Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Quorum Defamation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press Community Board 11 over alleged improper quorum for liquor-license votes and say they will petition
Summary
Public commenters at the May 19 Ethics and Disciplinary Committee meeting said they had filed complaints alleging an improper quorum at prior meetings and urged the board to re-vote liquor-license approvals; one speaker also accused board members of defamation and said she would circulate a petition.
Two public commenters used the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee's May 19 gallery session to raise separate but related concerns about earlier board procedures and alleged defamation. One speaker pressed the committee about a complaint she said she filed in April alleging an illegal vote at a prior full-board proceeding and asked whether liquor-license approvals would be re-voted. The committee chair said the matter had been referred to the borough president's office and legal staff and that, if required for formality, the full board could vote again from the floor.
A second speaker, identified in the meeting as Roxanne, said she would circulate a petition and accused board members of defaming her in a leadership meeting. She told the committee the leadership meeting read a private email out of context and said she would pursue a petition to address the issue.
Jeanette Wilson, acting chair of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee, told the gallery that one matter cited by a commenter had been sent to the borough president's office and the committee could not act further while that review was pending. Wilson said the liquor-license vote at a later full board meeting had been brought from the floor and that, if rules required, the board could re-vote the item for formality, though she said she did not expect the substantive outcome to change.
The speakers who raised these points did not identify formal motions or request votes at the May 19 meeting. Committee members noted that because the May 19 agenda was posted incorrectly and did not meet the 72-hour posting requirement, no committee votes would take place that evening.
Ending: Committee members responded that procedural and legal questions about past votes are being handled through the borough president's office and board legal counsel; they suggested the gallery raise matters formally with the leadership committee or await any recommendations from the borough president's office before asking for any re-vote at the full board meeting.
