“Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. Chapter 39 §23B, and
City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.”
A Regular Meeting of the City Council held in the Council Chamber on Thursday,
October 11, 2012 at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of transacting any and all business. Notice of this meeting was posted on October 4, 2012 at 6:07 P.M. This meeting is being taped and is live on S.A.T.V.
All Councillors were present.
Council President Lovely presided.
Councillor Furey moved to dispense with the reading of the record of the previous meeting. It was so voted.
President Lovely requested that everyone please rise to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
There was no public testimony.
#600 – APPOINTMENT OF SUMNER JONES TO THE BOARD OF TRUST FUND COMMISSIONERS
The Mayor’s appointment of Sumner Jones to serve on the Board of Trust Fund Commissioners with a term to expire on April 1, 2020, was held under the rules until the next meeting of October 25, 2012.
#601 – CONSTABLE
The Mayor’s reappointment. of John Massa to serve as a Constable with a term to expire on August 8, 2015, was received and placed on file.
#602 – APPROPRIATION TO FOR RETIREMENT STABILIZATION FUND – VACATION/ SICK LEAVE BUYBACK FOR CYNTHIA WHITTEN
The following Order recommended by the Mayor, was adopted under suspension of the rules.
ORDERED: That the sum of Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars and Four Cents ($7,875.04) is hereby appropriated to the “Retirement Stabilization Fund – Vacation/Sick Leave buyback” account to be expended for the retirement buyback as listed below in accordance with the recommendation of Her Honor the Mayor.
Cynthia Whitten Engineering Department $7,875.04
#603 – ACCEPT DONANTION FOR A MEMORIAL BENCH
The following Order recommended by the Mayor, was adopted.
ORDERED: To accept the donation from Abby Burns in the amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,800.00) to fund a bench at the Salem Common. These funds will deposited in the Recreation Department Donation Fund in accordance with the recommendation of Her Honor the Mayor.
#604 – ACCEPT DONATION FOR RECREATIONAL DONATION ACCOUNT
The following Order recommended by the Mayor, was adopted.
ORDERED: To accept the donation from “It Starts With Me” in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to fund recreation programs. These funds will be deposited in the Recreation Department Donation Fund in accordance with the recommendation of Her Honor the Mayor.
#605 – ORDINANCE, TRAFFIC PARKING PROHIBITED CERTAIN STREETS LYNCH STREET
Councillor McCarthy introduced the following Ordinance, which was adopted for first passage.
In the year two thousand and twelve
An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Traffic, Chapter 42, Section 51 “Parking Prohibited on Certain Streets”
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
Section 1. Lynch Street, no parking on southerly side between Perkins Street and Pingree Street. “Parking Prohibited on Certain Streets”
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
#606 – ORDINANCE, TRAFFIC HANDICAP PARKING LINCOLN ROAD
Councillor O’Keefe introduced the following Ordinance, which was adopted for first passage.
In the year two thousand and twelve
An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Traffic, Chapter 42, Section 50B “Handicap Zones, Limited Time”
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
Section 1. Lincoln Road, in front of #9, for a distance of twenty (20) feet. “Handicap Parking, Tow Zone”.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
#607 – ELECTION ORDER
Councillor O’Keefe introduced the following Order, which was adopted.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
ELECTION ORDER
ORDERED: That the meeting of the qualified voters of the City of Salem be held in the several voting precincts in the city at the polling places designated hereinafter on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 for the purpose of casting their votes in the State Election for the candidates for the following offices and questions:
ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. . . . . .FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
SENATOR IN CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____Sixth_________DISTRICT
COUNCILLOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .______Fifth________ DISTRICT
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___Second Essex_ DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT . . . . . . . . . .___Seventh Essex ___ DISTRICT
CLERK OF COURTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .___Essex County____ DISTRICT
REGISTER OF DEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .___Essex Southern__ DISTRICT
POLLING LOCATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PRECINCT ONE Bentley School, Memorial Drive
PRECINCT TWO Bentley School, Memorial Dirve
WARD TWO
PRECINCT ONE St. John’s Parish Hall, St. Peter Street
PRECINCT TWO St. John’s Parish Hall, St. Peter Street
WARD THREE
PRECINCT ONE Salem High School Auditorium, 77 Willson Street
PRECINCT TWO Salem High School Auditorium, 77 Willson Street
WARD FOUR
PRECINCT ONE Witchcraft Heights School Gymnasium, 1 Frederick Street
PRECINCT TWO Witchcraft Heights School Gymnasium, 1 Frederick Street
WARD FIVE
PRECINCT ONE Temple Shalom, Lafayette Street
PRECINCT TWO Community Room, Pioneer Terrace
WARD SIX
PRECINCT ONE Bates School, Liberty Hill Avenue
PRECINCT TWO Park and Recreation Dept., Mack Park
WARD SEVEN
PRECINT ONE Salem State Enterprise Center, 121 Loring Avenue
PRECINT TWO Salem State Enterprise Center, 121 Loring Avenue
AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED: That the polls at said meetings be opened on TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012, from 7:00 A.M. and closed at 8:00 P.M. and that the City Clerk be instructed to post this notice as required by law.
