The City Council's Ordinance and Rules Committee filed the citizen's petition asking for such a rule on Monday night, after it had been sent back to the committee a second time. The petition was filed by resident David Pill and the subcommittee began its deliberations in May.

 

After failing to come to an agreement on it, it was sent back to the full City Council for debate last month, only for the council to send it back to the committee level.

 

"He brought this to me some months ago. We met, talked about it, and then after he submitted the petition we got it here and debated it pretty thoroughly in a number of iterations, amendments here, amendments there, nothing really stuck. We reached a stalemate, sent it to the full council and at full council we hit another stalemate. They sent it back," Ward 3 Councilor Nicholas Caccamo said.

 

After all of that, Caccamo said he spoke with Pill over the weekend and the decision was made to file it instead, saying the petition did at least generate a healthy debate. 

 

"We thought it had its day," Caccamo said. "We did debate it ad nauseam."

 

Subcommittee Chairwoman Melissa Mazzeo agreed that the petition was certainly debated and triggered a large community discussion. She said she hopes that conversation helps spur interest in some city residents to serve on boards and commissions. 

 

"It really generated a good conversation," Mazzeo said.

 

But, she came to Monday's meeting prepared to continue the discussion. She said she found a possible compromise in the way Somerset handles a requirements, by allow two type of waivers - one approved by the city council if the candidate's expertise will be of value and one granted automatically if no city residents applied for the position. She suggested the committee keep that in mind should the concept come back. 

 

For the proponents, the idea was that anyone making decisions that impacts the city should be subject to those decisions. The petition asked for all members of boards and commissions be city residents.

 

But, that isn't as easy as it sounds. The city currently has dozens of people sitting on boards and commissions, who would have to be removed. There are current vacancies already. The rules regarding the make up of each board sometimes require certain expertise or job, positions which may not be found in Pittsfield. 

 

Further, there are people serving on boards who own property here - thus impacted by the decisions - but don't reside in the city. 

 

Opponents said it doesn't matter where the volunteer sleeps at night if he is qualified. The idea was that the city should be welcoming all types of volunteers and appointing the most qualified people to do the job. 

 

The subcommittee attempted to weave through the intricacies by presenting concepts such as having the requirement only on boards and commissions with special permit granting authority, allowing those who own property in the city as well, or allowing certain expertise's to serve. Whatever it was, the subcommittee and then City Council could not get to common ground. 

 

Monday's vote put an end to this particular petition, but that doesn't mean it will be gone forever. Caccamo suggested that such a requirement may be better put before voters as a ballot initiative.