Backers disappointed by veto of Lee County bill

Some of the people who worked to create and pass a local bill that would have allowed Lee County voters to change the way the county is run said they were surprised and discouraged that it was vetoed by Gov. Bob Riley.

“I’m shocked the governor of Alabama would even consider interfering in a local matter such as this ...,” said Hugh Dicks, chairman of a citizens advisory council that worked on the bill. “The county needs to move forward.”

The council spent months examining the way the county is run and suggested changes. Council members surveyed citizens. They talked with representatives from other counties. Finally, in expectation of further growth in the county, the council suggested the job of county commission chairman be separated from the probate judgeship.

House Bill 834 would have allowed Lee County citizens to decide whether or not they wanted to separate the duties, which are currently combined.

When the bill went to the statehouse, local legislators amended the chairman position from full-time to part-time with a lower pay. It passed on the last day of the regular session.

By law, a bill has to be advertised before it passes. If there are “significant changes” in the process, it has to be re-advertised. Because the change was a decrease in the duties and pay that had been advertised, county officials said they were told it didn’t need to be re-advertised.

In his veto message, Riley told legislators he considered the changes in the bill to be significant enough to make the bill unconstitutional without re-advertisement.

“It’s just going to the voters,” Dicks said. “It’s not something that’s going into law right away … It’s just appalling to me … There was no reason at all for the governor to even be concerned about a local bill unless someone called him and said, ‘I need you to veto this so it doesn’t come up.’ All it does is deny the citizens of Lee County the right to vote on it. (It) smells funny.”

The governor’s message said, “Either of these changes, and certainly the combination of these changes, render this bill unconstitutional …”

Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, was one of those who amended the bill’s full-time definition and salary.

“If it was full-time, there was no way in the world the people would support that when it went to the polls,” Hubbard said.

He said he understood the governor’s legal advisors thought the changes were substantial enough to require the bill to be re-advertised.

“He has a track record that he vetoes bills if he thinks there are constitutional issues,” Hubbard said. “I don’t think it had anything to do with politics. I think it’s because he respected the opinion of his legal advisor. I’m not convinced he’s right, but the governor has the right to veto.”

Gerald Johnson, another member of the advisory council, said he and others hoped the bill would become law.

“My overall reaction is disappointment, but this is a process, and it often takes a series of steps before substantive changes are made,” Johnson said. “I would have preferred it to be presented to the people and let the people make the decision.”

Council member Warren McCord said he hoped the bill would be reintroduced in next year’s legislative session. He said the council’s recommendation had nothing to do with current Probate Judge Bill English’s abilities to serve in both capacities.

“He is doing a fine job,” McCord said. “It’s just in the future, the job is going to get much more complicated.”

County commission members have suggested the bill will be reintroduced.

“That it didn’t pass this year didn’t make or break anything,” McCord said. “It’s just sooner or later, it needs to be done. A lot of people say, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ But (I) say, ‘If you need a newer model, trade it in if it works better and is more efficient.’”

English said he talked to the governor’s legal advisors while the bill was being heard and asked if the bill, if not re-advertised, was unconstitutional. He said he never got an answer.

English would not say whether or not he wanted to keep both positions.

“I am serving the job I was elected to serve in and will do that until the citizens of the county tell me otherwise,” English said. “I think there were a lot of political motivations that went into that bill rather than practical considerations, but that’s politics.”