As Greenfield determines how best to address incidents of intolerance and hate, thought and care should go into any such municipal ordinance.
Therefore, the community should be glad to see that Greenfield Town Councilor Karen “Rudy” Renaud and the rest of the council are trying to get a proposed hate crime ordinance right, even if it means taking time to do so. Better right than rushed.
In a recent Recorder story, Renaud discussed some of her thinking. For example, she has proposed designating a civil rights officer with some specified duties within the Greenfield Police Department. One of the propositions would have created a 48-hour window for the officer to get in touch with the Human Rights Commission after an alleged hate crime has occurred, leading to a meeting to update the public. That time frame has now been eliminated, Renaud said, because “the feedback we all received was that the timelines were too tight.”
Another portion of the ordinance, the restorative justice component, has been significantly altered in the latest draft. Originally, the idea was to tack on 100 hours of community service to anyone found guilty of a hate crime in the courts. While there are those in town who argue a mandatory restorative justice component should be part of the ordinance, the rewrite now allows someone found guilty of a hate crime to voluntarily meet with the Human Rights Commission and the victim to make amends in public.
Some people might see the change from mandatory to voluntary as softening the town’s attempt to introduce what Renaud has previously described as “community healing.” But additional requirements outside what the courts have prescribed seems to us to be a tricky proposition — one that needs coordination with the legal system.
Renaud is examining other ways to make the ordinance work. One of the ideas being considered is to bar those convicted of a hate crime from entering into any type of contractual relationship with the town for five years. This seems something that not only makes sense from the community’s standpoint but also is easier to enforce.
Greenfield’s ability to use and enforce a hate crime ordinance has to be a guide here. While making a statement by having an ordinance against hate crimes may in itself send a message, the community does not want it to be a hollow message that in the end means nothing. Such an ordinance should not be an overreach nor ineffectual.
This is why care has to be taken in the wording and why there should be no rush to get this ordinance on the books.