Jackson Jambalaya

It’s literally Looney Toons

Just making shit up as we go. Stay 50th Mississippi.

Rejecting a contract is not an ordinance imo.

I will say that a broad reading of the term as provided could allow the court to find that the rejected contract was “an official action” and as a result required the mayor to submit the contract back to the council where the council would
Have to vote it down by 2/3 vote.

If this is how the city can be run…..the mayor is the man with almost unfettered power.

All the mayor needs is 3 votes and it’s over.

That’s easy too….one less person to bribe.

I still don't see how a veto of a rejection is the same as a contract approval. If we consider rejection -1 and an approval 1 a veto of a rejection is a return to 0 and not an actual approval.

So the mayor's lawyers aren't even going to address the substance. That's pretty risky but not surprising considering their lack of intellect.

No. The definition of “adopted” is what is controlling. No question the no vote is an action of the council, but is a no vote an adoption of an ordinance. Of course not. What is his problem?

There is no function with city county and state government working as they should. And when I say none I mean none. You still got folks "WORKING" from home !! And that means not working. Everything is being held up and taking months to years longer than it should. Especially in the 316 building. The lazy going on down there is beyond shameful.

You watch a show like this and any questions about how Mississippi allowed federal welfare funds to be looted to help build a volleyball facility at a university are answered.

Clueless is a state!

Good to see the Council added competent counsel to their table

!0:45 - after realizing that Deshun Martin can't even spell!

So, I guess the mayor will be able to do whatever he wants from now on.
Wish I could afford to move out of here.

Little wonder why the Legislature is only going to give Jackson the minimum possible until Lumumba is out of office.

Judge Dickinson is an embarrassment.

This is what a banana republic looks like. What a fucking joke.

@11:01 AM - The thieves in the legislature don't trust the thieves at the Jackiston city hall, right?

Jackistan will never be able to come up with the matching funds for that $25M. Even bonds won't be sufficient.

10:32 is right. Did none of the attorneys for the council or WM argue that point. Did nobody have any case law on that point? I don’t have a government job so I cant watch the entire video.

Elected representation may soon be rendered powerless. If this is the trend - that is, finding a way to shift power to the few (or the one) then we truly are changing as a nation.

So using Dickerson thought process the board could approve a contract 4-3 and the mayor veto the contract and if the board doesn’t override the veto the mayor can give the contract to who he wants?

I really hope Dickinson doesn’t screw this up as bad as his last opinion. He made a big mess even worse.

At the end of the day the council didn't honor the RFP. You cant ignore procurement laws. A lot of comments in here are alluding to the mayor, but the council can not reject a winning bid without good cause and the council presented no reason to reject the winning bid, just saying no ain't gone cut it. Like folk in here saying you may as well get rid of the council if the mayor can veto anything they do, well you may as well get rid of the RFP process if a winning big is not awarded to the most responsible and lowest bidder, the council is not abiding by state procurement laws, this would all be a non issue if the council didn't try to bypass the winning bid and backdoor Waste management into a contract.

What if the counsel denies a rezoning request. The mayor can veto that as well?

Did Dickinson's summary at closing imply that a definition for "Action" vs "Adopted Action" is the controlling nature of a Council Action that does or does not permit a mayoral veto, which needs a State Supreme Court review to define?

Not only is nothing settled here, no other Council "action" going forward will be settled, either, until the State Supremes weigh in.

Jackson, rudderless in a sea of ineptitude, no shore in sight. Plus if your sewer or water geysers in plain sight, call a librarian or a zoo keeper since Public Works is circling the drain as well.

Justice Dickinson seems convinced that the mere act of voting is itself subject to mayoral veto, because the vote is an "action" of the council. The statute says:

"The term 'ordinance' as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council, except those procedural actions governing the conduct of the council’s meetings, appointing a clerk of council, and exercising the council’s investigative functions under Section 21-8-13(4)."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-47.

It's certainly debatable whether the mere act of voting constitutes an "official action of the council," but even if it does, isn't the act of voting the quintessential procedural action governing the conduct of a council meeting?

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that a vote that fails can't possibly be an ordinance "adopted," which is the only thing the mayor has the ability to veto:

"Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds (⅔) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor’s veto."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-17.

