Gaza ceasefire resolution gets 9–0 vote from Bloomington council, mayoral veto uncertain
A resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza so that humanitarian aid can be delivered got unanimous support from Bloomington’s city council at its regular Wednesday meeting.
The 9–0 vote came after public commentary that ended around 11:40 p.m. The council’s vote came just before midnight.
Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson’s stated at the council’s previous meeting, on March 27, that she would not be signing resolutions like the one on a Gaza ceasefire.
But it is not clear if a mayoral veto on Wednesday’s resolution will be forthcoming.
Wednesday’s public mic featured a few speakers who used racist rhetoric, starting during the general public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, which is reserved for topics not on the agenda.
During the initial general public comment period, one speaker weighed in on the Zoom video conferencing platform by saying: “Inclusion means excluding white people and equity means stealing from white people.”
The speaker continued, by asking: “Why can non-whites get social safety nets but we get scraps? … Is it progress for a white woman to be a single mother for life with multiple mud babies of different imprisoned Black fathers? I don’t think this is progress.” The speaker concluded with: “Hail Hitler.”
Another speaker also concluded his remarks from the Zoom public mic by saying, “White power. Hail Hitler.”
During commentary on the resolution itself, one speaker claimed, “Every aspect of the media is Jewish. Every aspect of the government is Jewish. Our wars are fought for Jewish interest. Our whole existence is on Jewish supremacy.”
At the end of the meeting, councilmember Sydney Zulich, who described herself as the only Jewish member of the council, observed that the worst of the hateful rhetoric had come from commenters who participated via Zoom.
Zulich said, “In the case of white supremacy, anti-Jewishness, anti-Palestinian comments, it’s really easy to spew that kind of rhetoric without looking any of us in the eye.” She added, “Your cowardice is noted.”
Public comment was mixed—either strongly in favor or strongly against passage of the resolution.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the resolution on a Gaza ceasefire was presented by Isabel Piedmont-Smith and Dave Rollo, who had sponsored it. After the presentation of the resolution, the mayor was given a chance to make some remarks. Thomson was not in attendance at the meeting when the initial public comment was delivered, but was briefed on it, when she arrived.
As Thomson started into the substance of her remarks, she was fighting back tears. “I’m sorry,” she said, “I’m sad and furious.”
After gathering herself, Thomson continued, “I condemn all hate speech. It is inappropriate. And while I stand for freedom of speech, and we will always allow it in these council chambers, I’m here tonight to ask the people of Bloomington: When you hear hatred, when you hear Nazi speech, when you hear deliberate threats and condemnation of Black and Brown people, you do not need to say something perfectly. Just stand up and say something.”
Responding to Thomson’s exhortation to stand up and say something, a question was audible from the audience: “Are we allowed to boo?”
Some of the context of the audience question was an admonition made at the start of Wednesday’s meeting, by councilmember Hopi Stosberg—against cheering or booing speakers during public commentary time. Stosberg referred to the behavior of some attendees of the council’s meeting a week ago on March 27: “I just did not find it very respectful. There was at least one member who got audible boos during public comment.”
On March 27, the remark from the public mic that prompted a chorus of boos was this: “I’m fortunate enough to own a dictionary. And therefore, I know that claims that Israel is an apartheid state and that genocide is occurring are unfounded.”
Throughout Wednesday’s meeting, the audience mostly adhered to Stosberg’s admonition not to make sounds of any kind while others were talking. But when the final speaker during general public comment time weighed in from Zoom, and concluded with his “Hail Hitler” the crowd did muster some boos, with one person calling out: “Motion to boo!”
Thomson responded to the question about booing by saying: “No, you’re not allowed to boo and you’re not allowed to clap right now.” She continued, “But you are allowed to get up to the microphone at public comment, when it’s your time.”
About the white supremacist rhetoric, Thomson said, “It is important that as a community, we stand together and we condemn this speech and the actions that we know go with that speech.” She continued, “I am disappointed in our community. I am not surprised, but I am shocked. And I know for my Black and Brown neighbors, they’re not shocked or surprised because they experience this a lot.”
About herself, Thomson said, “I need to be shocked, and the rest of us who felt shocked and didn’t know what to say, here I am saying it imperfectly.”
Thomson wrapped up in a way that could be analyzed as an allusion to the position she had staked out at the council’s meeting a week ago—about her intention not to sign resolutions like the one on a Gaza ceasefire. At the March 27 meeting, she told the city council, “While it is your prerogative to pass resolutions that express viewpoints on matters that we do not oversee, as a matter of principle, I will not be signing any resolutions that do not directly impact the business of our city.”
