Moving away from School Committee coverage for now, I want to focus on something that has not been on most people’s minds since fall of last year: the amendments to the City of Pittsfield’s Charter that the City Council proposed and passed, primarily regarding moving to 4 year terms for School Committee members and City Councilors.
Back in August, the City Council voted to petition the State Legislature with two Special Act amendments to the City Charter to increase the terms of City Councilors and School Committee members from 2 years to 4 years, in line with the Mayor. This was billed as a way to make local government more stable as well as to save money by not having to run a local elections as often.
Here is the proposed Special Act for making School Committee member’s terms 4 years:
And here is the proposed Special Act for making City Councilor’s terms 4 years:
The process for a Special Act amendment is the City Council votes to approve the charter amendment, then it goes to the State Legislature as a bill to get approved through the normal legislative process where bill has to pass the House and Senate then get signed into law by the Governor.
The amendment doesn’t automatically go to the voters, unless the City Council and/or the State Legislature specifically includes language putting it on a ballot. The City Council did include such language in both petitions.
However, the bill introduced by Rep. Farley-Bouvier to amend the Charter (Bill H.4716) does not contain any provision for the changes to go before the voters. The bill’s language is much simpler than what the voters approved, only requiring the two references in the charter to change the School Committee and City Councils terms from two years to four years. Nothing about it going before the voters. Nothing about when it will come into effect.
SECTION 1. Subsection (b) of section 2-1 of article 2 of the charter of the city of Pittsfield, which is on file in the office of the archivist of the commonwealth pursuant to section 12 of chapter 43B of the General Laws, is hereby amended by striking out the word “two” and inserting in place thereof the following word:- four.
SECTION 2. Subsection (b) of section 4-1 of article 4 of said charter is hereby amended by striking out the word “two” and inserting in place thereof the following word:- four.
This presents a major problem. The Council voted under the assumption that these changes would be going before the voters. I would say most residents and voters in Pittsfield, in favor or opposed to the change, were under the assumption that these changes would be going before the voters as well. Based on my interpretation of the language of the bill, City Councilor and School Committee member terms will be serving 4 year terms starting with the members elected in the 2027 Municipal Election.
And the worse part, the bill has already passed the house. I’ve been tracking this bill for a while now, and I thought the House Committee on Bills in the Third Reading, which catches drafting issues with bills, would catch this error. They did not.
Right now the bill sits in the Massachusetts Senate, and seems to be very close to getting passed and being sent to the Governor for her to sign (which will most likely happen).
So is this Legal?
This is the part where I am unsure, partially because I’m not a lawyer and that I don’t have all of the behind the scenes information about how the bill was drafted.
From my understanding, the Massachusetts Constitution Article LXXXIX provides the steps for a Municipality to petition the state legislature to change its Charter:
Section 8. Powers of the General Court. – The general court shall have the power to act in relation to cities and towns, but only by general laws which apply alike to all cities or to all towns, or to all cities and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two, and by special laws enacted (1) on petition filed or approved by the voters of a city or town, or the mayor and city council, or other legislative body, of a city, or the town meeting of a town, with respect to a law relating to that city or town; (2) by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the general court following a recommendation by the governor; (3) to erect and constitute metropolitan or regional entities, embracing any two or more cities or towns or cities and towns, or established with other than existing city or town boundaries, for any general or special public purpose or purposes, and to grant to these entities such powers, privileges and immunities as the general court shall deem necessary or expedient for the regulation and government thereof; or (4) solely for the incorporation or dissolution of cities or towns as corporate entities, alteration of city or town boundaries, and merger or consolidation of cities and towns, or any of these matters.
Based on this, the only way the Legislature can change the City Charter is either through a petition approved by the City Council and Mayor, or by a 2/3rds vote of both branches based on a recommendation from the Governor. As the latter has not happened from my understanding, the change is being enacted based on the Council’s petitions to the State Legislature.
However, the language the Legislature is passing is not in line with what the Council approved, so from my understanding this bill wouldn’t be Constitutional as it is not going through the proper process of amending the City Charter.
Though there is one caveat, part of the Order the Council passed stated the following:
Based on my reading of the order any amendment to the proposed Special Act to have it not go before the voters would not “be within the scope of the general public objectives of this petition” as one of the primary objectives, in my view, is that the voters would be able to decide if Councilors and School Committee members serve 4 year terms or not.
Additionally, another wrench in all of this is that as the process of getting a Special Act approved is slow, when the Council approved the original two petitions they became out of date as the Council was looking to put both questions on the ballot for the 2025 election, which did not happen. So an amendment would have needed to be made to have the question be put on the 2027 ballot. So I’m not sure if the discussion between the Mayor and the Legislature resulted in the bill being amended so that it wouldn’t go to the voters at all. But I feel that would mean the change was very much out of scope of what the Council originally passed.
So, What Now?
I’m hopeful that this blog post will catch people’s attention to this issue, and hopefully ensure that someone in the Legislature calls attention to the issue and ensures this issue does go before the voters.
If you feel the same way that I do that this should go before the voters, I would highly recommended reaching out to Rep. Farley-Bouvier or Senator Paul Mark, who both represent Pittsfield. There contact information is below.
Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier: Tricia.Farley-Bouvier@mahouse.gov
State House
24 Beacon St.
Room 274
Boston, MA, 02133
Phone: (617) 722-2676
District Office
Phone: 413-442-4300
Senator Paul W. Mark: Paul.Mark@masenate.gov
State House
24 Beacon St.
Room 504
Boston, MA, 02133
Phone: (617) 722-1625
District Office
773 Tyler Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Phone: 413-464-5635