City Council · Tuesday, January 30, 2024 · 24m

The one where the Council met just to take back the Mayor's two vetoes -- and Yeger forced a roll call over a 4:53 PM ag

Contents & search

items

approved

other

Try

Convened a January 30, 2024 stated meeting for a single purpose: to officially receive Mayor Adams' vetoes of Intro 549-A (banning solitary confinement in city jails) and Intro 586-A (part of the How Many Stops Act). Speaker Adrienne Adams noted both bills had already passed with veto-proof majorities and moved to adjourn to allow the override. But Council Member Kalman Yeger rose on a Charter Section 42 point of order, arguing the agenda was noticed too late (4:53 PM, not the required 36 hours), then appealed the chair's ruling and demanded a roll call. The chair's ruling was sustained; the a

From the room

“Under the charter section 42, the council is required to publish and make publicly available a proposed agenda”
— Kalman Yeger

“Refer to criminal justice. M 13, veto and disapproval message of introductory number 5 86 a”
— Clerk

“messages from the mayor can be received at any time and are not required to be on a proposed agenda.”
— President (presiding)

The decisions

01M 0012-2024Decided

Communication from the Mayor – Mayor’s veto and disapproval message of Introductory Number 549-A of 2022, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to banning solitary confinement in city jails and establishing standards for the use of restrictive housing and emergency lock-ins.

Formally received the mayor's veto of Intro 549-A, which would ban solitary confinement in city jails. It too had cleared the body with a veto-proof majority, teeing up an override.

Procedure

M 12 veto/disapproval message of Introductory No. 549-A of 2022 received and referred to Criminal Justice — President (presiding)

Legislation →ULURP case →

02M 0013-2024Decided

Communication from the Mayor – Mayor’s veto and disapproval message of Introductory Number 586-A of 2022, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the police department to report on police-civilian investigative encounters.

Formally received the mayor's veto of Intro 586-A, the How Many Stops Act police-reporting bill. The body had already passed it with a veto-proof majority, setting up an override.

Procedure

M 12 referred to Criminal Justice; M 13 (veto of Int. 586-A) referred to Public Safety — Clerk

Legislation →ULURP case →

03Motion 0003-2024MOTION 0003-2024Approved

In re: Council Member Yeger's 2nd Motion - Call for a Roll Call vote to Appeal the Ruling of the Chair on his 1st Motion. The Motion before the Council was to Uphold the Chair's Ruling against Council Member Yeger's 1st Motion.

Upheld the Chair's ruling against Council Member Yeager's first procedural motion over how the meeting agenda was published, turning back his appeal on a roll call vote of 41 to 8 with 2 absent.

Roll-call vote

41 · 8

Adrienne E. AdamsAlexa Avilés Althea V. Stevens Amanda C. FaríasCarlina RiveraCarmen N. De La Rosa Chi A. Ossé Chris Banks Christopher Marte Crystal Hudson David M. CarrDiana I. AyalaEric Dinowitz Erik D. Bottcher Farah N. LouisFrancisco P. MoyaGale A. Brewer Inna Vernikov James F. Gennaro Jennifer Gutiérrez Joann AriolaJoseph C. BorelliJulie Menin Julie WonJustin L. BrannanKalman YegerKamillah HanksKeith PowersKevin C. RileyKristy MarmoratoLincoln Restler Linda Lee Mercedes Narcisse Nantasha M. Williams Oswald J. Feliz Pierina Ana SanchezRafael Salamanca, Jr.Rita C. JosephRobert F. HoldenSandra Ung Sandy Nurse Selvena N. Brooks-Powers Shahana K. Hanif Shaun Abreu Shekar Krishnan Susan Zhuang Tiffany L. Cabán Vickie Paladino Yusef Salaam

Procedure

Roll call on the motion to appeal the ruling that the body may receive messages from the mayor at any time and they need not be on a proposed agenda; aye = uphold the ruling, no = against it — President (presiding)

Legislation →ULURP case →

04Motion 0006-2024MOTION 0006-2024Approved

In re: to Council Member Yeger's 3rd Motion -- Motion to Adjourn in opposition to Council Member Yeger's 3rd Motion. The Motion before the Council was to Adjourn the Stated Meeting.

Adjourned the 11 a.m. stated meeting of January 30, 2024 on a 41 to 8 vote, over the objection of Council Member Yeager's procedural motions.

Roll-call vote

41 · 8

Legislation →ULURP case →

Also in the record

Records not linked to a specific agenda item

Questions & answers

Yeager: If the President may advise the body and the public when that 36 hour period happened.

President: The meeting agenda was noticed at 453 p.m. last Friday, which is more than 36 hours prior, according to rule 8.00.

Kalman Yeger: Charter section 42 requires a proposed agenda published at least 36 hours prior; council did not do that — as of midnight last night no agenda was posted or sent to members

Kalman Yeger: This is a stated meeting; charter requires a proposed agenda published 36 hours prior; the council's website said no agenda available

Kalman Yeger: Point of information: can the president advise the body and the public when that 36-hour period happened, since the president is so sure it occurred?

