Tisdale, et al. v. City Council of the City of Aberdeen, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00182-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-02-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Authority of mayor - Appointment of city attorney - Section 21-15-25 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-21-2001 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: Held that the votes of the aldermen selecting the city attorney was valid and that the mayor's vote was invalid in this controversy. Case Number: CV-01-172BakerM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William M. Tisdale, Mayor and Aldermen Brunson Odom and Jim Buffington, Aldermen of the City of Aberdeen, in Their Capacity as Members of the City Council of the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi |
TIMOTHY E. ERVIN |
||
| Appellee: | City Council of the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi and Willie A. Cook, Cloyd Garth and Alonzo Sykes, in Their Capacity as Members of the City Council of the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi | M. JAY NICHOLS DEWITT T. HICKS, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Authority of mayor - Appointment of city attorney - Section 21-15-25 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City Council of the City of Aberdeen voted 3-2 in favor of the appointment of Robert Faulks as the city attorney. Mayor William Tisdale, asserting that he was validly exercising his statutory authority, attempted to cast a vote against the hiring of Faulks which, if allowed, would have created a tie vote. With three of the five aldermen asserting that Mayor Tisdale had no authority to vote on this matter and that Faulks had thus been duly selected as the city attorney, Mayor Tisdale and two aldermen filed their bill of exceptions in circuit court. The court ruled that under the city’s charter, the mayor could vote on the selection of municipal officers and could vote in case of a tie in other matters, but since the city attorney was not an officer, the mayor could not vote on the selection of the city attorney. The mayor and aldermen appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The mayor argues that the court erred in holding that the position of city attorney was not a subordinate officer of the City of Aberdeen under its special charter. The City of Aberdeen was created by special charter. In Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1086 (Miss. 1998), the Supreme Court held that the city council, consisting of both the Mayor and Aldermen, had the authority to appoint subordinate officers not specifically named in the charter. Whether appropriately designated as an employee or a subordinate officer under Aberdeen’s charter, the city attorney is not an officer of the city as envisioned in Aberdeen’s special charter. Since Aberdeen’s charter is silent as to the method of selection of the city attorney, section 21-15-25 is applicable. This statute provides that the governing authorities may annually appoint an attorney-at-law for the municipality. Because the city attorney is not expressly designated in the City of Aberdeen’s special charter as an officer of the City of Aberdeen, the judge correctly ruled that, in accordance with the special charter, the mayor may cast a vote on the issue of the appointment of the city attorney only in the event of a tie, and Robert Faulks was duly elected as Aberdeen’s city attorney by a 3-2 vote of the City Council. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
