Motion to add removal elections for council president and vice president fails, 4 yeas to 20 nays

Councilor Jesse Brown asked the Indianapolis City‑County Council on July 7 to suspend the rules and add two items to the council’s Aug. 11 agenda to hold roll-call votes on whether to remove Council President Bob Osely and Council Vice President Ali Brown. The motion failed on a recorded voice vote: “Motion fails. 4 yeas to 20 nays.”

Brown said the proposed August items would be two separate roll‑call votes, one on whether “Council President Bob Osely should be removed from his office as president of the city county council,” and a separate vote on whether “Council Vice President Ali Brown shall be removed from her office as vice president.” He acknowledged he did not have conclusive proof but said he had unresolved concerns about internal actions and recordkeeping: “I don’t have a smoking gun, but I have enough smoke that I have a lot of concerns that have not been answered,” Brown said, adding questions about whether an agreement with the law firm Fisher Phillips had been extended, who signed it and where the documents were.

Council Leader Hart asked Brown if he had new evidence supporting the motion, saying some similar claims had been retracted at recent committee meetings: “Do you have any new information or proof of reasons why you’re calling for this motion?” Councilor Brown repeated his concerns about unanswered questions and cited reported incidents involving the council president and members exercising free speech as part of his rationale for seeking new leadership.

Councilor Boehme acknowledged regret over how the prior meeting had unfolded but said his vote was driven by concerns about the vice president’s statements regarding the investigating committee process rather than a personal judgment of the president. No other councilors spoke in favor of adding the removal votes. With the failure of Brown’s motion, neither removal vote will be added to the August agenda as requested.

Why it matters: The proposal would have placed internal leadership questions — including alleged procedural and records issues — before the full council. Brown framed the motion as a governance remedy; opponents and those asking questions sought clearer documentation before taking such steps.

Ending: The council proceeded to other agenda business after the failed motion. No formal action to remove either officer was taken during the July 7 meeting.