Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Local Law Identifiability topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dozens urge Ulster County Legislature to adopt local law on officer identifiability

Ulster County Legislature · May 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a May 19 public hearing, 26 speakers urged the Ulster County Legislature to adopt Proposed Local Law No. 7 of 2026, a measure that would require a public-facing standard of identifiability during law enforcement activities; the hearing recorded broad public support but no vote at the session.

At a public hearing on May 19, 2026, 26 residents and advocates testified in support of Proposed Local Law No. 7 of 2026, which would establish a generally applicable public-safety standard requiring identifiability during public-facing law enforcement activities. The hearing was called by Clerk Victoria A. Fabella and held as part of the Ulster County Legislature's regular session.

Speakers who signed the record and spoke in favor included Damon Ely; Jacki Brownstein of New Paltz; Laichelle Hughes of Rosendale; Victoria Berrios of Kingston; Helaine Meisler of Woodstock; Jordan Kerzee of Kingston; and others representing towns across the county. According to the minutes, the speakers uniformly urged the Legislature to adopt the local law to promote accountability and public trust during law-enforcement encounters.

The hearing record lists 26 supporters; the minutes do not transcribe verbatim remarks. There was no recorded vote on the local law at the May 19 session. The clerk adjourned the hearing at 8:11 p.m. and the Legislature moved on to other business. Any future action on the proposed law would require introduction as a legislative item and a subsequent vote by the Legislature.

The minutes do not attribute specific policy text or amendments to any of the public speakers, nor do they record a staff presentation of draft ordinance language at this meeting. The record shows public comment in favor but does not document legislative debate or a final determination on the law during the May 19 meeting.