Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Rights Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants more time for Human Rights Commission petition amid legal and funding questions
Summary
Councilors agreed to give petition 37-26, which would establish a Human Rights Commission in Leominster, further time after legal counsel and several councilors raised concerns about investigatory powers, insurance, and whether the mayor would fund a paid professional.
The Leominster City Council voted to give petition 37-26—an ordinance to create a city Human Rights Commission—further time to allow the administration and legal staff to provide additional information about the commission’s scope, potential liability and funding.
Counselor Carrie Noseworthy, the petition sponsor, and others urged that the commission could provide community programming, education and a mechanism to collect reports of alleged discrimination and direct them to appropriate agencies. Legal guidance shared with the council warned that towns’ bylaws that grant investigatory or adjudicatory powers can raise concerns with the state Municipal Law Unit; the memorandum cited a South Hadley decision noting that a bylaw that plainly authorized investigations or hearings could raise legal issues unless it limited the commission to referrals and education.
Councilors questioned whether the city would fund a paid professional to guide the commission. At least one councilor reported a conversation with the mayor indicating he would not allocate money for a paid professional. Councilors also flagged potential insurance and liability implications if volunteers or unpaid advisors begin to give legal or investigatory advice.
Councilors said they wanted broad public input before any ordinance is adopted. Several members described the petition as worthy of consideration but said the council needed time to solicit the mayor’s formal opinion, receive a written legal review and develop a public-engagement plan. The committees on Legal Affairs and Ways & Means recommended further time; the full council agreed and granted a continuance to allow those steps.
No ordinance language was adopted or enacted; the council’s action was procedural to permit additional review and public hearings. The petitioner was asked to coordinate with the clerk’s office to ensure any legal questions and the mayor’s response are routed through the official record.
