Council declines to exert jurisdiction on police-discipline item after procedural votes
Loading...
Summary
After debate on whether to suspend rules and hear a police-discipline matter (a chief of police request concerning alleged theft and possible discharge), the council imposed a previous question but then voted 4–7 to decline to exert jurisdiction; the dispute centered on whether the council should address employee discharge or defer to civil service processes.
Council members debated whether to suspend the rules and take up a police-discipline matter that the chief of police had asked the council to hear. The item, introduced to allow discussion of alleged thefts and possible discharge, generated procedural motions and votes on jurisdiction.
One council member explained the chief of police’s position: the chief believed two employees implicated in alleged theft should be discharged and had urged the council to discuss the matter; the civil service commission, the member said, had upheld some charges but recommended 20‑day suspensions rather than discharge. “The chief of police feels that the theft should be discharged,” the member said, urging the council to hear the matter so members could “listen to both sides and then make whatever decision the council members want.”
A motion for the previous question was moved and the previous question was imposed (a roll-call result reported as 10 ayes, 1 no), but a subsequent roll to exert jurisdiction over the item failed, recorded as 4 ayes and 7 noes. The council therefore did not take jurisdiction to hear the disciplinary matter during that session.
The exchange highlighted procedural disagreements about suspending rules and whether the council should intervene in employee-discipline matters once civil service processes have been applied. No formal disciplinary action by the council occurred because the attempt to exert jurisdiction failed.