Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Co Naming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Executive Committee debates proposed resolution on street co‑naming process, sends matter back for further review
Summary
A draft CB2 resolution criticizing the process for three recent street co‑namings prompted extended debate; members asked to revise language, avoid singling out individuals and return the draft to committee for further work and timing with incoming council leadership.
A proposed Executive Committee resolution criticizing the process used for three recent street co‑namings drew extended discussion and no formal second, effectively preventing the measure from advancing to a full‑board vote.
The draft text noted that CB2 had not been informed of three co‑namings and quoted CB2 guidelines describing the proper process for street co‑namings. Several members objected to language they said read as a public rebuke of individual elected officials and urged the committee to avoid naming or singling out council members. Others said the central point—to remind elected officials of established co‑naming procedures and to strengthen the board’s role in future co‑namings—was reasonable, but that the timing was poor because council leadership and committee chairs will change after the upcoming municipal turnover.
Speakers representing different committee perspectives disagreed about whether the board should send a firm, immediate rebuke to the council speaker and the relevant council office or instead refine the language and delay any transmittal until new council leaders and borough or committee chairs are in place. Several members suggested further work at the Traffic & Transportation committee level to clarify and possibly tighten the board’s co‑naming guidelines so the board’s expectations are clear going forward.
Because the motion introducing the draft resolution was not seconded, the chair treated the discussion as unresolved and recommended that the language be revised and returned to the appropriate committee for additional review. Committee members who opposed the draft’s tone said they were not against confirming adherence to board guidelines; they objected to public shaming of local organizers and elected officials.
The Executive Committee asked the sponsor to revise the draft, remove or soften language that named or criticized individuals, and consider submitting a clarified recommendation after leadership transitions at the city council. The board’s office will circulate the revised draft and the committee will reconsider it in committee before any full‑board action.
