OPTIONAL UNIFIED FORM OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Act 139 of 1973
45.561 County executive; veto of ordinance or resolution; certification; overriding veto; certain resolutions or motions not to be approved or disapproved; effective date of ordinance or resolution.
Sec. 11.
(1) Except as provided in this section, the county executive may veto an ordinance or resolution adopted by the board, including items of an ordinance appropriating funds. The veto shall be certified by the county executive to the board of county commissioners within 10 days after date of adoption of the ordinance or resolution and the board may override the veto by a 2/3 vote of all members elected and serving. The county board of commissioners shall override a veto by the second meeting following deliverance to the county board of commissioners of the message of veto. The county executive may not approve or disapprove resolutions or motions pertaining to any of the following:
(a) The organizational structure of the county board of commissioners.
(b) Appointments by the county board of commissioners.
(c) Resolutions concerning the county board of commissioners' policy positions as to pending legislation.
(d) The abolishment of the optional unified form of county government under section 23.
(2) Under the unified form of county government containing alternate B, an ordinance or resolution shall become effective on approval of the county executive, on expiration of 10 days, measured in hours and minutes from the time presented to the county executive, without approval or veto, or on the overriding of a veto in the manner above described.
History: 1973, Act 139, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 100, Imd. Eff. Apr. 19, 1980
Notes of Decisions
Oakland Cnty. Comm'r v. Oakland Cnty. Exec., 296 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 12× “The veto shall be certified by the county executive to the board of county commissioners within 10 days from date of adoption of the ordinance or resolution and the board may override the veto by a 2/3 vote of all members elected and serving.”
Harbor Tel. 2103, LLC v. Oakland Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 654 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 20× “8 The executive averred that MCL 45.561 endowed him with far-reaching discretion to veto resolutions by the board of commissioners subject to only four limited exceptions and that resolutions scheduling detachment elections did not come within one of these nar *48 row exceptions.”
Livonia Hotel, LLC v. City of Livonia, 673 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to MCL 45.561, the county executive may veto any ordinance or resolution adopted by the board of commissioners.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 45.561(1) — 2 cases
Oakland Cnty. Comm'r v. Oakland Cnty. Exec., 296 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“The veto shall be certified by the county executive to the board of county commissioners within 10 days from date of adoption of the ordinance or resolution and the board may override the veto by a 2/3 vote of all members elected and serving.”
Harbor Tel. 2103, LLC v. Oakland Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 654 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“8 The executive averred that MCL 45.561 endowed him with far-reaching discretion to veto resolutions by the board of commissioners subject to only four limited exceptions and that resolutions scheduling detachment elections did not come within one of these nar *48 row exceptions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 45.561(2) — 2 cases
Oakland Cnty. Comm'r v. Oakland Cnty. Exec., 296 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“The veto shall be certified by the county executive to the board of county commissioners within 10 days from date of adoption of the ordinance or resolution and the board may override the veto by a 2/3 vote of all members elected and serving.”
Harbor Tel. 2103, LLC v. Oakland Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 654 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“8 The executive averred that MCL 45.561 endowed him with far-reaching discretion to veto resolutions by the board of commissioners subject to only four limited exceptions and that resolutions scheduling detachment elections did not come within one of these nar *48 row exceptions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.