QUESTION 1: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, starting with model year 2015, from selling or leasing, either directly or through a dealer, a new motor vehicle without allowing the owner to have access to the same diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturer’s dealers and in-state authorized repair facilities.
The manufacturer would have to allow the owner, or the owner’s designated in-state independent repair facility (one not affiliated with a manufacturer or its authorized dealers), to obtain diagnostic and repair information electronically, on an hourly, daily, monthly, or yearly subscription basis, for no more than fair market value and on terms that do not unfairly favor dealers and authorized repair facilities.
The manufacturer would have to provide access to the information through a non-proprietary vehicle interface, using a standard applied in federal emissions-control regulations. Such information would have to include the same content, and be in the same form and accessible in the same manner, as is provided to the manufacturer’s dealers and authorized repair facilities.
For vehicles manufactured from 2002 through model year 2014, the proposed law would require a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in Massachusetts to make available for purchase, by vehicle owners and in-state independent repair facilities, the same diagnostic and repair information that the manufacturer makes available through an electronic system to its dealers and in-state authorized repair facilities. Manufacturers would have to make such information available in the same form and manner, and to the same extent, as they do for dealers and authorized repair facilities. The information would be available for purchase on an hourly, daily, monthly, or yearly subscription basis, for no more than fair market value and on terms that do not unfairly favor dealers and authorized repair facilities.
For vehicles manufactured from 2002 through model year 2014, the proposed law would also require manufacturers to make available for purchase, by vehicle owners and in-state independent repair facilities, all diagnostic repair tools, incorporating the same diagnostic, repair and wireless capabilities as those available to dealers and authorized repair facilities. Such tools would have to be made available for no more than fair market value and on terms that do not unfairly favor dealers and authorized repair facilities.
For all years covered by the proposed law, the required diagnostic and repair information would not include the information necessary to reset a vehicle immobilizer, an anti-theft device that prevents a vehicle from being started unless the correct key code is present. Such information would have to be made available to dealers, repair facilities, and owners through a separate, secure data release system.
The proposed law would not require a manufacturer to reveal a trade secret and would not interfere with any agreement made by a manufacturer, dealer, or authorized repair facility that is in force on the effective date of the proposed law. Starting January 1, 2013, the proposed law would prohibit any agreement that waives or limits a manufacturer’s compliance with the proposed law.
Any violation of the proposed law would be treated as a violation of existing state consumer protection and unfair trade-practices laws.
A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to allow vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers’ Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities.
A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.
QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would allow a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a terminally ill patient’s request, to end that patient’s life. To qualify, a patient would have to be an adult resident who (1) is medically determined to be mentally capable of making and communicating health care decisions; (2) has been diagnosed by attending and consulting physicians as having an incurable, irreversible disease that will, within reasonable medical judgment, cause death within six months; and (3) voluntarily expresses a wish to die and has made an informed decision. The proposed law states that the patient would ingest the medicine in order to cause death in a humane and dignified manner.
The proposed law would require the patient, directly or through a person familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating, to orally communicate to a physician on two occasions, 15 days apart, the patient’s request for the medication. At the time of the second request, the physician would have to offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request. The patient would also have to sign a standard form, in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom is not a relative, a beneficiary of the patient’s estate, or an owner, operator, or employee of a health care facility where the patient receives treatment or lives.
The proposed law would require the attending physician to: (1) determine if the patient is qualified; (2) inform the patient of his or her medical diagnosis and prognosis, the potential risks and probable result of ingesting the medication, and the feasible alternatives, including comfort care, hospice care and pain control; (3) refer the patient to a consulting physician for a diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient’s disease, and confirmation in writing that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and making an informed decision; (4) refer the patient for psychiatric or psychological consultation if the physician believes the patient may have a disorder causing impaired judgment; (5) recommend that the patient notify next of kin of the patient’s intention; (6) recommend that the patient have
another person present when the patient ingests the medicine and to not take it in a public place; (7) inform the patient that he or she may rescind the request at any time; (8) write the prescription when the requirements of the law are met, including verifying that the patient is making an informed decision; and (9) arrange for the medicine to be dispensed directly to the patient, or the patient’s agent, but not by mail or courier.
The proposed law would make it punishable by imprisonment and/or fines, for anyone to (1) coerce a patient to request medication, (2) forge a request, or (3) conceal a rescission of a request. The proposed law would not authorize ending a patient’s life by lethal injection, active euthanasia, or mercy killing. The death certificate would list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death.
