Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
New Britain council adopts censure of Alderman Robert Smedley after heated public comment and debate
Loading...
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and council debate over process and precedent, the New Britain Common Council voted 8–3 on March 11 to adopt a resolution formally censuring Alderman Robert Smedley for a social‑media post; the measure’s legality and procedural fairness were contested during the meeting.
The New Britain Common Council voted 8–3 on March 11 to adopt a resolution censuring Alderman Robert Robert Smedley for a Facebook post that residents and fellow council members said damaged the reputations of people named in the message.
The vote followed more than three hours of public participation in which dozens of residents urged opposing outcomes. “Please do the same for yourself,” said Sharon Roderick Barrett, addressing Smedley directly and urging the council to consider a human resources outreach instead of punitive action. Several speakers, including Tony Kane, told the council they opposed censure on legal or procedural grounds. “This meeting is illegal as all the others were that were noticed as special meetings,” said Paul Edwards, who identified himself in the record as counsel for Alderman Smedley and argued the president pro tem lacked authority to call the special sessions.
Supporters of the censure framed it as a necessary formal statement of the council’s expectations for conduct. “When someone in a position of public trust knowingly spreads accusations of this magnitude, the damage goes far beyond a social media post,” Alderman Barbosa said during debate, arguing the post was intentional and that affected residents deserved a direct apology. Several council members also emphasized the council’s interest in moving past the dispute to focus on budget and city operations.
Corporation counsel told the council that Charter Section 4‑5 permits the common council to specially convene by the mayor or the president/mayor pro tem and that Robert’s Rules of Order allow adopting a censure without a separate formal disciplinary proceeding. “If you act on this resolution … Robert’s Rules provides that that can be done without formal disciplinary procedures,” counsel said, responding to concerns raised by members who asked whether the motion listed charges or required an investigatory committee.
After debate and a motion to 'call the question,' the clerk conducted a roll‑call vote. Recorded yes votes were entered for Aldermen McNamara, Scott, Barbosa, Vargas, Maldonado, Centeno, Ortiz Luna and Borrero; recorded no votes were entered for Aldermen Malinowski, Gibson and Delernia. The clerk announced: “Motion passed” and recorded the final tally as 8–3.
The meeting began with an extended public‑comment period in which speakers on both sides urged the council to weigh accountability against due process and compassion. Several residents urged that Smedley had already apologized and should be allowed to return to normal duties; others said the apology was too vague and that those named in the post had not received direct, personal apologies.
The resolution adopted on March 11 is intended as a formal expression of disapproval and does not, in corporate‑counsel’s reading, remove the alderman from office. The council did not convene a separate investigatory committee as part of the censure vote. Council members also discussed, during the meeting, whether the action would supplant a previously scheduled hearing.
The council adjourned shortly after the vote. The resolution and the legal arguments raised during the meeting could be referenced in ongoing litigation or additional proceedings, according to comments made from the dais during debate.
