Council debates local law to extend harassment protections to city employees; sends revisions to legal for clarity on scope and penalties

Councilors reviewed a proposed local law to amend local code section 1‑88‑17 so its protections would apply not only to city officers but also to city employees. The draft also states that violations of subsection (b) would be class B misdemeanors. Several council members and residents raised free‑speech and enforceability concerns, and council legal counsel (Crystal) explained the rationale and options for narrowing language.

Crystal told the council the change was requested because some conduct that impedes an employee from performing duties may not neatly fall within existing provisions of New York penal law; city counsel suggested various edits such as removing subjective language (for example, the word “alarm”) or limiting the text to conduct that “impedes” employees in the performance of duties. Several council members said they were uncomfortable declaring a specific class of misdemeanor at the city level and suggested the council adopt language that aligns with state penal provisions.

Members of the public raised free‑speech concerns and asked that guarantees of speech be explicit in the code rather than only in the legislative intent. One public commenter asked whether the law could be applied to public commenters at council meetings; councilors responded that police action and subsequent court review would provide limits but that the council wanted to ensure employees are protected while performing duties.

After debate, the council moved to pull the item back to the table for further legal revision. The council did not adopt the local law at the meeting; instead, staff and counsel were asked to prepare revised language that extends protection to employees while removing or clarifying subjective terms and reconsidering whether the code should independently set a class of misdemeanor or defer to state penal law.