Veto Power Works When Mayor Votes Only In Case Of Tie

According to Gannett, Oshkosh Common Councilors Esslinger and McHugh are getting set to introduce referendum language that would allow the voters to decide if the mayor of Oshkosh should have veto power. If the story is accurate, the mayoral position would remain unchanged except for the addition of veto power that would take 5 of 7 council votes to override. That is, the mayor would remain primarily a member of the legislature with equal voting powers.

I'm a strong supporter of mayoral veto power; however, such power can be easily abused if the mayor's position remains unchanged except for the addition of the veto. We could find ourselves in an absurd position in which every time the mayor is on the losing end of a 4-3 vote, he vetoes the measure. He then gets to vote to sustain his own veto! Veto power was not meant to serve as another vote for a sore loser among equal members of a legislature. Nor was veto power meant to serve as a vehicle for legislative grandstanding. Rather, veto power was meant to serve as an EXECUTIVE check on the legislature.

The solution is simple: allow the mayor to vote only in the case of a tie. Suppose the council is having a tough deliberation over the budget the mayor wants to see defeated. If the Council passes the budget by a 4-2 vote, the mayor vetoes it and then 5 votes would be needed to override. If the council votes 3-3, the mayor votes NO and the budget is defeated.

Allowing a mayor to veto a piece of legislation that he already voted NO on not only runs the risk of creating image of the "sore loser legislator," but it is also a violation of the spirit of the system of checks and balances on which a constitutional form of government is founded.

Let's give the mayor veto power--but only if the mayor's voting privileges are changed so that s/he only votes in the event of a tie.