Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Censure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North College Hill council adopts censure resolution after heated debate, 4-3
Summary
On third reading the North College Hill City Council adopted Resolution 1-2026, a formal censure concerning statements and conduct by Council Member Chichester; the measure passed after extended debate about whether prior corrective actions rendered a censure redundant.
The North College Hill City Council adopted Resolution 1-2026 on third reading, a formal censure addressing statements and conduct by Council Member Chichester, after an extended public debate and a 4-3 roll-call vote.
Council Member Cleer said she had thoroughly read the resolution but was reluctant to support it because, she argued, the matter had been addressed through prior procedural steps and open‑meeting testimony. “I am reluctant to support it… I believe the matter was already resolved through proper procedures,” Cleer said during debate.
Supporters of the resolution said a formal written censure was appropriate to record the council’s disapproval. Council Member Zorp, who moved the measure onto the floor, pushed for a formal expression of disapproval; during debate she said the repeated issues had not been fully remedied. Council Member Chichester, the subject of the resolution, apologized during the discussion, saying her words were poorly chosen and that she regretted their effect: “I do apologize for my words… my intent was not to attack you.”
Other members disagreed about whether the corrective steps referenced in January’s meetings and in executive session had been completed. Council Member Cleer and others said minutes and testimony had corrected the public record; Council Member Zorp and allies said follow‑through items from executive session had not been completed and that a formal censure remained warranted.
After a motion to end debate, the council moved to a roll-call vote. The final tally was 4 in favor, 3 opposed, and the resolution was adopted. The resolution on its face does not include an emergency clause, and members noted that the document is a formal expression of disapproval rather than a disciplinary sanction.
The council did not record any additional penalties in the adopted text. The meeting record shows disagreement among members about whether the matter had previously been addressed in full; several members requested clearer documentation of the sequence of corrective actions that had been discussed in executive session and open meeting.
The council returned to other agenda items after the vote; no further formal actions tied to Resolution 1-2026 were taken during the same meeting.
