Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayor Signing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates 'may' versus 'shall' for mayoral signature language after past signing dispute
Summary
Members discussed whether the charter should require the mayor to sign ordinances and resolutions (language reading 'shall sign') or allow signature discretion ('may sign'), citing a past situation they described as effectively a pocket veto when an elected official declined to sign.
Lago Vista’s Charter Review Committee spent substantial time debating whether the mayor should be required to sign ordinances and resolutions or whether signing should be permissive. The discussion centered on draft language in a comparator charter that uses “may sign” for the mayor’s signature and on the potential effect of leaving signing optional.
Committee chair Linda Aird said committee members should consider the operational consequences: “If it says May, it removes that whole question. Now they can't violate the charter by not signing it because it says May sign. And it'll become law. I mean, what if they don't?”
Members noted a local incident under the current charter in which a mayor declined to sign an ordinance; committee members described that outcome as effectively creating a pocket veto under the older language that used “shall.” Robert Owen summarized the reading that the city secretary’s attestation can prevent a signing impasse: “The city secretary is attesting the contracts…she's not attesting to the...the resolution.”
Why it matters: Signature language affects whether a mayor can stall or effectively veto an enacted ordinance by refusing to sign, and it shapes who must legally attest documents. Committee members expressed two main options: require signatures or rely on city secretary attestation to remove a practical veto.
Points of contention and options discussed - Use 'shall sign' for mayor or rely on 'may sign' and require city secretary attestation. Arguments for 'shall' emphasized clarity and preventing confusion over whether the ordinance took effect; arguments for 'may' emphasized removing political confrontation and the practical reality that the secretary often attests and carries out administrative formalities. - Possible compromise approaches: make the city secretary the attesting official by charter language, or include explicit procedures that state the ordinance becomes effective after council passage and administrative attestation even if the mayor declines to sign.
Next steps: Committee members suggested clarifying attestation language (for example, specifying that the city secretary attest executed documents) and directed that proposed charter language be refined so it avoids an operational pocket veto or procedural ambiguity.
