Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances resolution calling for legal review after police chief investigation; expedite vote passes 6-1
Summary
The Binghamton City Council discussed RL25-165, a resolution seeking accountability and outside legal review following an administrative investigation into former police chief Joe Sikuski; council voted 6-1 to expedite consideration to place the resolution on the next regular agenda.
BINGHAMTON — The Binghamton City Council work session on Oct. 20 included debate over RL25-165, a resolution calling for accountability and legal review following an administrative investigation into then-Chief Joe Sikuski.
Council member Nate Hotchkiss, who presented the item in the Committee on Municipal and Public Affairs, said the investigation into an incident on July 18 found misconduct by the chief and that the matter had “resulted in an erosion of public trust.” Hotchkiss said the resolution is intended to “formally condemn his actions” and to press outside offices — the district attorney and the New York State attorney general — to review the investigation materials for potential further action.
“I hope we can get this on the agenda for Wednesday,” Hotchkiss said, describing the resolution as a vehicle to request additional review by prosecutorial oversight offices.
Other council members acknowledged that the city completed a third-party administrative investigation but said the findings raised questions that may warrant criminal review. One staff member — speaking during the discussion about decertification — described how an officer decertified in New York state is placed on a public list that agencies use in background checks: “when they're decertified in New York state, they go on a list,” the staff member said, adding that agencies conducting background checks will typically see that flag.
Council members debated whether immediate outreach to the district attorney’s office was needed before also involving the state attorney general’s office. Some members characterized the resolution as largely symbolic while still expressing support for elevating the issue. Council eventually voted on a motion to expedite consideration of the resolution so it could be placed on the council’s Wednesday agenda; the motion passed 6–1 in a roll call vote.
Roll call on the expedition motion: Council member Rathmell — Aye; Council member Madovetzky — No; Council member Hotchkiss — Aye; Council member Kavanaugh — Aye; Council member Middleton — Aye; Council member Murray — Aye; Chair Dunton — Aye. The transcript does not indicate the names of the motion mover or seconder.
The work session transcript does not record a final council vote on RL25-165 itself; the expedited vote was to move the resolution onto the next regular agenda for a formal vote.
