I write in response to the Jan. 21 editorial in which The Dispatch calls upon me to veto the vote of the majority of the Columbus City Council to appoint Oscar Lewis Columbus chief of police.
In my view, such an act would be just plain wrong.
The veto should not be used indiscriminately. Improper use of the veto could unbalance the working relationship with the members of the legislative branch and put too much power into the executive branch. I have been very reluctant to exercise the veto because it should rarely be used.
Here are the times when I would be compelled to use it:
First, the veto is available to the executive branch to protect the Constitution.
Second, I might exercise the veto to prevent the council from passing some new law without following proper statutory procedures.
Third, the veto should be used to prevent council action that is harmful to the citizenry on policy grounds. Such a measure might not be illegal, but might be nonsensical.
Fourth, the veto can be used to exert leadership from the executive branch.
In my view, none of these circumstances existed. I encouraged the council to take some time to consider the answers given by the candidates in the interviews and to make the selection later.
However, four of the five council members were in favor of voting that night. While it is true that Ward 5 was unrepresented in the vote, the matter would have been put to a vote regardless. If I had vetoed Chief Lewis’ appointment, it would have been a personal affront to Chief Lewis.
If Chief Lewis was still the successful applicant and was still willing to come to Columbus to serve as chief, what sort of relationship would he and I have if I vetoed his selection?
If I vetoed the appointment of Chief Lewis, it would also be a slap in the face to the three council members who voted in favor of Chief Lewis and would, in all likelihood, damage and unbalance my working relationship with them.
Now that three of the council members have voted for Mr. Lewis, we don’t know whether the other candidates would even want to remain in the running.
Moreover, who do you suppose would be willing to apply in the future to work for the city and go through all the process that leads to selection if they thought the mayor was likely to kill the vote of the majority?
Finally, let me remind you that the final three candidates were well known to me as well as the members of the council and the public. I myself have known Oscar Lewis. He was a fine choice and his selection was not unconstitutional, morally repugnant or otherwise in need of cancellation. In summary, I would not have vetoed any of the candidates selected by a majority of the council because they all were excellent applicants. The decision is made. The decision is final and I look forward to a long working relationship with Chief Lewis.
Perhaps The Dispatch and others may disagree with my decision; however, as the chief executive officer of this city, I stand by it with resolute confidence.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.