Participation under the proposed law would be voluntary. An unwilling health care provider could prohibit or sanction another health care provider for participating while on the premises of, or while acting as an employee of or contractor for, the unwilling provider.
The proposed law states that no person would be civilly or criminally liable or subject to professional discipline for actions that comply with the law, including actions taken in good faith that substantially comply. It also states that it should not be interpreted to lower the applicable standard of care for any health care provider.
A person’s decision to make or rescind a request could not be restricted by will or contract made on or after January 1, 2013, and could not be considered in issuing, or setting the rates for, insurance policies or annuities. Also, the proposed law would require the attending physician to report each case in which life-ending medication is dispensed to the state Department of Public Health. The Department would provide public access to statistical data compiled from the reports.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts was held invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally-ill patient meeting certain conditions, to end that person’s life.
A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.
QUESTION 3: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients. To qualify, a patient must have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV-positive status or AIDS, hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, or multiple sclerosis. The patient would also have to obtain a written certification, from a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient has a specific debilitating medical condition and would likely obtain a net benefit from medical use of marijuana.
The proposed law would allow patients to possess up to a 60-day supply of marijuana for their personal medical use. The state Department of Public Health (DPH) would decide what amount would be a 60-day supply. A patient could designate a personal caregiver, at least 21 years old, who could assist with the patient’s medical use of marijuana but would be prohibited from consuming that marijuana. Patients and caregivers would have to register with DPH by submitting the physician’s certification.
The proposed law would allow for non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers. A treatment center would have to apply for a DPH registration by (1) paying a fee to offset DPH’s administrative costs; (2) identifying its location and one additional location, if any, where marijuana would be grown; and (3) submitting operating procedures, consistent with rules to be issued by DPH, including cultivation and storage of marijuana only in enclosed, locked facilities.
A treatment center’s personnel would have to register with DPH before working or volunteering at the center, be at least 21 years old, and have no felony drug convictions. In 2013, there could be no more than 35 treatment centers, with at least one but not more than five centers in each county. In later years, DPH could modify the number of centers.
The proposed law would require DPH to issue a cultivation registration to a qualifying patient whose access to a treatment center is limited by financial hardship, physical inability to access reasonable transportation, or distance. This would allow the patient or caregiver to grow only enough plants, in a closed, locked facility, for a 60-day supply of marijuana for the patient’s own use.
DPH could revoke any registration for a willful violation of the proposed law. Fraudulent use of a DPH registration could be punished by up to six months in a house of correction or a fine of up to $500, and fraudulent use of a registration for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of marijuana for non-medical use for profit could be punished by up to five years in state prison or by two and one-half years in a house of correction.
The proposed law would (1) not give immunity under federal law or obstruct federal enforcement of federal law; (2) not supersede Massachusetts laws prohibiting possession, cultivation, or sale of marijuana for nonmedical purposes; (3) not allow the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while under the influence of marijuana; (4) not require any health insurer or government entity to reimburse for the costs of the medical use of marijuana; (5) not require any health care professional to authorize the medical use of marijuana; (6) not require any accommodation of the medical use of marijuana in any workplace, school bus or grounds, youth center, or correctional facility; and (7) not require any accommodation of smoking marijuana in any public place.
The proposed law would take effect January 1, 2013, and states that if any of its part were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.
A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.
QUESTION #4: Community Preservation Act
This is a binding question.
“Shall Salem accept sections 3 to 7 inclusive, of Chapter 44B of the General Laws, a summary of which appears below?
SUMMARY
Sections 3 to 7 of Chapter 44B of the General Laws of Massachusetts, also known as the Community Preservation Act (Act), establish a dedicated funding source to enable cities and towns to (1) acquire, create or preserve open space, which includes land for parks, recreational uses and conservation areas, (2) rehabilitate local parks, playgrounds and athletic fields, (3) acquire, preserve or restore historic buildings and artifacts, and (4) help meet local families’ housing needs.
In Salem, the funding source for these community preservation purposes will be a surcharge of 1% on the annual property tax assessed on real property, additional municipal funds that may be committed by the city council as provided in Section 3 (b ½ ) of Chapter 44B, and annual distributions made by the State from a trust fund created by the Act. If approved, the following will be exempt from the surcharge: (1) property owned and occupied as a domicile by any person who qualifies for low income housing or low or moderate income senior housing in Salem as defined in Section 2 of the Act; and (2) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of residential real property; and (3) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of class three, commercial property and class four, industrial property as defined in Section 2A of
Chapter 59. A taxpayer receiving a regular property tax abatement or exemption will also receive a full or partial reduction in the surcharge.
