City council amends Rules of Order

By CLOEY CALLAHAN
Posted 4/21/21

On Monday, April 12, the city council passed a resolution that creates a local law amending the “Rules of Order” in the City of Newburgh, which would more closely consider how council …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

City council amends Rules of Order

Posted

On Monday, April 12, the city council passed a resolution that creates a local law amending the “Rules of Order” in the City of Newburgh, which would more closely consider how council members act while sitting in their positions, and could possibly result in expulsion as the last option. However, many community members expressed concern about this resolution, stating that it would disrupt democracy and the election process.

The amendments to the resolution include several additions regarding excessive and unexcused absence and disorderly behavior. The council is able to now declare the member’s seat vacant after going through the outlined process. If a member of the council has engaged in excessive or unexcused absences or disorderly behavior, the council is allowed to deny or limit any right, power or privilege of the member, reprimand, censure, propose a fine, expel, or “any other sanction determined by the council to be appropriate.” However, any decision must be made with a majority plus one vote of all members of the council.

When it comes to excessive absence, the threshold has been set at four consecutive regular meetings or six regular meetings within a calendar year. When it comes to disorderly behavior, it is outlined as “willful violation or evasion of any provision of law relating to such member’s discharge of his or her official duties, commission of fraud upon the city, conversion of public property to such member’s own use, knowingly permitting or allowing by gross culpable conduct another person to convert public property, violation of the council’s duly adopted rules and order of procedure, violation of the city’s code of ethics, or violation of city policy or policies against discrimination, harrassment and workplace violence.”

If a council member is charged with one of these things, they will have seven days to file a written demand for a public hearing.

The local law requires a filing in the office of the New York State Secretary of State and the approval of City of Newburgh voters come November 2, 2021. However, community members have already begun questioning this local law and wondering why it is coming up now and not earlier.

“I encourage all members to vote no on this resolution,” said resident Manual Sanchez. “This resolution furnishes a very bad prospect for our democracy and representative government here in the City of Newburgh. If members don’t want to come or never come to a city council meeting, it is at the ballot box. It’s the voters who decide whether or not the member is replaced. This resolution places the authority to remove duly elected officials and overturn the will of the people by replacing the people by putting it in the hands of the city council. It is not a good piece of legislation.”

Sanchez went as far to say as though he believes it is unconstitutional as it stands.

“The people have spoken,” said resident Corey Allen. “Every single person tonight seems to be against this resolution, but for some reason the people are ignored … is anyone listening to what we’re saying?”

Mayor Torrance Harvey reminded residents during the Monday meeting that “the people will vote and have a say,” come November.

“For people to come on here and say we’re committing the greatest sin to our republic and democracy and that we’re not listening to the people … the people will vote November 2, 2021,” said Harvey. “The people will have a final say in this local law amendment.”

He explained how expulsion is only one of many different consequences and that this resolution isn’t necessarily aimed at the current council, or at Councilman Omari Shakur.

“This is for past council members, future and to hold ourselves accountable,” said councilwoman Ramona Monteverde.

Shakur voted no to the resolution, with the rest of the members voting in favor.

“I’m not worried about the charter change,” said Shakur. “I’m not leaving office until my time is up. What you should be worried about now is that the community has spoken out against this, and the [council] has their own agenda. The people elect them and they’re not thinking about you … recognize they’re not listening to you, the people who have spoken.”