WESTFIELD – Routine business sometimes takes an unexpected twist as was the case last night when the Legislative & Ordinance Committee gave a 3-0 recommendation to the City Council to act on a Law Department opinion to repeal the city’s sex offender ordinance.
The Law Department issued that opinion following an August Supreme Judicial Court decision that an ordinance in Lynn, a city very similar to Westfield and 39 other communities across the state, was too restrictive and declared it unconstitutional.
The Supreme Judicial Court in an Aug. 28 decision, upheld a lower court decision ruling that a local law restricting where sex offenders can live in the city of Lynn exceeds the city’s authority to regulate where registered sex offenders can reside.
The Lynn ordinance which led to the SJC decision prohibited sex offenders from living in about 95 percent of that community.
The Westfield ordinance prohibits a registered sex offender from “establishing a permanent residence or temporary residence” within 1,000 feet of a school and establishes “child safety zones” which includes schools, parks, both public and private, and playgrounds.
Registered sex offenders “shall not loiter on of within 1,000 feet of any property on which there is a school, park or any private or public recreational facility.”
The court, in its decision, stated that the laws approved by the Legislature pertaining to sex offenders and where they reside, through the sex offender registration, is comprehensive and that it was the intent of the Legislature to protect residents of the commonwealth, making the local ordinances onerous.
The Westfield Police Department is no longer enforcing the local ordinance but there is a concern in the Law Department that a third party could initiate litigation against the city for having the ordinance on its books.
The pushback within the City Council ranks slowly increased with speaker after speaker chiding the SJC decision and urging local members of the state Legislature to take action to restore local authority to control where sex offenders reside.
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean, who was one of the sponsoring councilors when the ordinance was adopted under Chapter 10, Article III of the City Code of Ordinances adopted on Jan. 20, 2011, called the SJC decision “ludicrous.”
“I can’t smoke a cigarette on school property, but a sexual predator can watch a child,” Crean said. “Are we more concerned about health issues than safety of children issues?”
At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty said the existing ordinance was adopted “for a reason. The court never sent me a letter that I have to vote to repeal it.”
“We need to give the House and Senate time to change the state law, so I have no interest in voting for this tonight,” Flaherty said.
At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean II said he agreed with those councilors.
“I want something in place,” he said. “There is too much at stake.”
At-large Councilor Dan Allie suggested that the council members “stand our ground to put pressure on the legislature” to act on this issue.
At-large Councilor Cindy Harris made the motion to table the issue, which City Council President Brian Sullivan clarified by adding that the vote to table was “indefinite.”
