A discussion about language used in a recent resolution took up a large amount of time during last week’s Daphne City Council meeting, as Mayor Dane Haygood had vetoed a resolution involving the town’s merit-based employees.

City Attorney Jay Ross told the council Haygood had vetoed Resolution 2016-82, which retained a number of city employees hired under the merit system by the city.

Ross said some of the language used in the resolution had concerned Haygood, which was why he felt it necessary to exercise his power of veto.

“Looking at the municipal law, there are provisions for municipal officers which are different than municipal employees,” Ross said. “The mayor was concerned if we didn’t have any municipal officers then the language used was not applicable.”

Ross said state law was somewhat vague on the matter of what precisely “municipal officers” were but said most of the city’s employees did not fit the criteria established.

“The city clerk’s office confirmed there are no city officers here,” Ross said. “They are optional and have to be confirmed by the city council.”

Ross added that according to an Alabama Attorney General’s opinion from several decades ago, municipal judges were considered to be municipal officers, so a separate resolution had been drawn up to reaffirm Daphne City Judge Michael Hoyt’s status.

Several council members questioned whether the changes to language even mattered.

“Since there’s no clear definition on this from the state, this change seems sort of irrelevant,” Councilman Robin LeJeune said. “I’m a little confused on what the mayor seems to have a problem with. I just don’t see the need in this.”

Council President Ron Scott asked if upholding the veto would do away with any recently approved employment contracts for city employees. Ross replied that because those employment appointments were separate resolutions, upholding the veto would not affect those positions.

LeJeune motioned to overturn the veto, seconded by Councilman Pat Rudicell.

“We just stated that a lot of this was irrelevant so why would we withdraw and just do another ordinance?” LeJeune questioned. “The only thing we seem to be making clear is that the municipal judge is a city officer.”

Councilman Joe Davis said he wasn’t sure the council should have spent as much time on what he thought was a simple issue.

“It would seem to me that the hangup seems to be about officials versus employees,” Davis said. “While the mayor gets detailed on a lot of things he does, I just don’t think we should operate under officials if we don’t have officials.”

Council members Tommie Conaway and LeJeune voted to override the veto, with the other five council members voting against the override.

The council unanimously passed the follow-up resolution that named the city judge as an official city officer.