"The vote of the members of the council on any ordinance or resolution shall be taken by a show of hands. No action of the city council shall be considered adopted unless it receives the affirmative vote of that portion of the council dictated by state law under the circumstances."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-66.

"At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-11(2).

While I'm at it, I'll just add that Richard's Disposal has especially incompetent representation unless they're picking up garbage under these circumstances against advice of counsel:

"The substantive provisions of each contract approved by the city council must be entered, and appear, in the city council's minutes in order to be binding upon the city."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-584.

"It is incumbent upon persons, or artificial entities (i.e., corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.), entering into contracts with the city, or seeking to do so, to [m]ake certain that they are legal contracts; further, it is the responsibility of each entity contracting with the city, not the responsibility of the city itself, to ensure that the substantive provisions of the contract are properly recorded on the minutes of the city."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-585(1).

"Anyone contracting or purchasing from the City must be aware of the limitations that apply. Martin v. Newell, 198 Miss. 809, 815, 23 So. 2d 796 (1945). In Martin, the court said that a party contracting with a county is bound by the requirement that a contract 'requires an entry on the minutes of the board.' Id. . . . There is no hint that JLG engaged in any efforts to assure the validity of a [lease] renewal if a renewal in fact was ever entered. . . . [N]o estoppel to the City would arise from what, under Martin v, Newell, must be considered a knowing failure to negotiate with the proper entity -- the City and its council. In the face of clear legal authority that the city manager had no authority to renew [a lease] on his own and in the absence of any agreement as to new terms, we find that no justifiable reliance on such action was possible."
JLG Concrete Prods. Co. v. City of Grenada, 722 So. 2d 1283, 1287-89 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

The mayor's unilateral contract with Richard's will be declared invalid and non-binding at the end of the day, and Richard's will not succeed in any lawsuit for payment based on an estoppel or quasi-contract theory. The only way Richard's comes out of this alive is if they can get the council to end up ratifying the contract, one way or another.

Jackistan will never be able to come up with the matching funds for that $25M.

Because Chuckway wants to spend money on boondoggles -- including a back door funnel to Rukia of $700,000. Screw infrastructure.

10:19, I agree with your opinion, but I can't find that broad reading.

The code does say that an ordinance is any "...... or action" of the Council. But in this instance, the proposed ordinance did not receive a majority vote so it was an "inaction" of the Council, as Attorney John Scanlon tried to make the point with the Judge - until the Judge interrupted him.

Going to the statute the Judge said he was relying on (21-8-17(2)) as being the question before him, it requires an Ordinance, after being adopted, be submitted to the Mayor where he could veto or accept it. The Judge claimed he was looking for the definition of "adopted" - something he should be able to determine if he would just read a few more words after the word "adopted".

Since no Ordinance was adopted, there was nothing to submit to the Mayor. An ordinance presented to the Council that does not receive a majority of the votes does not exist, ergo it cannot "be presented" to the Mayor for a possible veto.

Granted, if the proposed ordinance had been presented to the Council as "an ordinance to reject a contract with....." and that ordinance passed, then it would have been an action, therefore an ordinance and an ordinance adopted and able to be presented for a veto.

But it wasn't. The question before the Council was "an ordinance to ratify the contract with....." and it failed to receive a majority vote. Therefore it was not an action, rather it was an inaction. And there was nothing to be presented to the Mayor for his approval or veto.

Hopefully Justice Dickinson will be able to understand the simple definition of the word "adopted" - and if he would read the entire sentence he might be able to find that definition that he evidently needs to get his arse out of the hole he dug for himself.

Everybody else is swimming along turning a sprint into a marathon making $250.-$300. per hour. It's the Judge who's in over his head and drowning
in his own hubris.

The council is right that a rejection is not an "ordinance' to be vetoed but the mayor is also right that the Judge has no business deciding issues after his final judgment and not for his court under the original pleading. It's a mess a long way from being resolved.

$$$$$$$$ for attorneys.

RDS has trucks but not enough drivers. Thought they were ready to roll

Cha ching, can you say "billable hours?" I know you can. Any Gulf Shores realtors on here?