On Wednesday, Thomson concluded her remarks by saying about Bloomington: “This is a place that we can make safe for all people. And I am committed to doing that.”
Thomson added, “And I hope we spend as much time focused on how we do that, and listening to people who experience this every day, and figuring out our pathways towards that safety, as we have in listening to this resolution, and other resolutions on peace and justice. Because it starts here.”
At the council’s March 27 meeting, the council voted just 5–4 to oppose a water pipeline in north central Indiana, which would not be enough to override a mayoral veto, if all councilmembers voted the same way. A unanimous vote would easily satisfy the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.
In city council chambers, immediately after the meeting, Thomson responded to a B Square question about whether the 9–0 vote had changed her mind about a veto. “It did not,” she said.
But in a later email message, Thomson’s position did not seem as certain: “I haven’t changed my mind and the truth is, my mind is quite full from what I heard.” She continued, “After what I heard tonight I was so disturbed…that I need some time to reflect.” Thomson added, “Tonight’s deliberations warrant more reflection than 30 seconds after a council meeting allows.”
Under state law, the mayor’s signature on a resolution or a return of the resolution to the council with a veto message is required within 10 days of presentation of the resolution to the mayor by the city clerk.
By 11:40 p.m. which was the clock time that the council had set for ending public commentary, it was clear that some councilmembers had no appetite for extending the meeting past midnight.
Zulich was not inclined to put off a vote by postponing the resolution until another meeting: “I would be remiss if I didn’t say, just in favor of not re-traumatizing every person in this room, I would like to put this to bed tonight.”
Under local code, any two councilmembers have the power to end the meeting after 11:59 p.m. The procedure requires only a motion to adjourn and a seconding motion, which ends the meeting automatically, with no vote of the council required. Councilmembers Matt Flaherty and Kate Rosenbarger stated that they were ready to use that procedure.
The threat of a sudden end to the meeting at midnight meant that the council voted not to hear from 17 additional public commenters, queued up in council chambers or on Zoom. Dissenting on that vote were Dave Rollo, Andy Ruff, and Courtney Daily.
Also in the interest of ending the meeting before midnight voluntarily, instead of by forced adjournment, councilmembers voted to limit their comments on the resolution to one minute. Dissenting on that vote were Ruff and Isak Asare.
Flaherty said, “Thank you very much to the residents who have engaged us on this topic. I’m truly sorry, we do not have more time for public comment this evening.”
Flaherty continued, “I am saddened and deeply disturbed by the hate speech that we all heard multiple times this evening. I strongly condemn those views in that language.” He added, “Thank you to my colleagues for their extensive efforts to engage this topic earnestly with their constituents, and bringing this forward, as they felt morally compelled to do.”
Rosenbarger echoed Flaherty’s remarks but ceded the rest of her time to Asare.
Stosberg said, “The hate speech and the antisemitism that we heard tonight was just disgusting. And I’m really sorry that people had to hear it.” Stosberg continued, “I’m really sorry that people hold those thoughts. And I do believe in free speech, and they have the right to say them, even though it’s horrible to hear.”
Zulich said she would be publishing a press release with her full thoughts on the resolution and denounced the hate speech that was used during public commentary. [Added April 8, 2024: news release issued by Zulich on 2024-04-08]
Daily said, “I’m horrified and hurt, and just beyond disappointed with everything that happened here tonight with all the hate speech.” She continued, “I condemn it in the strongest possible way.” Daily also said that she had had “deep reservations” about the council weighing in on the ceasefire, saying “We’re not foreign policy experts up here, of course.”
Daily concluded by saying, “But at the end of the day, I stand for peace. And I cannot vote against offering humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians.”
Asare said that it was frustrating not to be able to hear the thoughts of everybody in the room, and online. He then returned to a common theme of some of his comments since being sworn in at the start of the year, about the adequacy of the council’s meeting format. Asare put it like this: “I think one thing that’s been clearly illustrated is that this isn’t the adequate forum for us to be having constructive conversations that get to the best outcomes.”
About the resolution, Asare said, “I think that realistically, we are at a suboptimal outcome. Asare called the work that Rollo and Piedmont-Smith had done “as thorough as possible.” Asare said that it is clear that the resolution is about humanitarian aid.
Rollo said, “I’m glad that we’re unified in condemning hate speech.” He called the kind of speech that had been used that night “morally repugnant.” Rollo said he and Piedmont-Smith had sponsored the resolution because of the risk to innocent people: “We condemn the killing of innocent people.”
Ruff said that everyone should condemn the hate speech that had been used that night. But Ruff noted that the audience had not reacted. “People didn’t take the bait, and that’s great,” Ruff said.
