GREENFIELD — The first safe city petition, as it was written, is dead. But a second petition was submitted Monday.
The first citizen’s petition filed by Douglas Cloutier sought to rescind the safe city ordinance that City Council passed in a 10 to 3 vote on July 17. It was submitted five days later to the city clerk, but it failed to meet the requirements of the city charter.
So, Cloutier submitted a second petition Monday, Aug. 5. According to City Clerk Kathy Scott, the second petition is in the process of being reviewed by the city’s attorney, Gordon Quinn.
Quinn must determine if “the measure as proposed may lawfully be proposed by the initiative process; whether, in its present form it may be lawfully adopted by the Town Council … and whether the town clerk may issue blank forms,” according to the city charter.
While the citizen’s petition process could be used, Quinn said there was not enough certified signatures in the first petition to proceed.
Quinn determined, “Section 7-8(a) of the charter requires that it must be supported with a number of signatures equal to ‘10 percent of the total number of voters voting in the most recent regular biennial city election, but not less than 2 and one half percent of all registered voters as of the same date.’ The petition reviewed does not meet this requirement. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the current petition at the present time may not be adopted by the City Council consistent with Section 7-8(a) of the charter.”
The second petition includes additional language for a potential ballot question.
“We understand that if the measure as listed herein is not rescinded, that the City Council shall provide for the submission of the question for a determination by the voters either at a special election, which it may call at its convenience, or at the next regular city election,” the petition states. “In that event, we request the following referendum question be submitted to the voters for a determination: Shall the following measure protested against, which was proposed by voters in a referendum petition, take effect?
“Shall the following vote of the Greenfield City Council on July 17, 2019 be rescinded: Order No. FY 20-016 which passed an ordinance establishing the City of Greenfield as a Safe City. A ‘yes’ vote rescinds the City Council adoption of the ordinance as voted on July 17, 2019. A ‘no’ vote leaves the City Council adoption of the ordinance in effect as voted on July 17, 2019.”
But petitioners didn’t wait for approval by the city attorney and began gathering signatures for the next phase of the process. Thus far, the city clerk has received over 13 pages of signatures, which are currently being certified by the clerk.
“Both processes outlined in the city charter, 7-7 and 7-8, are going on concurrently,” Scott said. “We’ve received signatures and we will continue to certify signatures as they are brought in and we’re waiting to hear back from the attorney.”
Meanwhile, Precinct 1 City Councilor Verne Sund, who voted in favor of the safe city ordinance during the July 17 meeting, submitted a motion for reconsideration two days later, stating, “Even though I care for everyone, there will be a possible loss of federal funds for veterans.”
Sund said he isn’t against the safe city ordinance and plans on presenting an amendment when it comes before the council next month.
“I found out there was a federal law approved on July 12 and there’s a possibility of some things in the safe city ordinance, if they aren’t redone, could cause vets to lose funding,” Sund explained. “There are a lot of veterans in Greenfield. I want everyone to have rights. As much as I want undocumented immigrants to be protected, I want veterans to be protected.”
The case that Sund learned about, City of Los Angeles v. William Barr in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the Department of Justice as within its right to withhold grant funding to sanctuary cities and states.
He said he learned about the case from a friend, though he “couldn’t say” if the friend was a city councilor or not.
Even if the City Council were to approve a motion to reconsider, no amendments could be made. The council would either approve or disapprove the ordinance, as it is proposed, according to Scott.
The ordinance affirms that “Greenfield is a welcoming city, which embraces everyone including but not limited to the immigrant, the refugee, the asylum seeker and anyone of good faith and good will who wishes to be a member of our community.”
While it is not the sanctuary city ordinance City Council President Karen “Rudy” Renaud proposed in 2017 — which was defeated in a City Council vote of four in favor and six opposed — the safe city ordinance is similar. The safe city ordinance prohibits city officials from asking about a person’s immigration status, targeting someone or discriminating against an institution providing refuge to immigrants and their families and taking law enforcement action against someone on the basis of perceived immigration status.
Reach Melina Bourdeau at mbourdeau@recorder.com or 413-772-0261, ext. 263.