San Jose City Council approves short-notice closed session, reconvenes with no report

6446166 ยท October 24, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Jose City Council on Oct. 24, 2025, voted to approve holding a special meeting with less than four days' notice to conduct a closed session, met in closed session, and returned with no report out.

The San Jose City Council on Oct. 24, 2025, voted to approve holding a special meeting with less than four days' notice so the council could adjourn into a closed session, meeting the two-thirds vote requirement of eight councilmembers.

The motion to approve the "orders of the day" for the special meeting was made during an afternoon session called for the purpose of a closed session. The presiding officer said, "We will need to vote on orders of the day since we are holding this special meeting with less than 4 days notice. Approving this will require a 2 thirds vote or 8 votes from the city council." No public comment was offered on the motion.

Councilmembers present for the roll call included Cohen, Ortiz, Mulcahy, Dwan, Candelis, Casey Foley and Mahan. After the vote, the presiding officer said, "Looks like we achieved our 2 thirds vote." The council then adjourned into closed session.

The council later reconvened and Rosa, identified in the meeting transcript as a staff member, reported, "No report out." With that, the meeting was adjourned.

No mover or seconder for the motion and no roll-call vote tally by name were recorded in the public portion of the transcript; the meeting record indicates only that the required two-thirds threshold (eight votes) was met.