parliamentary procedure on whether the mayor’s comments could be heard at this meeting or should wait for the president’s report or the next agenda; one trustee said personal statements are permitted but formal actions must follow agenda procedures. Several trustees asked that counsel provide a written opinion for the record and requested the item be handled on the next meeting’s agenda so staff and trustees could prepare.
No substantive final legal determination was made during the public portion of the meeting; trustees and counsel agreed the procedural question of whether the appeal stayed subsequent actions merits further review and likely formal placement on a future agenda.
The board moved on to other agenda items after the discussion; trustees signaled they would place any vote overturning a veto on a subsequent meeting as required by statute.
