FAIRHOPE, Ala. — After the City Council interviews the six finalists for the top law enforcement job in Fairhope on June 20, it is scheduled to appoint one of those applicants as police chief at its June 22 meeting.

But that might not be the final word on the subject.

Although Mayor Tim Kant does not have a vote in that selection decision, he said Friday that he does hold veto power over the council’s appointment.

“I do have that power,” Kant said during Friday’s weekly “Coffee with the Mayor” meeting at City Hall.

By Alabama statute, the mayor does have veto power over ordinances adopted by the council, which he exercised recently regarding a municipal sales tax. The council overruled that veto by a required 4-1 vote pursuant to procedures set out by the state law.

But City Council President Debbie Quinn said Friday the appointing power for positions like police chief are a prerogative resting solely within the council’s authority.

“The council has been professional and deliberate in its search for a qualified police chief,” Quinn said. “Legally, the mayor cannot veto our decision, and I would hope the mayor would rise above the politics,” said Quinn.

City Attorney Tut Wynne said he had never faced the specific legal issue of whether the mayor does have authority to veto the council’s selection of police chief.

“I don’t know the answer to it right now,” Wynne said Friday, adding he would defer to the mayor’s position on the question until he could research the issue.

Police chief

candidates

In another related story, the mayor confirmed Friday that he had engaged the Hand Arendall law firm to perform background investigations of the six finalists for the police chief job.

Kant said that a member of the firm told him that either the firm would perform the investigations or they would outsource it to a company they worked with on such issues. The law firm does advertise an employment and labor practice area on its Web site.

Kant said the background investigation contract with the law firm would not violate the council’s cap on his non-budgeted expenditures of $1,000 because his office has a budgeted item for attorney’s fees, which would cover the background investigation work.

Griffis’ status

Kant said no final decision had yet been reached whether to reinstate FPD Capt. Steve Griffis to his job pending a pre-disciplinary review hearing.

“Not at this time,” Kant said Friday, regarding this question.

Kant said he had been discussing the matter with interim Police Chief Terry Sanders, who was present at the Friday morning meeting, about whether to reinstate Griffis.

Sanders is one of the six finalists for the top police job and would not comment Friday on any personnel issues regarding Griffis.

However, Sanders did confirm last week that he had placed Griffis on paid administrative leave on May 23 pending a pre-disciplinary review hearing.

A group calling itself “Concerned Citizens of Fairhope for Steve Griffis” has sought to have Griffis appointed police chief or added to the interview process. Kant and Councilman Mike Ford signed a petition on May 18 in support of that effort.

Kant confirmed later that he knew Griffis was under an internal police investigation when he signed the petition. Ford said he thought the case “had been taken care of” when he signed the petition.

Although Kant said the decision about whether to return Griffis to work pending the disciplinary hearing was being discussed with Sanders, several sources who spoke on condition of anonymity this week said Kant had overruled Sanders’ decision to place Griffis on administrative leave and planned to have him return to work on Monday.

Kant did say Friday that if Griffis returned to work, the disciplinary case involving him would continue.

Kant would not comment on why Griffis might be returned to work while a disciplinary matter was pending, except to say it was a confidential and ongoing personnel matter between supervisor and employee.

Although Griffis was placed on administrative leave on May 23 and city rules require a pre-disciplinary hearing within 10 days after requested by the employee, no hearing has yet taken place, Kant confirmed earlier this week.

But yesterday, Kant would not say if a hearing had in fact been set in light of media reports that a hearing had not yet been scheduled. He did state that he believed Griffis’ attorneys had asked for a 30-day period before the hearing.

Kant also said Friday that he could not remember the name of Griffis’ attorney, adding “I don’t want to get in the middle of this thing.”