Opinion ID: 1808883
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Inapplicability of Wilson v. Dawson

Text: The trial court also relied upon Wilson v. Dawson, 590 So.2d 263 (Ala.1991), which the minority urges us to follow. In Wilson, the mayor of the City of Prichard made two types of changes to the general-fund budget adopted by the city council. 590 So.2d at 264. The mayor line-item vetoed several expenditures on the budget and inserted several line-item expenditures. 590 So.2d at 264. To determine the scope of the powers of the mayor of the City of Prichard, this Court specifically examined § 11-43C-52 because the mayor-council form of government for the City of Prichard is governed by § 11-43C-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. 590 So.2d at 264. Section 11-43C-52 provides: If the mayor shall disapprove of any expenditure line item contained in the budget transmitted to him by the council, he shall, within 10 days of the time of its passage by the council, return the same to the clerk with his objections in writing, and the clerk shall make report thereof to the next regular meeting of the city council, and if four [7] of the council members shall at the meeting adhere to said expenditure line item by yeas and nays and spread upon the minutes, then said expenditure line item shall become effective. In Wilson, this Court strictly construed § 11-43C-52 to conclude that the legislature intended to provide the mayor with the power to line-item veto expenditures in a budget, but not the power to alter and amend the budget so as to add or change items after its adoption. 590 So.2d at 266. Therefore, this Court held that [t]he mayor's statutory powers are not broad enough to permit a mayor to make alterations and amendments to a budget after it has been adopted by the council. 590 So.2d at 265. The trial court applied the holding in Wilson to hold that Mayor Bright did not have the power or authority to veto the first council budget because, it reasoned, Act No. 618 does not explicitly grant Mayor Bright the power or authority to veto a budget. This reasoning assumes that the reference to all ordinances in § 3.15 is insufficient to deal with the council's adoption of a budget, a concept we have rejected.