City Councilors consider repeal of sex offender ordinance at Thursday’s meeting.
Westfield – Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy, who chairs the Legislative & Ordinance Committee, brought a motion to repeal the city’s sex offender ordinance to the City Council on Thursday. Figy explained that the Supreme Judicial Court has voted local ordinances unconstitutional, and “with heavy hearts” the committee voted 3-0 to repeal it.
“Just leaving it there opens us to liability. Civil rights violations are costly,” Figy said, adding that the Law Department warned that Councilors who do not vote for repeal may risk losing their indemnification. Figy said nobody wanted to do this.
At the start of the meeting during public participation, a resident spoke about the sex offender ordinance. He said he had a 16-month-old son, and just learned that a Level 3 sex offender who had repeatedly raped a child under 14 was living 30 yards from his front door. He said he had spoken to the probation officer and the Police Department, who told him he had to live with it. “Tell that to my wife, who doesn’t want to leave the house or take my son outside,” he said, adding that his wife and two of his friends were victims. “Where are their rights,” he asked.
“I think we’re on the wrong track,” said Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr. during the discussion of the motion. He said the SJC hasn’t said the city has to repeal it.
“I did meet with the Legal Department who says it has to be repealed,” responded Council President John J. Beltrandi, III.
At-large Councilor Nicholas J. Morganelli Jr., who serves on L&O, said at the meeting the City Solicitor did say the state law was so comprehensive, that if the city did anything more, it would be unconstitutional. “We’re not going to leave it lightly,” Morganelli said.
At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean, II also expressed his displeasure with the motion. “When the Law Department says we need to vote a certain way in particular or we lose our indemnification – no one wants to repeal this,” he said. He also said he has yet to see the state order the removal, but if they did, he didn’t see why the Council had to vote on it.
“The state ruled the city can’t have a registry ordinance because the state already has one. The state residency requirements actually do little,” said At-large Councilor Dan Allie. He said the recidivism rate for pedophiles is 52% and for rapists, 39%.” Registries do little to keep sex offenders away from victims,” he added.
“I’m going to vote against this again tonight. There’s nothing that says we have to repeal it. I’m a no vote. I think the state should be correcting this,” said At-large Councilor David Flaherty.
Allie asked for clarification on whether the city was ordered by the SJC to repeal the ordinance. “Right now it’s unenforceable,” he added.
“I’m concerned that with this on the books it has no teeth, because we can’t enforce it. I’m concerned that residents have a false sense of security because we have an ordinance on the books,” said At-large Councilor Matthew Emmershy.
“Would it be possible to ask the chair of the L&O not to ask for a vote tonight, and to have the Law Department come and speak to all the Councilors,” asked At-large Councilor Cindy C. Harris.
Paul asked what would happen if all of the Councilors abstained from the vote.
“I don’t want to make a political vote. It’s a bad vote – none of us want to do it. Has anyone thought about having a Foundation take the case (if the city is sued),” asked Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise, adding that he didn’t see any problem with keeping it in committee.
“We’re risking legal action against the city. With the ruling by the state, it’s a 100% risk. I don’t think that risk is worth taking. We should change the law at the state level. My vote is to repeal it,” said Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, a member of L&O.
“I’m going to agree with Councilor Harris. This is a motion that brings up a lot of emotion. I like the idea of the Law Department coming in and speaking,” said Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski, adding that the solicitor’s remarks would be televised for the public. “I think it’s worth stepping back and taking a break,” she added.
“It pains me that we have to take a vote either way. It pains me that councilors don’t come to sub-committee meetings (to get informed),’ said Figy, as he made a motion to table the repeal to the next meeting of the City Council.
