Common Council - Special Meeting

I call this special meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Common Council. It's right around 5 p.m. Thursday, June 11, 2026. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Aiello, Burmaster, Vitar, Carcone, Irvin, Beatrice, Wazluski, Colosimo-Testa, Lamedico, all present.

All right, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a brief moment of silence for the deceased members of the Common Council. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, the purpose of this special meeting is a possible override of the mayor's veto, ordinance number 71 of 2026, adding section 2.18.2, display of flags and flag raising. Because this is a special meeting, there will not be a public comment period. Do we have a, I'll strike that. First, pursuant to section 3.008 of the city charter, council may repass the ordinance by resolution, two-thirds vote of the common council for the record that's six uh just to put a couple things on the record here the original ordinance was adopted may 20 2026 by vote of eight to one the mayor thereafter vetoed the measure with objections on May 26, 2026, and the veto message was received and filed by the city clerk on that same day. Before we proceed, I will read the mayor's objections into the record. All right, so this is dated, as we mentioned, May 26th, 2026. Subject, veto message for ordinance number 71. Common Council, please see this message regarding the ordinance adding section 2-1, 8-2 of the city code. And this is the mayor's veto message. Before any of this message is consumed, let it be known that I have, as mayor, both designated the month of June as Pride Month in the city of Utica by proclamation for two consecutive years, and that both proclamations were for all ensuing years. Also, I would like it recognized that throughout June, the pride flag was flown by the office of the mayor, parentheses, my office, This is, however, a veto message, and this, again, is the mayor's message. The specific reason to which I am vetoing this legislation is that it is not what was passed by the City of Boston Common Council in 2022. If our Common Council would like to perform the duties that they claim are in accordance with what the Supreme Court ruled, then our common council should follow suit and pass the same legislation what has been passed is a combination of the current administration's flag policy utica common council edition additions and parts of the boston common council's legislation this legislation as passed leaves the city of utica open for subjective interpretation and does not insulate the city in the same manner as the boston legislation in conjunction with the 2022 supreme court decision Given that this ordinance is timed with and passed in parallel to the Common Council's Pride Month resolution, I would also like to offer this commentary in the veto message. The mayor states, in 2024, when this originally became a controversy, the Pride flag was not the first or only flag not to go up on the flagpole when this administration, under its own review of the Boston situation, decided how to proceed. It was decided that flags of national origin, as currently specified with the clerk's office application, would be accepted for application. This was done to eliminate discretion from a process specific to flags that will go on the City of Utica flagpole. also mayor stating I also do not support the legislation that has passed as it introduces discretion and subjectivity the first flag that did not go up on the flagpole was the Catholic schools weak flag it was not the pride flag and there was no selective discrimination of any sort and the flag policy was simply changed such that it was definitive The mayor continues, separate from this entire process of flag discretion, there has been much confusion for years about flag raisings and who invites people to participate. Common council members frequently request to be invited by the mayor's office. This process has never been a procedure in which the mayor is hosting the flag raising. The applicant is... the mayor is also invited to each the flag raising organizer has always been the individual who invites people to speak and participate at their flag raisings those were all the mayor's words and the mayor's veto message dated May 26 2026 that said the process from this point if we're looking to override we need a motion to override and repass I'll make a motion

can i uh qualify my vote before we go any further go ahead councilman yes i will be voting against this flag legislation i want to be clear about something when this matter first came before the council i voted in favor of because i believe voting i believe that was voting on a resolution itself at that time i did not fully understand the legislation was being pulled from committee without having been properly discussed. The legislation sat in committee for four months. I was told it was essentially the same as the policy adopted in Boston. After reviewing it carefully, I can confidently say it's not. As many people heard me talk, say on May 20th, I firmly believe the American flag should be the primarily flag displayed on government property. I also support displaying flags of other nations when we are honoring those those countries or recognizing their contributions to our community. Beyond that, I do not believe there should be should be a place in a position that expose taxpayers to unnecessary legal challenges and expenses. We've heard concerns from legal professionals regarding those risks, yet we continue to largely dismiss them. However, my greatest concern is not the legislation itself. My greatest concern is the process. fully respect the fact that the common council super majority has the votes to pass legislation override the mayor's veto that's your right but with that authority comes responsibility to govern openly transparently in the best interest of the public what troubles me is that regularly scheduled council meeting was canceled because there was concern enough members would not be present to override the mayor's visa. Think about what that means. The people elected us to represent them, conduct the public business in public, provide residents with the opportunity to be heard. By canceling that regularly scheduled meeting and replacing it with a special meeting, the public lost meaningful opportunity to participate in the process. Residents who wish to address the council on this matter were effectively denied the chance. That's not transparency, and that's not good government. The cancellation also affected other important business. We had a committee meeting scheduled as well. Proclamation, as well as we had a proclamation recognizing two young men who historic actions helped save the girl's life. Those young men deserve to be publicly recognized for their courage and selflessness. Yet opportunity was delayed because a regular meeting was canceled. The public business extends beyond a single piece of legislation. And when meetings are canceled for political purpose, it's the residents and the community who are ultimately lose. Whether we support this legislation or oppose it, it's beside the point. Every resident deserves to know that decisions effectively our city are being made openly, fairly and with full public participation. The process matters. Public trust matters. When many of you ran for office, you spoke about putting politics aside, working together, doing what's best for the community. Yet over the past six months, I have seen far too many decisions driven by politics and opposition to the administration rather than principle. That is disappointing and frankly is not what the people of the city were promised. The good news is the public is paying attention. Residents are watching, they're asking questions, and they are holding all of us accountable. And that's exactly how government should work. At the end of the day, this is not about winning or losing a vote. It's about doing the right thing. It's about representing the public, respecting the process, and remembering who sent us here in the first place. I urge this council, moving forward, let's focus less on political stuff and do the right thing for the people that elected us. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Make a motion.

Motion's been made. Motion's on the floor. Anyone else want to qualify to vote?

Yes is to override the veto.

Yes is to override the veto.

Ready? Ready?

six yeas veto overridden all right by a vote of six yeas three nays the motion receives the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members serving on the common council therefore pursuant to section 3.008 of the city charter the mayor's veto is overridden and ordinance number 71 of 2026 adding section 2-1 8-2 display of flag raisings at City Hall is repassed and shall take effect immediately thank you motion to adjourn motion to adjourn wait wait one second our next meeting I want to make sure that we have on the 17th we have that committee meeting that was scheduled codes DPW and

five o'clock and codes dpw regarding the trees yes and then also i want to make a reminder that we are i am having a proclamation for the two boys so uh we'll take care of that i just want to make sure that we do take care of so 5 5 p.m on the 17th yes okay motion adjourned motion second second adjourned