City Councilors Jim Cote, Lenny Gentile, Al Ciccone Jr. and Rick Lipof exercised a parliamentary procedure called a “charter privilege” to postpone a vote on a citizens’ petition advising Congress to impeach Donald Trump.
The council vote will now take place on July 10.
I’d like to understand why the four chartering councilors took this action. Like it or not, the item is going to go before the council either way so all this does is delay the inevitable.
Now perhaps it was an act of mercy, done simply to avoid having this debate AND Washington Place deliberations on the same night’s agenda.
That’s entirely reasonable. But it was never publicly explained.
Greg, You are 100% correct. For me, and for many others on the Council, this was to forego debate on both Washington Place and this petition in the same evening given the many other tasks that were scheduled as well that night. Both deserve ample time. The evening went till midnight, so I think we made the right decision. Nothing more than that. I am looking forward to voting on this and giving my opinion as a City Councilor and life-long Democrat!
Thanks for the explanation Councilor Lipof.
This is not a complete explanation. Councilor Lipof, along with Councilors Cote, Ciccone and Gentile, effectively blocked the ability for the Council to call for a Special Meeting on this matter. The argument that heat and time were the reasons for doing so makes no sense. A Special meeting could have been called on or before June 27, allowing the Council to be in compliance with the City Charter’s requirement that Citizen’s Petitions be heard within 3 months of filing. So please, Councilor Lipof, give us the real story.
Actually Cindy it was Councilor Gentile who said he was exercising the four person charter because he was going to be traveling between now and the July 10 meeting and wanted to be present for the vote. It struck me as odd that he would feel so strongly about the need to part of a debate that has no actual local impact and likely won’t sway the final vote.
Greg,
Councilors Lipof, Cote, Gentile and Ciccone worked together, with intention, to block the ability of the Council to convene a special meeting on the Citizen’s Petition. Under the Charter, if fewer than four Councilors join to call for a charter objection, the Special Meeting option remains on the table.
This petition should have been acted upon by June 27 according to the Charter. Councilors were working to call for a special meeting that would have complied. Why did the four join to block the special meeting? It wasn’t about the heat or the late hour, that’s for sure. That is a dishonest answer.
So now the City Council is in violation of the requirement that the Citizen’s Petition be acted upon within 3 months. It’s OK, according to Council President Lennon. Why? Because even though the Charter is clear, there is no need to abide by it, because there is no penalty. This isn’t the kind of logic I’d hope to hear from a candidate for Mayor.
To say that many of us are extremely disappointed in some on the City Council is an understatement.
I wasn’t going to comment on Councilor Gentile’s bizarre reasoning for his support of the Charter Objection but you brought it up. He was making the argument that since he wanted to go on his upcoming vacation and he wanted to vote, he was in favor of postponement until July 10. Never mind the interests of the hundreds of constituents in support of the resolution who wanted to see the matter acted upon in the time required by the Charter.
I look forward to discussing this with Rick personally. That certainly sounds like a reasonable rationale for chartering–so why did no one contact us ahead of time to explain it? We knew chartering would happen, that it might be a four-person objection, and that it was being instigated by Councilor Jim Cote in, quite frankly, a hostile manner. So I remain dubious about this nifty after-the-fact explanation.
It’s as simple as that. There was never anything hostile about it. Just time management. Which is why I can’t understand your hostility. It was explained that night.
Even with the adjusted agenda, last evening’s meeting ended at midnight. I’m not sure what more can be asked of the city council. It was a reasonable decision given the heavy agenda.
@Rick, with respect, that’s simply not true. It wasn’t explained that way at the meeting. It wasn’t ever explained that way to us despite multiple emails asking for councilors’ input. We reached out again and again. There was an effort to organize a special meeting, which would have been more timely and been within the ninety-day window, and which would’ve taken place if fewer than four had made the charter objection. I’m sure you knew ahead of time that your colleagues were planning this move–this was apparent from Lenny’s remarks–but none of you discussed the time/agenda issue with any of them.
@Jane, I agree that it was a reasonable decision given the agenda–I’m glad the meeting didn’t go past midnight! I myself only lasted until 11 p.m. Again, if scheduling were really the issue, any of the four councilors could have reached out to any of us, or to their colleagues who are working with us.
I’d prefer to discuss this with Rick offline, and will do so. I’d like to be clear though that this scenario he’s presented is not accurate.