In the wake of Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor John Cook said he has decided not to veto the just passed ordinance authorizing police to impound the vehicles of drivers caught without liability insurance.

But late Wednesday, the mayor said he was still considering a veto of the billboard ordinance the council passed that bans new signs and sharply restricts the use of high-tech digital signs.

Cook, who had he said he thought he had three days to veto a council action, corrected that statement Wednesday and said the he actually has five days, or until midnight Sunday.

And, he said, he may not make a decision until the weekend on whether to keep the new billboard ordinance or veto it. An override would require six votes by the eight city representatives.

The measure passed Tuesday on a 5-3 vote.

Asked why it might take that long, Cook said, “We need an ordinance that would take its place and would get the council to where they want it to be.”

City Rep. Susie Byrd, a strong supporter of the restrictions on future billboards and their gradual elimination, said she would be offended if Cook vetoed the council’s action.

“I have asked him not to do it. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do,” Byrd said. “I think it’s disrespectful of the process and really disrespectful of the time and effort the citizens, city staff and council put into this issue.

"It concerns me from a precedent standpoint that essentially he’s saying unless you vote the way I want you to vote, I’m vetoing. He had the chance to convince the council of his way of thinking on an issue. We weighed all that, and we made a decision.”

City attorney’s response to O’Rourke’s conflict question

City Rep. Beto O’Rourke voted with the majority on the billboard ordinance Tuesday after consulting with City Attorney Charles McNabb about whether he should abstain because of a potential conflict of interest.

But the advice McNabb gave O’Rourke was not definitive and essentially left the decision about the potential risk of an ethics charge to O’Rourke.

In fact, McNabb said he was not really able to answer O’Rourke’s question as to whether his ownership of an Internet Web page design company, Stanton Street Technology Group, should have disqualified him from voting on the billboard ordinance.

“About the only thing I could tell him was that it’s a fact question, not a legal one,” McNabb said. “And, the fact question is, ‘Does billboard advertising directly compete with the type of advertising he does in such a way that a vote on it would give him a special benefit.’ ”

Or, did O’Rourke’s vote give his company an advantage in the advertising market while creating a disadvantage for billboard companies?

McNabb explained that while the city attorney’s office can answer questions about the law, questions of fact must be decided by a judicial body, such as a court or an ethics board.

O’Rourke cast his vote on the issue without publicly addressing the question put to him Monday by Newspaper Tree.

Later, he said, “After speaking with (McNabb), thinking about it, discussing it with a number of people, I felt comfortable.”

O’Rourke said McNabb told him the issue could end up before the city’s ethics commission.

McNabb said, “If someone alleges that it gave him a special advantage, we would send it to the ethics commission, and they make the determine of whether a vote that disadvantages billboard advertising advantages the type of advertising he does. …

“The question is whether billboard advertising competes with Internet advertising. That’s what he had to make his own call on. He evidently thinks it does not.”

* * *

To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com or call (915) 351-0605, ext. 30, or 630-6622.