“Special” judges bill by the hour too…

Coincidence?!

Ok I have a solution ! I’m going to get my schoolhouse rock VHS and pirate some copies to all involved . ‘ I’m am a Bill sitting here on Capitol hill’ Now everyone knows how different branches of government work and they can all sing together.

The sooner it gets out of Dickinson's court, the better for everyone concerned.

A problem for the Council is that the Legislature broadly defines an ordinance as including any official act of the council and separately provides that a mayor may veto any ordinance adopted by the council.

The council only acts through its votes and both affirmative votes and negative votes are official acts of the council. Taking a vote is an official act, and under the statute, that vote is an ordinance. While the council may vote against adopting an ordinance to become effective within the municipality, for statutory purposes, that act of the council taking a vote has the effect of the council adopting an ordinance, which, again, includes all official acts, whether resulting from a passing or failing vote. The Legislature did not limit ordinances adopted by the council under its broad definition to passing items.

A negative vote is not an "inaction" as some posters here argue; it is taking an official act and it is an ordinance. Some posters here seem to believe that failing items disappear into the ether as if they never occurred, but instead, they are presented to the mayor alongside passing items.

Although the Legislature did not limit the mayoral veto to ordinances adopted with an underlying affirmative or passing vote, throughout the municipal code, the legislature is intentional about specifying when an affirmative or passing vote on an ordinance is required. Along the same line, in the Mississippi Constitution, the drafters specified that the Governor could only veto passing legislation.

If we read beyond the "ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor" language in the paragraph authorizing the mayoral veto, the Legislature goes on to add that “[n]o ordinance [which includes all official actions] or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor's approval”. Although this would be another opportune place to declare no “passing” or “affirmative” ordinance shall take effect, as seen in other sections of the Code, the Legislature does not make that distinction on what ordinances are presented to the mayor for approval.

(The Legislature excepted from its broad definition of ordinances certain items that are solely within the council's authority, such as procedural rules and investigations. Interestingly, these exceptions align with the items not subject to veto by the Governor in the Mississippi Constitution. One could conclude that the Legislature was intentional about veto authority and its exceptions. Notably, they did not limit mayoral veto authority to passing items or exclude ordinances adopted by a negative vote.)

Finally, it’s amazing how quickly this group has turned on Dickinson with his only offense being interpreting the law based on the plain language set forth in the Mississippi Code. You all should direct your anger at the Legislature if you don’t like the way the laws are written.

8:40 It was Judge Jess who in his own overblown judgment suggested "new law" that is, that a mayor might veto a contract rejection and revive the contract. If that is so, municipalities all over the state have "new law" and surely must adjust their thinking accordingly. If he had not gone there, the mayor would not have pounced on that tidbit of wisdom to justify Richard's garbage pickup.

On the other hand maybe Dickinson has no jurisdiction of this issue at all. That's also possible.

This so Crazy .... what about the taxpayers of Jackson.... Money spent on attorneys ...the Mayor Sucks and I hope it kills his career... who is going to run the city services divison if only his friends with no competence can be hired... can there be a vote of no confidence and remove him?

8:40
You use a lot of words to say that anything a council votes on, whether they vote yes or no, is “adopting “ an ordinance. You don’t cite any law or logic or use any common sense, basically just your opinion. I think you should look up the definition of adopt.

8:40, the legislature did not intend to give mayors unlimited power. Under your interpretation, a mayor submits ordinance, it is rejected by council, then mayor’s veto passes the ordinance in its original form. The council’s vote is meaningless, so their only defense against the mayor’s proposals is inaction by not forming a quorum or by not taking a vote. This would trigger other options for the mayor, such as the use of emergency powers, to keep the city running, so the mayor could circumvent all actions or inactions of the council.

If the Mayor's interpretation does win the day, he will have maybe. a year to run wild with it. Legislature going to clarify or strengthen that language.

can there be a vote of no confidence and remove him?

There needs to be a recall effort started immediately. The damage he has done to the City will take years to correct.

