Override of Lansdale mayor’s veto uncommon, but not unprecedented
LANSDALE — Borough Mayor Andy Szekely’s Oct. 16 veto of the land development approval for Lansdale’s planned municipal complex was overturned by a 7-2 vote of borough council Wednesday night.
That vote to overturn the veto was suggested by borough solicitors Wisler Pearlstine LLP, but attorney Joe Clement ex- plained to council that in his firm’s opinion, Szekely may not have been able to do so in the first place.
“We do not believe that the Mayor has the traditional authority to veto this resolution, but we do believe it’s appropriate to go through this process,” Clement said.
Before a motion to override the veto was passed by council, Clement explained that “historically, the borough code has allowed a mayor to veto both resolutions and ordinances of a legislative character, and those resolutions and ordinance which incurred additional debt,” Clement said.
“We have historically allowed our borough mayors to participate in all resolutions and in all ordinances through that little stamp on the bottom” of each motion passed; “we do that in every borough that we represent,” he said, but the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Code overseeing boroughs, Section 3301.3 describes the veto authority of a mayor and council’s ability to override.
On Oct. 16 council unanimously passed a resolution granting land development approval for the borough complex based on plans developed by Spiezle Architectural Group, and Szekely said at that time he’d decline to sign or stamp that motion, effectively vetoing it and thus requiring Wednesday night’s override.
Szekely said Thurs- day that he “expected the veto, but my position’s still the same” — that the contract for architectural design work for the municipal complex should have been opened to public bidding and not awarded to Spiezle Architectural Group based on the facilities assessment they had already performed.
“I don’t question Spiezle’s credentials, or even their pricing. The bottom line is: should the architectural work have gone out to bid?” Szekely said.
After discussing the issue with Szekely, Clement said Wednesday, “we did not feel it was appropriate at the time to bring that up at the (Oct. 16) meeting, with its proximity to an election and possibly negatively — or positively — influence the election.”
Clement cited a similar veto attempted by then-Mayor Jack Scheetz in the late 1970s when council was discussing funding to build the Fairmount Fire Company’s station at Vine Street and Susquehanna Avenue, according to Clement. At that time borough legal advisors questioned whether Scheetz had the authority to veto an ordinance incurring new debt for construction of the fire station, and Scheetz said Thursday that his main concern, about a year into his 1978-81 tenure as Mayor, was for homeowners whose houses were ultimately taken by the borough for the project.
“The solicitor said to me, ‘John, where do you get this information that you can do this?’ I said, ‘In the (Commonwealth) code, look at the page,’ and he looked at it and said, ‘The mayor’s right.’ Well, man, they were furious,” Scheetz said.
A former firefighter himself, Scheetz said that during talks on that firehouse project, he was always sure to emphasize he supported the firefighters, just not at the expense of residents’ property — and while that veto was ultimately overturned in court, he did issue another to veto an attempted ban on parking along Line Street after the borough spent roughly $185,000 to build a parking lot at Memorial Park.
“If the council is not going to listen to the people, the mayor is the last one (residents) can talk to. If they override you, at least the mayor had a chance, that’s what it’s all about,” he said.