Whitbeck's legal opinion goes on to say, "However, this authority is limited to assisting the Common Council in effecting its duties only, and does not grant the Common Council the authority to employ an attorney to represent to City." It is this statement on which the mayor is basing his objections.
Hallenbeck is quoted in Mason's article raising the specter of lawsuits, certain to strike terror in the hearts of some Hudsonians: "At the end of the day that advisor has no legal standing to go to court for [the] city of Hudson, or represent the interests of the city in any legal capacity. What if there's a lawsuit by residents or someone outside the city, how protected is the council or the city of Hudson? They're getting advice from someone who can't represent the city on these legal issues. If the council acts on something this individual advises, and these two city attorneys [presumably Whitbeck and Andy Howard] don't agree with it, and the council proceeds anyway, I don't think city residents want to risk that type of governing."
The Council will receive the mayor's veto at the informal meeting on Monday, February 9, and will likely vote on overriding the veto at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 17. As Gossips has already calculated, if all of the aldermen vote as they did in January, they will override the mayor's veto. When the resolution was first voted on, there were 1,486 affirmative votes. A two-thirds majority—1,350 affirmative votes—is required to override a mayoral veto.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK