Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Censure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council fails to secure required votes to adopt censure of Alderman Cecilia Stacy after heated debate
Summary
After public defenders and the police chief testified about a neighborhood-watch meeting, the council voted 4–3 in favor of Resolution 202681 but did not reach the five-vote threshold required for adoption; Alderman Cecilia Stacy called the measure vague and protected by constitutional speech rights.
A proposal to censure Alderman Cecilia Stacy over her conduct at a Fifth Ward neighborhood-watch meeting stalled on the City Council floor on June 2 after a contentious public and council debate and uncertainty over the required majority.
The clerk read Resolution 202681, which alleges that during a neighborhood-watch meeting an alderman publicly berated a police officer and made assertions the police chief characterized as unsupported. Police Chief Russer addressed the council and the public, saying leadership and diplomacy require restraint and that ‘‘public humiliation is not leadership. It is not diplomacy. It serves only to erode trust and damage morale.’’ He told the council the department had 511 total arrests, 86 warrant arrests and 57 firearms recovered from Jan. 1 through May 31 and urged that privacy and evidentiary limits constrain what officials may demand about domestic incidents.
Council debate centered on both the facts of the neighborhood-watch meeting and the standard for disciplining an elected official. Alderman Simmons criticized bringing action on what she described as hearsay when most council members were not present at the meeting. Alderman Shadel said repeated instances of loud, disrespectful conduct toward department heads over the past three years had lent credibility to reports of misconduct.
Alderman Stacy spoke at length in formal rebuttal and asked that her rebuttal be entered into the record. She said she attended the meeting to represent constituents and denied berating anyone: ‘‘I did not berate anyone. I attended a fifth ward watch meeting,’’ she said, adding that advocacy on behalf of constituents is protected by state law and the First Amendment. Stacy cited the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 53.1-40-5) and statutes and court precedent she said protect elected officials who speak on matters of public concern.
The council first considered a motion by Alderman Stacy to remove the item from the agenda indefinitely; that motion failed on a roll call, two in favor and four opposed. Later, on the motion to adopt Resolution 202681, the roll call produced a 4–3 count in favor. The clerk and mayor then observed that adoption of this kind of disciplinary resolution required a five-vote majority; because the motion did not reach the required threshold, the resolution was not adopted.
Public commenters at the meeting were sharply divided. Several residents—including Jeannie El Massie, Aia Sanders and Josh Atkinson—said they attended the neighborhood-watch meeting or knew Stacy’s work and did not view her conduct as inappropriate; others, and the police chief, emphasized the effect of public criticism on department morale and the limits of information that can be disclosed about ongoing or protected investigations.
What happens next: the item was not adopted and remains unapproved. Council members and staff indicated they could pursue additional fact-finding or a different process for resolving concerns, but no formal follow-up action was adopted at this meeting.
