Pittsfield voters will have the chance to weigh in on whether the next police chief will have to live in Pittsfield. The council voted to place a question on residency requirements for public safety officials on the November ballot.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Should public safety officials have to live in Pittsfield? Voters will have a chance to answer on the upcoming ballot.

Last week, the City Council voted to place a question on the Nov. 7 ballot that asks if the residency requirement for public safety management positions should be eliminated.

It passed 7-4 with Councilors at Large Peter White and Earl Persip III, Ward 3 Councilor Kevin Sherman, and Ward 7 Councilor Anthony Maffuccio in opposition.

The petitioner, Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren, leans toward keeping the residency requirement but wants voter input on the topic. It has been city policy since at least 1947.

"All of a sudden, it's something that people want and all of a sudden some of these city leaders are rushing to do this without having a lot of discussion, looking into. Sometimes the voters wonder if there is something else going on, the transparency of what's going on," he said.

"Because why do we need that change for one position all of a sudden when nobody has raised it, not even the mayor who's coming, the new mayor, whoever that may be, coming on. There seems to be some ulterior motive so if we're going to change something that's been in place for close to 100 years, you might want the voters' input and it's simple. It's very simple."

The conversation began a few months ago when a request to remove the management residency requirement and replace it with a 20-mile radius requirement was brought to the Ordinances and Rules subcommittee.

It was tabled and went to the full council in July, when it was referred to City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta so that he could draft clarifying language.

Sherman believes this is a leadership decision that the council should make and that it needs much more public conversation.

"I don't know how I would vote right now on it," he said. "I would like to evaluate it and see what the pros and cons are and what other communities do. I think this is a leadership thing that we need to do. I'm not saying voters shouldn't vote."

Sherman later explained that he feels ballot questions pit neighbors against neighbors and that there just isn't enough information available to the council and residents on the topic yet.

White also believes that the topic deserves more thoughtful debate than a yes or no vote.

"This is a yes or no vote on something that was put forward by the administration, referred to Ordinances and Rules, tabled at Ordinances and Rules because the members of Ordinances and Rules have decided that it wasn't something that we had enough information on to vote on that night," he explained.

He added that the possible parameters of the exception have not been fully debated. A mile radius around the city is currently being considered.

"The ballot initiative is a yes or no," White said. "Us deliberating up here, at subcommittees, and having thoughtful debate is the way something like this should be handled."

Maffuccio said this was discussed during his first term many years ago and it was determined that the positions should have residency requirements.

"Some things, they're hard decisions but we've got to sit up here and we have to make those decisions," he said. "That's what we're here for. That's what we're paid for. That's what we're here for, representation."

Persip said there is no conspiracy and that the top two candidates for the permanent police chief position live outside of Pittsfield.

In July, a resident spoke during an open microphone about how the chief should live in the city and be a part of the community to maintain accountability.  

"I kind of agree with that. That kind of changed my mind but I want to hear more," Persip said. "I think we need to hear more. We need to let the process of what we do up here take place."

He pointed to the significant number of ballot question requests this year, saying there would be 50 or 60 ballot questions if it was up to the council.

"So let's be smart. Let's do our job.  Back to work," he said.

The last mayoral election had a less than 30 percent voter turnout. This was also used as a point against the ballot question.

"I'm supporting this going on the ballot strictly because this same conversation that we're looking to have now would happen at that point because we still have the right to make the parameters. It wouldn't just blindly be opened up," Ward 6 Councilor Dina Lampiasi explained.

"I have been very open about the fact that I think that somebody who is policing our community should be a part of our community, they should live in our community. I also am open to learning more about it through the process but the amount that I have heard in Ward 6 from residents is that they actually do want to talk about this, they want it on the ballot, and my expectation is it's not going to pass but I don't know. So I'm just representing the residents."

Ward 2 Councilor Charles Kronick's support was driven by the constitution making Massachusetts a ballot initiative state and Councilor at Large Karen Kalinowsky believes that the voters should have a voice in the topic.

Kronick's petitions to place a non-binding question to limit the mayor and city councilors to two terms failed with Kalinowsky as the only other supporter.

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos