Mississippi Advisory Opinions March 07, 2014: AGO 2014-00080 (March 07, 2014)

Advisory Opinion Text

AUTH: Phil Carter

RQNM: Jeffrey Turnage

SUBJ: Municipalities

SBCD: 142

Jeffrey J. Turnage, Esquire

Attorney for the City of Columbus

Post Office Box 1366

Columbus, Mississippi 39703-1366

Re: Term of Vice-Mayor

Dear Mr. Turnage:

Attorney General Jim Hood received your letter of request and assigned it to me for research and reply.

Facts

You state that following the 2013 municipal elections, the Mayor and City Council voted to appoint one of the councilmen as Vice-Mayor for a term of one year and planned to rotate the position among the council members annually. You then discovered prior Attorney General opinions wherein we opined that the term of the Vice-Mayor would be coextensive with the four year term of the governing authorities. MS AG Op., Hicks (July 25, 1983) and MS AG Op., Hicks (July 25, 1990).

Issues Presented and Responses

We preface our responses by stating that it is our understanding that the City of Columbus is governed by a private charter which is silent as to the term of office of the Vice-Mayor.

Question 1: May the Mayor and City Council lawfully limit the term of office of Vice-Mayor to one year terms?

Response: We remain of the opinion that the term of the Vice-Mayor of Columbus is coextensive with the four year term of the governing authorities. See MS AG Op., Hicks (July 25, 1983) and MS AG Op., Hicks (July 25, 1990).

Question 2: If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then is the entire vote for the appointment void, such that it must be reconsidered?

Response: Pursuant to Section 7-5-25, opinions of the Attorney General are issued on questions of law for the future guidance of those officials entitled to receive them. An Attorney General's opinion can neither validate nor invalidate past action of municipal governing authorities. Therefore, we must decline to respond to this question.

Question 3: If the answer to the second question is in the negative, is the appointment valid for the entire term of elective office notwithstanding the vote to limit it to one term?

Response: Please see our response to Question 1.

Question 4: If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, what action, if any, needs to be taken with regard to the minutes of the meeting of July of 2013, since the Mayor and City Council may only speak through their minutes and the minutes reflect that the term was to be limited to one year?

Response: The Mayor and City Council may amend or repeal the action previously taken regarding this issue. MS AG Op., McDonald (May 21, 2012).

Sincerely,

JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Phil Carter, Special Assistant Attorney General