Somewhere along the way, someone dreamed up a so-called mayoral pocket veto" – an imaginary power the mayor had allegedly acquired under the so-called strong(er) mayor system that was ushered in 2000. Under the current charter, the mayor is required to assign all legislative matters to an appropriate council committee for consideration.
 

Unfortunately, the charter is silent on the amount of time the mayor can take to make these assignments. If the mayor unnecessarily delays or never assigns legislation to a City Council committee, the mayor would essentially be exercising prior restraint on the council’s legislative initiatives. Killing or inordinately delaying possible legislation by refusing to assign it to a council committee in a timely manner has been dubbed "the pocket veto."
 

There's been controversy about this imaginary mayoral power ever since, and mayors have increasingly used the threat of it despite the fact that council makes its own rules. The problem is that the mayor is no longer a member of council and is not considered to be bound by those rules, hence the issue council faces in getting any mayor to comply with a set number of days for a referral.
 

At a recent Cincinnatus forum, Mayor Aftab Pureval said he wouldn't use "the pocket veto," and wouldn't care if it disappeared. He is "apathetic" about it. This raises an important question: Shouldn't this City Council once and for all side with our city's charter and clarify their power to set policy? Remember, this power is explicitly granted in our city's charter.
 

Whether out of fear of a mayor, indifference, or a misinterpretation of the powers granted under our city's charter, this controversy must be put to rest once and for all. Council members shouldn't have to threaten to sue a mayor to have legislation referred to a committee or to bring forth legislation approved by a committee, something which has actually happened.