By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Guyton mayor vetoes retirement plan ordinance
Guyton City Council
Guyton Mayor Andy Harville, center, at the special called meeting of Oct. 21. (Photo by Barbara Augsdorfer/Effingham Herald.)

By Barbara Augsdorfer, editor for the Effingham Herald


Update: Only two members are required to call a special meeting, and meetings must be announced 24 hours in advance.

Guyton City Councilmembers Theodore Hamby, Joseph Lee, and Mayor Pro Tem Michael Johnson have called a special meeting for Friday, Oct. 25 at 4 p.m. at City Hall with “ a discussion of Mayor Harville’s veto” of the retirement plan the only item on the agenda. The meeting is open to the public.


Original story

Guyton Mayor Andy Harville issued a veto Oct. 23 of the retirement plan that was passed 3-2 in a special called city council meeting Oct. 21.

“Let me be clear, I know this plan will be detrimental to the city’s finances both now and in the future,” Harville wrote in his veto declaration. “It will negatively impact the citizens of Guyton for many years to come.

“As public officials we must be good stewards of our tax dollars, ensuring that every dollar spent serves the best interests of our community,” Harville’s proclamation continues. “I want to underscore that our role is to serve the citizens of Guyton, not to impose regulations or actions that may not align with their best interests.”

Harville's veto letter
Mayor Andy Harville's veto proclamation as sent to the City Council Oct. 23.
The ordinance as passed was to take effect Nov. 12, and according to the city charter, Harville had ten days to veto it, which he has now done.

However, the city council may still override the veto at its next meeting (Nov. 12) with three votes.

A gauntlet may have just been thrown.

According to the city charter, approved by the Georgia Legislature in April 2022, if the veto is overridden, “The mayor may disapprove or reduce any item or items of appropriation in any resolution or ordinance,” meaning the mayor still has power to reduce the benefit; and that would force another vote to override that provision.

Also, according to the city’s charter, Guyton is a city-manager form of government. Ben Perkins, Guyton’s city attorney said, “(City council’s) job is to set policy. Their job is to hear constituent wishes and address policy.”

 

Councilmember Jeremiah Chancey issues a statement

Councilmember Jeremiah Chancey issued the following statement to the Herald via email Oct. 23: “I applaud the mayor’s decision to veto Ordinance 2024-08 also known as the council retirement plan. Both he and I have consistently opposed this idea every time it has been brought before council,” Chancey’s statement began.

“I ran for public office to serve the public and help improve this city. There is nothing in this ordinance that meets those goals. I weigh the items that come before council against two questions: How does this make the City of Guyton better? And how will it be paid for?

“One of the tenants I ran on was being fiscally conservative and working to ensure that every city dollar spent would benefit the city. On Monday I attempted to compromise on numerous items within the ordinance in hopes of mitigating the costs to the taxpayers. I was rebuffed on every attempt.

“Those in favor of retirement showed a complete unwillingness to compromise on anything that did not provide the maximum benefit possible. I believe that the public’s money should be used for the good of the city and not personal profit. This retirement plan is nothing more than a handout for government officials. 

“At present there is no plan on how the city will pay for this expense and the only idea offered was that taxes would pay for it. I do not support raising taxes especially when this ordinance would do nothing else but enrich those in office,” Chancey’s statement continued. “In order to pay for it, council is asking the public for more money to spend on an item that only benefits themselves. There is nothing about this ordinance that makes the City of Guyton better.

“In order to ensure that this ordinance goes through, those in favor have called a meeting on a date they knew I would not be able to attend due to work. There is no timeline or date that requires this to be rushed through. This ordinance could have been addressed at the regular November meeting, but there appears to be a sense of urgency in its passage.

“Working for the betterment of this community should not include things like this, but nevertheless here we are. At the end of the day this position isn’t about me; it’s about the community and doing what is in its best interest, hopefully someday they will realize that,” Chancey added.