County Executive McClure appeared before the Northampton County Council on Dec. 18 to explain his veto of an ordinance that would amend Article 13, Section 13.09 of the county’s Administrative Code governing competitive negotiations.

“Pursuant to [the Home Rule Charter] and the Administrative Code, I hereby veto ordinance …,” McClure said, arguing the amendment impermissibly encroaches on executive procurement authority, contains internal inconsistencies in Section E, and could risk Sunshine Act violations if council members formed a quorum to discuss procurement outside properly advertised public sessions. He warned that procedural or substantive defects could invite disappointed bidders to challenge procurements and cause costly delays to county projects.

Council members then debated whether to override the veto. Council Member Keegan objected to the timing and handling of the ordinance, saying it had been placed on council members’ desks shortly before a prior meeting and calling the timing a “slap in the face” to newly elected members; she cited concerns about compliance with the Sunshine Act and argued the matter should wait for the incoming council. Another council member said several members had not had adequate opportunity to review the ordinance and would not support an override for procedural reasons.

Other council members pressed the opposite view, saying the amendment could be revisited by the incoming administration and that past procurement communication failures had contributed to single-bid procurements. Solicitor Spadoni and the presiding officer clarified that the purpose of the special meeting was to consider the executive’s veto and that the decision to override was a legislative one for the council to make.

On a roll-call vote, the council adopted a resolution overriding the county executive’s veto by a vote of 6 to 3, reinstating the ordinance amending Administrative Code Article 13, Section 13.09 (competitive negotiations). The resolution text, read into the record, stated the ordinance had been adopted on Dec. 4, 2025, presented to the county executive on Dec. 5, 2025, vetoed on Dec. 12, 2025, and now returned to council for action.

The council’s action restores the ordinance as adopted by the Dec. 4 vote; members said the change can still be reconsidered or revised in the future by the council or a new administration. No immediate litigation or formal challenge was recorded during the meeting.

What happens next: the ordinance will remain part of the Administrative Code unless the council or executive pursues further legal action or amendment, and council members said they expect the topic could surface again under the incoming administration.