By way of example, a single family home with an assessed value of $293,900 without any exemption or abatement would be surcharged approximately $30.31 per year if accepted by the City of Salem (Source: City Assessor based on average single family home value and FY12 tax rate of $15.63 per $1000).
Upon acceptance of the Act by the voters, a Community Preservation Committee will be established by ordinance to study community preservation needs, possibilities and resources, and to make annual recommendations to the City Council for approval on spending the funds”
QUESTION #5: THIS IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?
#608 – ORDINANCE TRAFFIC, HANDICAP PARKING, SHORE AVENUE
Councillor Turiel introduced the following Ordinance, which was adopted for first passage.
In the year two thousand and twelve
An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Traffic, Chapter 42, Section 50B “Handicap Zones, Limited Time”
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
Section 1. Shore Avenue, in front of #22, for a distance of twenty (20) feet. “Handicap Parking, Tow Zone”.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
#609 – (#548, #589, #590) GRANTING LICENSE
Councillor Sosnowski offered the following report for the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs. It was voted to accept the report and adopt the recommendation.
The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs to whom was referred the matter of the granting certain licenses, has considered said matter and would recommend that the following license be granted.
PUBLIC GUIDES Brian Keady, 655 Western Ave., Lynn
SECOND HAND CLOTHING Tiffenwicket, 100 Wharf St., Salem
SECOND HAND VALUABLE Tiffenwicket, 100 Wharf St., Salem
#610 – (#535) ABANDONED SHOPPING CARTS
Councillor Sosnowski offered the following report for the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs. It was voted to accept the report and adopt the recommendation.
The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs to whom was referred the matter of creating an ordinance relative to abandoned shopping carts has considered said matter and would recommend that the City Solicitor draft an Ordinance and submit back to the Committee for review.
#611 – (#201) BIKE PATH COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Councillor Sosnowski offered the following report for the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs. It was voted to accept the report and adopt the recommendation.
The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs to whom was referred the matter of an appointment to the Bike Path Committee, has considered said matter and would recommend that the confirmation process go forward and that the appointment be put on the October 25, 2012 agenda.
#612 – REPEAL TOUR BUS PARKING ON DERBY STREET
Councillor Sosnowski offered the following report for the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole. It was voted to accept the report and adopt the recommendation.
The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee to whom was referred the matter of an ordinance amending a traffic ordinance relative to repealing tour bus parking on Derby Street, has considered said matter and would recommend that the matter remain in Committee.
#613 – (#576) TRIAL PERIOD – NO PARKING DERBY STREET & LIBERTY STREET
Councillor Sosnowski offered the following report for the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole. It was voted to accept the report and adopt the recommendation.
The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the matter of No Parking Trial Period at Derby Street & Liberty Street, has considered said matter and would recommend that the sixty (60) day trial period be adopted.
#614 - #615 LICENSE APPLICATIONS
The following license applications be granted.
PUBLIC GUIDE Joseph Amato, 21 Parich Rd., Georgetown
Chris Dowgin, 79 Bridge St., Salem
Allison Emery, 24 Stillman St., Boston
Jasmin Saba-Farmer, 84 Vernon St., Lowell
LICENSES CONTINUED
TAXI OPERATORS Kevin Munoz, 46 Peabody St., Salem
Ezequiel Castro, 17 Leavitt St. #3, Salem
Daniel Collado, 2 Smidt Ave. #3, Peabody
Lounceny Kaba, 5 Holten St., Peabody
Daniel Walsh, 10 Calumet St., Haverhill
Paul Brault, 3 Warren Ave., Salisbury
#616 – CLAIMS
The following Claim was referred to the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs.
Stephen Flynn, 4 Union St. Salem
(#573) – SECOND PASSAGE ORDINANCE TRAFFIC STOP SIGN MONROE ROAD
The matter of second and final passage of an Ordinance amending Section 49, Obedience to Isolated Stop Signs Monroe Road, was then taken up. The Ordinance was adopted for second and final passage.
(#574) – SECOND PASSAGE ORDINANCE TRAFFIC RESIDENT STICKER PARKING MONROE ROAD
The matter of second and final passage of an Ordinance amending Section 75, Resident Sticker Parking, Monroe Road, was then taken up. The Ordinance was adopted for second and final passage.
(#582A) – SECOND PASSAGE ORDINANCE TRAFFIC PARKING METER ZONES ESTABLISHED LAFAYETTE STREET
The matter of second and final passage of an Ordinance amending Section 56, Parking Meter Zones Established, Lafayette Street, was then taken up. The Ordinance was adopted for second and final passage. Councillor Furey recorded as opposed.
Councillor Sosnowski requested a moment of silence for the passing of Councillor William Burns.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe the meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
