A week into the new “strong mayor” form of government at Cincinnati City Hall, Mayor Charlie Luken has already run into what he calls, half-jokingly, “the great constitutional crisis.”

        The question: Can the mayor veto a motion?

        “The lawyers tell me no, but I think there may come a time when I may challenge that,” said Mr. Luken.

        Issue 4, approved by voters in 1999, allows the mayor to veto “legislation,” meaning ordinances and resolutions.

        But council conducts most of its business through “motions” directing the city manager to do something.

        For example, council members voted on a motion last week directing the city to negotiate directly with the U.S. Justice Department on use-of-force issues.

        Mr. Luken disagreed. But he said he wouldn't have vetoed it anyway — first because he wants to save his first veto for something really important, and second because it had the six votes needed for an override.

        And third, he said, because his first week in office was a bit too early to provoke a fight with council members over his new powers.

        Counting the votes: Four months ago, in the midst of a hard-fought City Council campaign, John Cranley stood on the steps of City Hall and proposed the city hire another 75 police officers. Despite opposition from the city manager, Mr. Cranley won a 5-4 council vote in favor of hiring the officers.

        Now that the election is over and budget realities have set in, the plan may be dead.

        Two yes votes, Phil Heimlich and Mr. Luken, are no longer on City Council. Paul Booth, Minette Cooper, Alicia Reece and Jim Tarbell, who voted no Oct. 3, are still there.

        The fifth no vote is probably David Crowley — who joined Mr. Cranley on the steps of City Hall Aug. 24, but later said the new officers were “far too costly.”

        Expect a motion to reverse the hiring as soon as this week.

        Two views: On the city Safety Department, which is facing a $573,000 budget ax:

        • Mr. Luken, as quoted in The Cincinnati Enquirer, April 11: “I think they could be more aggressive in terms of police-community relations. But it would be a mistake to get rid of it.” He said the Safety Department provides necessary civilian oversight of police.

        • Mr. Luken, to City Council's Finance Committee, Monday: “I have never seen that happen. I have never, in my experience, seen them exert any level of civilian control.” He said the department is unnecessary bureaucracy.

        Why the change? It may be Issue 5, passed Nov. 6, which lets the city manager pick police and fire chiefs from outside.

        Gregory Korte covers Cincinnati City Hall for the Enquirer. He can be reached at 768-8391 or gkorte@enquirer.com.

Identity thieves make messes of victims' lives
Ohioans could rise in House hierarchy
More ERs divert patients
Veto a motion? Mayor's power unclear
Chiropractor indicted, accused of fraud
Cincinnati investigates Ky. pedophile suspect
GOP budget triples Luken cuts
Local store may have sold videos to hijackers
Metro warns of rising bus fare, reduced service
New UC course will explore bioterrorism threat, preparedness
OTR poor benefit from mother's rich legacy
Scott Shively, Q102 radio personality, dies
Teachers mad at 'mandate'
Tristate A.M. Report
Two area balloonists part of unofficial record
Use-of-force policy defended by chief
HOWARD: Some Good News
RADEL: Sensitive cop
Duning's court case under way in Warren
Oneida school to be razed
Family helps empty lot become park
Kentucky News Briefs
Sudden death saddens school
Workers could get refunds