Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Censure Due Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says council's censure was illegal and urges due process for removal hearing
Summary
Paul Edwards told the Common Council of New Britain the body illegally censured an alderman without required disciplinary procedures under Robert's Rules; he said he has demanded evidence for a pending removal hearing and that the council deprived itself of information by silencing him during public comment.
Paul Edwards, a New Britain resident, told the Common Council on March 11 that the censure the council passed earlier that night was illegal and deprived the council of necessary information ahead of a pending removal hearing.
"It wasn't until tonight for the very first time during this meeting that corporation counsel provided some legal basis for the proposed censure," Edwards said, citing what he described as Robert's Rules "section 61 15" and contrasting it with a different section he identified as "61 22," which he said governs disciplinary proceedings for conduct outside a meeting and "specifically requires an investigation, specific charges, and a trial." Edwards said the council had conducted none of those steps.
Edwards said he had sought evidence that the city holds relating to the removal hearing for Alderman Smedley and told the council he had not received it. "I have demanded evidence that the city has in his possession to give to me so I can prepare for that trial and I've received none of it," he said, adding that he had been prevented from speaking earlier and that the council therefore missed information that
