MEMBER SIGN IN
Not a member? Become one today!
         iBerkshires     Berkshire Chamber     Berkshire Community College     City of Pittsfield    
Search
Residency Requirement Heads Back to Pittsfield Subcommittee
By Andy McKeever, iBerkshires Staff
11:54AM / Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Print | Email  

The City Council was unable to come to a decision on the requirement, so back it went to the subcommittee level.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Krista Wroldson Miller may care more about the city than some of the people who live here.
 
The Windsor resident serves on the Animal Control Commission. Her sons attend school here. She and her husband both work in the city. She serves on the board of the Eleanor Sonsini Animal Shelter. They lived and built a life in the city but then found the home they wanted in Windsor. 
 
"The only thing that changed was our ride to work," Miller said.
 
But now her role on the Animal Control Commission is at risk because the city's considering a residency requirement for those who serve on its boards and commissions. On Tuesday, the issue finally came to the City Council after the Ordinance and Rules Committee failed to reach a compromise on the issue. But was sent back as the council also remained divided on it.
 
The petition was put forth by a resident asking that anyone who is making decisions for residents of Pittsfield should live in the city.
 
"The rule has more value if more residents have input," David Pill, who submitted the petition, said. 
 
Pill said the city is the largest in the county, there should be enough residents to fill the boards. He said that would entice more residents to be involved as well ensure that those making rules have to live by them as well.
 
"If somebody is making a decision, zoning or a license, making rules a city has to live by, to me it really needs to be people who live here," Councilor at Large Melissa Mazzeo said.
 
Tom Sakshaug, who sits on a number of boards, said a residency rule would particularly impact the Animal Control Commission, which would lose two people immediately — Miller and Chairman Dr. John Reynolds.
 
Reynolds said he is "the face" of the people the petition is trying to keep out. He has served the board since the early 1990s and has chaired it for the last 12 years. He owns Pittsfield Veterinary Hospital, been involved with the Pittsfield Rotary and the Berkshire Humane Society, and buys from local vendors for his practice. 
 
"I consider Pittsfield my community," the veterinarian said. 
 
It is those faces that have complicated the issue. Ward 3 Councilor Nicholas Caccamo said the petition started off "philosophical" by centering on the question of should the people who make the rules, approve permits, and make recommendations as to how to govern should also come from the people who will be impacted by those decisions. 
 
"It is unfortunate that people feel this is against them," Caccamo said. 
 
Without specifically saying which "particular board," Ward 7 Councilor Anthony Simonelli said there has been a recent incident in which a board with members from out of town have made "bad decisions." He said he has a problem with boards consisting of people who do not represent the city making laws that impact the city.
 
"I am not in favor of excluding people who reside outside but I have a problem with people serving who make policy and law that the City Council, we got voted here, have no say over," Simonelli said. 
 
That concern had already been raised the first time the petition went to the Ordinance and Rules Subcommittee. Council Vice President John Krol attempted to pass an amendment that would implement a residency requirement on boards that have permit granting or regulatory authority. But, that didn't get support.
 
Councilor at Large Peter White has been a strong voice against the petition, saying the City Council has the ability already to deny an appointment and that there is expertise that could benefit the city from people who live elsewhere. 
 
"We couldn't come to anything but what was in front of us and I can't support it because it is a complete drain on resources," White, who sits on Ordinance and Rules, said.
 
There are more than 20 people currently serving on boards and commissions who do not live in the city. Ward 2 Councilor Kevin Morandi added that there are more than a dozen vacancies on boards as well. 
 
"We don't have people knocking down the doors here at City Hall to serve on boards and commissions," Morandi said. 
 
Further, many boards and commissions have requirements as to expertise. For example, the Board of Health requires a doctor and the Animal Control Commission a veterinarian. Others require specific city personnel, and some of those employees don't live in the city. 
 
Councilors Christopher Connell, Lisa Tully, and Mazzeo all suggested amendments similar to the ones discussed at Ordinance and Rules. Tully suggested an amendment that which would allow all property owners, despite where they personally reside here, to be allowed to serve. And she suggested those currently on boards be grandfathered in.
 
Connell suggested a percent of each board be opened for non-residents. 
 
"I think it would still give us the flexibility to have the qualified people we have from out of the city to serve on these boards, which we desperately need," he said. 
 
And Mazzeo suggested going back to Krol's original concept of a residency requirement on only those boards that do more than just advisory work.
 
But instead of fleshing out all of those options, a 7-4 vote sent it back to Ordinance and Rules for more work. Council President Peter Marchetti said the effort to find a compromise is what subcommittees are designed to do. This is at least the second time he's asked to send items that weren't fully considered back to the subcommittee level. 
 
"I still think we have some room here to make a compromise," Mazzeo said.
Comments
More Featured Stories
Pittsfield.com is owned and operated by: Boxcar Media 106 Main Sreet, P.O. Box 1787 North Adams, MA 01247 -- T. 413-663-3384
© 2008 Boxcar Media LLC - All rights reserved