Citations & precedent

NYC Charter Section 42 · Speaker_03

NYC Charter Section 42 · Kalman Yeger

Council Rule 8 · President (presiding)

Procedure

Ruling of the chair has been opposed; subject to a voice vote — President (presiding)

The people

On the dais · 2

Darlene Mealy Lynn C. Schulman

The intelligence

Every parcel, owner, and applicant in this meeting, cross-referenced against Zonable’s NYC ownership, enforcement & legislative graph — the record behind the record.

Sign in for the full graph

Owner portfolios, open OATH/ECB violations, 311 & DOB permits across every parcel discussed, developer track records, and an “ask this meeting” chat.

Ask about this meeting

Chat with AI about this meeting. Free account required.

City Council · Tuesday, January 30, 2024 · 24m

The one where the Council met just to take back the Mayor's two vetoes -- and Yeger forced a roll call over a 4:53 PM ag

Contents & search

items

approved

other

Try

From the room

“Under the charter section 42, the council is required to publish and make publicly available a proposed agenda”
— Kalman Yeger

“Refer to criminal justice. M 13, veto and disapproval message of introductory number 5 86 a”
— Clerk

“messages from the mayor can be received at any time and are not required to be on a proposed agenda.”
— President (presiding)

The decisions

01M 0012-2024Decided

Communication from the Mayor – Mayor’s veto and disapproval message of Introductory Number 549-A of 2022, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to banning solitary confinement in city jails and establishing standards for the use of restrictive housing and emergency lock-ins.

Formally received the mayor's veto of Intro 549-A, which would ban solitary confinement in city jails. It too had cleared the body with a veto-proof majority, teeing up an override.

Procedure

M 12 veto/disapproval message of Introductory No. 549-A of 2022 received and referred to Criminal Justice — President (presiding)

Legislation →ULURP case →

02M 0013-2024Decided

Communication from the Mayor – Mayor’s veto and disapproval message of Introductory Number 586-A of 2022, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the police department to report on police-civilian investigative encounters.

Formally received the mayor's veto of Intro 586-A, the How Many Stops Act police-reporting bill. The body had already passed it with a veto-proof majority, setting up an override.

Procedure

M 12 referred to Criminal Justice; M 13 (veto of Int. 586-A) referred to Public Safety — Clerk

Legislation →ULURP case →

03Motion 0003-2024MOTION 0003-2024Approved

In re: Council Member Yeger's 2nd Motion - Call for a Roll Call vote to Appeal the Ruling of the Chair on his 1st Motion. The Motion before the Council was to Uphold the Chair's Ruling against Council Member Yeger's 1st Motion.

Upheld the Chair's ruling against Council Member Yeager's first procedural motion over how the meeting agenda was published, turning back his appeal on a roll call vote of 41 to 8 with 2 absent.

Roll-call vote

41 · 8

Procedure

Roll call on the motion to appeal the ruling that the body may receive messages from the mayor at any time and they need not be on a proposed agenda; aye = uphold the ruling, no = against it — President (presiding)

Legislation →ULURP case →

04Motion 0006-2024MOTION 0006-2024Approved

In re: to Council Member Yeger's 3rd Motion -- Motion to Adjourn in opposition to Council Member Yeger's 3rd Motion. The Motion before the Council was to Adjourn the Stated Meeting.

Adjourned the 11 a.m. stated meeting of January 30, 2024 on a 41 to 8 vote, over the objection of Council Member Yeager's procedural motions.

Roll-call vote

41 · 8

Legislation →ULURP case →

Also in the record

Records not linked to a specific agenda item

Questions & answers

Yeager: If the President may advise the body and the public when that 36 hour period happened.

President: The meeting agenda was noticed at 453 p.m. last Friday, which is more than 36 hours prior, according to rule 8.00.

Kalman Yeger: Charter section 42 requires a proposed agenda published at least 36 hours prior; council did not do that — as of midnight last night no agenda was posted or sent to members

Kalman Yeger: This is a stated meeting; charter requires a proposed agenda published 36 hours prior; the council's website said no agenda available

Kalman Yeger: Point of information: can the president advise the body and the public when that 36-hour period happened, since the president is so sure it occurred?

Citations & precedent

NYC Charter Section 42 · Speaker_03

NYC Charter Section 42 · Kalman Yeger

Council Rule 8 · President (presiding)

Procedure

Ruling of the chair has been opposed; subject to a voice vote — President (presiding)

The people

On the dais · 2

Darlene Mealy Lynn C. Schulman

The intelligence

Every parcel, owner, and applicant in this meeting, cross-referenced against Zonable’s NYC ownership, enforcement & legislative graph — the record behind the record.

Sign in for the full graph

Owner portfolios, open OATH/ECB violations, 311 & DOB permits across every parcel discussed, developer track records, and an “ask this meeting” chat.

Ask about this meeting

Chat with AI about this meeting. Free account required.