Bylaws committee debates removal procedures, public-comment sign-ups and district manager reporting; no quorum halts formal action

The Bronx County/City Bylaws Committee met Feb. 24, 2025, without a quorum and held a discussion of proposed bylaw changes that committee members said they will present to the full board for formal consideration.

Committee members and members of the public focused on three main items: a monthly district-manager report referenced in page 13 (item 10) of the draft bylaws; a proposed requirement that public commenters sign up in advance (currently a 36-hour window was discussed); and revised procedures for removing an officer (section 8) that several speakers said lack clear timelines.

The committee's presiding member said at the start, "We do not have a quorum, but we are going to let the gallery speak, and we will discuss and then bring everything up to the full board and get their opinions." Because fewer than a quorum of committee members were present, attendees noted the committee could discuss items but not make formal recommendations.

On the district-manager report, one committee member objected to removing a report that has appeared in the board's bylaws. That member said the report "would be specifically for this area and update the public on what is being done by ConEd, by AT and T, by Optimum, or the city of New York or the DEP." Another participant who identified past practice said the board's version of that report was instituted about a decade ago but had not been produced consistently in recent years; they said the item is "unique to our community board" and not required by the city charter. Jeremy, who identified himself as the district manager during the meeting, said the prior district manager did not keep the district-service-cabinet minutes consistently.

Committee member Ryan and other board members debated access to public comment. Ryan said requiring advance sign-ups "gives the people who are on the board a chance to understand what's coming so that they can better respond." He proposed limiting late additions while allowing the chair discretion to permit unscheduled speakers on important matters. Several gallery speakers objected. Grace, a gallery speaker, said a strict advance-registration rule would be discriminatory for people who have last-minute emergencies, lack internet access, or fear providing identifying information; she said, "If you wanna do 36 hours, just add it on and still have people sign up at the desk." Harriet, who identified herself as long-serving board staff, responded that the law does not require commenters to provide a name online and that anonymous sign-in at the desk is possible: "You want to write anonymous? You can write anonymous."

Diane, speaking during the gallery session, focused on section 8 (removal of an officer). She urged more precise language, saying the draft refers to mailing a resolution and requires the officer to respond to an investigative committee within 30 days but does not set a deadline for the committee's report or specify who must mail the resolution and to whom. "There's no time frame for when the investigative committee should create its report and when the investigative committee should deliver its report to the board," she said, warning that vagueness could let the process "go on forever."

Multiple participants repeated concerns that board minutes and the district-service-cabinet report have not been consistently published. Participants pointed out that because the committee lacked a quorum'there were no formal votes; a call to adjourn was made but no formal recorded motion or vote was completed. One attendee noted, "No quorum," when asked whether any motion had passed.

Attendees repeatedly framed substantive issues as matters for a full committee or the full board. The presiding member said the committee would bring the proposed bylaw revisions and public comments to the full board for formal consideration at a later meeting.