Monroe mayor’s veto of fluoride-removal ordinance upheld after failed override attempt

Mayor Douglas’s veto of an ordinance that would have reduced fluoride levels in Monroe’s municipal water supply to zero remained in effect after the Common Council failed to muster the two-thirds vote required to override her decision.

A motion to override the veto was made and seconded; the roll-call vote favored overturning the veto by a 5–4 margin but did not reach the six votes (two-thirds) the council would have needed, so the mayor’s veto stood. City legal counsel told the council the statute requires a two-thirds vote of all members to reverse the building-inspector’s decision or, in this case, to override an executive veto.

Why it mattered: The item drew sustained public interest and drew comments both from residents urging the council to retain community water fluoridation for dental-health reasons and from council members and residents who raised liberty and environmental concerns. Public commenters said they had expected broader public outreach before any permanent change to water treatment.

Residents praised the mayor’s action at the meeting. Laura Hibbard said she was “thankful” the mayor vetoed the last amendment and urged the council to leave community fluoridation intact, arguing that a rushed vote removed opportunity for wider public input. Brenda Cruz echoed that sentiment, saying she hoped the veto would stand and the city would continue with community water fluoridation.

Opponents framed the issue around personal choice and alleged uncertainty about environmental and long-term health effects. One council member who opposed the veto warned about individual liberties and said those voting to keep fluoridation “would be violating the Ninth Amendment,” an argument the city attorney responded to by saying elected officials making policy decisions have broad immunity and a lawsuit would have to establish a legal violation before the city would be liable.

The council also discussed practical consequences raised by commenters and alderpersons: the potential capital costs of removing fluoride, the lack of a citywide survey of residents, and questions about whether the water-quality report tests included contaminants cited in testimony. City staff committed to follow up on technical questions raised during the debate.

The procedural outcome: The motion to override the veto failed to meet the two-thirds threshold required by the applicable city/county statute referenced in the meeting, so Mayor Douglas’s veto remained in force. The council’s vote on the motion was recorded in the meeting minutes as 5 in favor of overturning the veto and 4 opposed; because six votes are required to prevail, the veto stands.

The meeting then moved on to the next agenda item.