Salem committee rescinds May ban, approves new rules allowing limited weddings in council chambers

Salem — The Salem City Council Committee on Government Services on Sept. 25, 2025 voted to recommend rescinding an earlier May order that halted weddings in the City Council Chambers and to adopt a detailed wedding policy that allows small ceremonies under specified conditions.

The committee voted to rescind Order 206 (May 2025) and to forward the new wedding policy to the full council; the motion carried with four members voting in favor and one opposed. Councilor Stott moved the recommendation to rescind and adopt and Councilor Marcello seconded the motion. “I would like to make a motion that the committee … rescind order number 206 and adopt the wedding policy as discussed,” Councilor Stott said when offering the motion.

The policy approved by the committee sets several constraints the committee said are intended to preserve public access and safety while allowing the city clerk’s office to continue performing marriages in chambers. Key provisions adopted or amended during committee debate include:

- Maximum in-room party size: wedding parties, including the couple, guests and photographers, shall not exceed eight people (the committee reduced an earlier ten-person allowance).

- Location and circulation: all ceremonies must take place on the south side of the council chambers, in an area to be delineated by stanchions. Doors on both sides of the chamber must remain open, and a clear ADA-accessible path from the mayor’s office to restrooms and the elevator must be preserved at all times.

- Conduct and decorations: no food, cake, champagne, confetti, rice or decorations that obstruct access; no animals except service animals; loud noise must be kept to a minimum during office hours (clapping at the end of a ceremony is permitted).

- Timing and scheduling: parties should arrive no more than 15 minutes before their scheduled ceremony and must check in in Room 3 to review the marriage license. The committee added a cap that ceremonies shall not exceed 30 minutes, with at least 15 minutes between scheduled ceremonies. Councilor Merkel, citing information from the city clerk’s office, said the clerk’s office typically sees an average ceremony time of about 15 minutes and that staff check the printed license at check-in.

- Access enforcement and responsibility: the committee added language making the city clerk or a designee responsible for ensuring compliance with the policy and authorized the council (by committee or full council process) to revoke chamber-use privileges for repeated noncompliance.

Committee members debated enforcement feasibility, staff workload and safety. Councilor Merkel and others recited prior problems during ceremonies — blocked doors, photographers in hallways and at least one disability-related complaint — and said those incidents motivated stricter controls and clearer responsibility. Councilor Chirslow asked whether the fire department had been consulted about blocking off the delineated area; the chair and other members said the stanchions are movable and would not, by themselves, constitute a permanent obstruction. Several members said Halloween is a known high-demand day for marriages and that scheduling language was intended to limit crowding on busy days.

The committee passed several edits to the proposed policy during the meeting. Motions recorded in the transcript include changes to the wording that no person or object may block doors (approved), a requirement that guests leave council chambers promptly after a ceremony (approved), and a directive that ceremonies occur only in the stanchioned south-side area of the chambers (approved). Votes on those committee motions were recorded as carried by voice/hand counts; where the chair read counts into the record the results were recorded as unanimous or as noted in the transcript.

The committee also moved to discharge an item referring to city-council delegation of authority to the city clerk for use of the council chamber and anteroom; Councilor Marcello moved to discharge that order and Councilor Stott seconded. The motion to discharge carried.

The committee’s action is a recommendation to the full City Council; the transcript records the committee votes and the new wedding policy language that the committee agreed to forward. No full-council action is recorded in this transcript.