Lets hope Justice Dickinson will use a little common sense and restore some faith in the judiciary and rule correctly on this veto. It is obvious to any sensible reading of the statute what the legislature meant. Apparently Dickinson is trying to overthink it to show how intelligent he is. The legislature did not define adopt because everyone (supposedly) knows what it means. They can’t define every word in every statute. At some point common sense and common usage of a word should kick in.

If a mayor is able to veto all actions by a city council then what you have is tyranny and a dictatorship.

Did re-electing this tyrant yield different results?

At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter.

The authority of the council is otherwise legislative and is executed by a vote within a legally called meeting.

Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds (⅔) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor’s veto.

The term “ordinance” as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council, except those procedural actions governing the conduct of the council’s meetings, appointing a clerk of council, and exercising the council’s investigative functions under Section 21-8-13(4).

An "ordinance" requires an affirmative vote by the council to be adopted. Ordinances adopted must be submitted to possible veto by the Mayor. One can not extrapolate, using any logical pathway, to suggest that an "ordinance" that must pass by affirmative vote would include the actual vote for said "ordinance" (using the logic that "ordinance" includes "other official actions" that would include the vote yea/nay for said ordinance) and that the mayor could then veto said vote since said vote IS NOT an ordinance since it was not "adopted" by "affirmative vote" by the Council. The ambiguity with this stance appears clear to everyone except the Judge and the obviously dishonest Mayoral camp. I say "dishonest" because I can't believe anyone of the Bar could argue this position with a straight face.

"No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval..." - if a vote, itself, is an "action" then why is this not being applied? To say, no vote (action) can take effect without the mayor's approval? ..... and how does the Mayor "return an ordinance to the council" (with "action" being the vote itself) such that he is returning the nay vote of the Council?

Lastly, if the vote is the "action", then why can't the Mayor also veto the override of his previous veto?

If "the Mayor's interpretation does win the day" then we have truly progressed into a regression of an illogical made up clown world.

to add:

Dickinson can not, reasonably, ask about the definition of "adopt." Forget the logic of it, but when the statute states "the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt", then it has defacto defined what is necessary for "adopt."

..we have truly progressed into a regression of an illogical made up clown world.

That accurately defines Lumumba world.

I agree with the comments posted at 9:47 AM TODAY & 10:54 AM TODAY (April 9). He needs to be recalled immediately.

11:02, 11:09
Amen. Thank you. Maybe Justice Dickinson will read your post.

840, your wonderful interpretation overlooks the very item you state - and "ordinance adopted" has to be passed to the Mayor for his acceptance or veto.

Since no ordinance was able to be passed to the Mayor, then your interpretation of any "action" is therefore an ordinance (yes, I can read 47 but that still doesn't answer the 'adopted' part of 17).

If adopted, then there is an ordinance that was presented allowing the Mayor to issue a contract. But when the vote was against the presented ordinance, there is nothing to present to the Mayor to accept or veto.

If the vote of the Council was negative then therefore that was an "inaction" of the Council. They didn't take the action that the proposed ordinance requested.

Its not as poorly written as you try to claim in defense of the Mayor's position; and case law stands behind this interpretation. One old case in Mississippi but also (as the Judge requested) a Puerto Rico case and a Montana case. Those, along with the (non-binding as Dickinson likes to remind us regularly) several AG opinions that do provide a good base for the definition of "adopted" are going to be hard to overcome with your attempt at logically claiming adopted includes not adopting but rejecting.

11:02 and 11:09 gloss over the clause “unless otherwise provided in this chapter”. That clause allows for other methods to adopt an ordinance. One of those exceptions is provided for in the statute broadly defining an ordinance, which does not limit ordinances to affirmative votes. Instead, it arguably provides that all official acts taken by the council—their votes—have the effect of adopting an ordinance under that statute.

Kingfish is right. The courts decide and the Legislature can clarify if they so desire.

Mayor's counsel at 10:31

Omission doesn't make something so.

The clause you refer to says:
" At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter. "

TO PASS ANY MEASURE whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter. Voting Nay by the majority, in no language, equals passage of a measure.

Got any more blanks to shoot?

The mayor never interpreted the legislation like that until Dickenson dropped that dumbass footnote or Chokwe would have vetoed the same votes that were taken earlier. The only person having ever interpreted the statutes that way is the judge.