PITTSFIELD, Mass. — A City Council subcommittee came close to recommending a residency requirement for all boards and commissions.

But, then the members voted to hold off for another month before taking a vote on the issue.

The Ordinance and Rules Committee debated the issue for an hour with the majority of the group in favor of such a requirement.

 

However, the language crafted by City Solicitor Richard Dohoney wasn't clear on whether the Pittsfield Economic Development Agency board would be included.

 

Further, the members said they received a list of board and commission members' addresses but it wasn't updated — making it unclear exactly how many positions would be impacted. Ultimately, the ordinance was tabled for another month to gather those final pieces of information.

 

The five-member committee was fairly split in its second meeting on Monday regarding the petition filed by resident David Pill. Council Vice President John Krol sought for a residency requirement on only the nine boards with permitting authority while Councilor at Large Peter White sought provisions allowing those who work or own businesses in Pittsfield to be able to serve.

 

"The reason why I was starting with permitting authority is because I believe strongly that in these Conservation Commission, Community Development Board, and these types of things there be a residential skin in the game," Krol said.

 

However, Krol said the other boards — numbering in the dozens — serve as only advisory and that the city should have the largest pool of candidates to choose from. He cited boards like the Green Commission and the Tourism Commission as two that would benefit from members with specific expertise. 

 

"I think we are losing a lot of value. I think we are losing a lot of talent on these committees," Krol said. 

 

Krol motioned to implement a residency requirement was limited to the Board of Health, Community Development Board, Design Review Committee, Community Development, Historical Commissions, Mobile Home Rent Control, Taxi Cab, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Licensing Board — though the Licensing Board already has one so that was withdrawn as to not duplicate language. But, the motion was defeated.

 

Ward 5 Councilor Donna Todd Rivers says those members will still have a say, just not a vote. Every standing board and commission makes decisions or recommendations about the quality of life in the city and for that reason, Rivers believes the decisions should be made those impacted by it.

 

"I do believe it is really important for those decisions to be made by residents of the city," Rivers said.

 

She was joined by Ward 3 Councilor Nicholas Caccamo and Councilor at Large Melissa Mazzeo in calling for a residency ordinance for all boards and commissions. 

 

"Establishing those nine permitting boards, I think is fine. But I'd also vote for an overlaying one for all boards and commissions," Caccamo said, citing the same points as Rivers. 

 

Mazzeo did echo some of White's points in that many who serve on the boards have vested interest in the community and therefore should have a voice. She suggested creating a provision to allow those with certain expertise to sit on the boards as ex-officio members but not have a vote. 

 

"Trying to include people from other communities that really have a vested interest in the community would be my only hang up," Mazzeo said.

 

Some of those expertise positions are required by city ordinance. That includes the Board of Health needing a doctor or the building inspector sitting on the Commission on Disabilities. Dohoney said those specific requirements would override the residency requirement, alleviating the issue of city employees with specific roles. But, with the Board of Health, because the requirement is for a doctor and not a specific job title, the residency requirement would be in place.

 

The city had a residency requirement once for the Board of Health but removed it in order to make sure the role of the doctor was filled. The Board of Health would have two members being forced off the board with the requirement. But those are just two of about two dozen currently identified as living out of town. The list of members provided to the subcommittee had a number of people who have work addresses listed, so that number is expected to grow when revised.

 

Seeing he was going to be in the minority of the final vote, White made an amendment to delay the implementation until July 1. Dohoney's language would have kicked those members off the boards and commissions immediately after the City Council approved it. White amended it to be as of July 1, 2017, giving city officials time to find replacements.

 

A final hold up to the vote was an clear understanding of which boards would be impacted. Dohoney said his thought is that the Pittsfield Economic Development board would not be covered because that was created and governed by state law and is by mayoral appointment. The School Building Needs Commission also wouldn't be covered, Dohoney said, because that was a temporary committee formed under state requirements and is dissolved after the building project is complete.

 

But, he also said that if making a vote on Monday night the safe play would be to assume PEDA was covered. Ultimately, the subcommittee asked him to look deeper into the issue to see if, in fact it is.

 

Without knowing the breadth of impacted commission or board members, and the uncertainty about which boards will be impacted, the subcommittee ultimately pushed off the final vote for another month. Whichever the subcommittee decides will then have to be adopted by the full City Council.