Board of Aldermen 05-25-2021 Page 43
Alderman Jette
Thank you. So Madam President, if it is in order I’d like to make a motion to add that language to amend by
adding that language as formulated by Attorney Bolton.
MOTION BY ALDERMAN JETTE TO AMEND BY ADDING “THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO ADOPT RULES REGARDING MASK WEARING IN CITY HALL AND / OR CITY
BUILDINGS”(EXCEPTION FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS) BY ROLL CALL
ON THE QUESTION
President Wilshire
OK so now we have three amendments, Attorney Bolton.
Attorney Bolton
You can only go two deep.
President Wilshire
Two deep, OK. So why don’t we vote on the two amendments that we have and then take up your amendment
Alderman Jette. The first amendment is Alderman Clemons’ amendment to make the effective date 12:01 a.m.
on May 26, 2021. And then the list of 7 paragraphs that Alderman Dowd read. So that the motion. The
motion is to amend, further discussion on that motion. Alderman Klee?
Alderman Klee
Thank you Madam President and this is to Attorney Bolton through you. If the Mayor doesn’t sign this until
tomorrow and we make it effective 5/26 12:01 a.m. that’s actually going to be before he would sign it. Are we
not confusing the public by putting this through yet it still won’t be signed. But | would look to Alderman
Clemons to see if he would be willing to do the date of 5/27 instead of 5/26. Am | correct in that Attorney
Bolton?
Attorney Bolton
Well | don’t know whether people will be confused or not. | suppose some people might be and some people
might not be. But the fact is it will take effect when the Mayor signs it or 7 days after passage if he doesn’t sign
it. And if he were to veto it it would not take effect unless the Board of Aldermen overrode the veto. So if it
says that it takes effect at 12:01 tomorrow morning, and the Mayor doesn’t get around to signing it until 9:00
a.m. tomorrow morning, it takes effect at 9:00 a.m.
Alderman Klee
OK thank you for the clarification.
President Wilshire
Alderwoman Lu?
Alderwoman Lu
Thank you Madam Chairman. Through you to Corporation Counsel, when the City wanted to have a resident
taken out of City Hall arrested, it seems that we were treated as a company or a business. But in this case we
are not a business and we cannot dictate the terms of City Hall? Is that correct?
