patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Town Meeting Voters Approve Mandatory Fingerprinting Bylaw

Tewksbury residents conclude their business after three days of Annual Town Meeting.

 

Public safety was the big winner Wednesday night, as voters plowed through dozens of remaining article to close the books on the 2012 Annual Town Meeting _at Tewksbury High School._

After a spirited debate, voters approved a Special Town Meeting article which will allow town officials to require people applying for certain town business licenses to submit to complete fingerprinting for the purposes of conducting criminal background checks.

"We want to make sure we don’t have sex offenders selling ice cream off of trucks," said Police Chief Timothy Sheehan. "To make sure we don’t have people with criminal records selling door to door."

Tewksbury is one of several towns to adopt similar bylaws, thanks to state legislation that allows towns to require the criminal background checks for people seeking licenses for:

  • Hawking or peddling or other door-to-door sales
  • Manager of alcoholic beverage licenses
  • Owner or operator of public conveyance
  • Pawn Dealers
  • Hackney drivers
  • Dealers of second hand articles
  • Ice Cream truck vendors

While the article passed easily, support was not unanimous. Residents, including Matthew Koulis and Melissa Gleaton, spoke out against the article, saying it was over-reaching and gave local government too much power.

"I feel its an encroachment on out civil liberties and an increase in the big brother nature," said Koulis. "There’s nothing in this law would prevent these fingerprints from being kept by the FBI."

Later, during the Annual Town Meeting session, Finance Committee Chairman Tom Cooke attempted to have the meeting reconsider its vote Monday to amend the FY 13 Budget and transfer $302,000 from free cash to the Fire Department's overtime account. Supporters of the amendment hope the additional money will allow the South Fire Station to be open year-round.

Cooke had opposed that amendment, saying the town manager had put together a budget that had the town on track toward fiscal health and that the amendment set that effort back.

On Wednesday, Cooke asked Town Moderator Keith Rauseo to allow the meeting to reconsider that vote, citing what he said was a procedural error. Cook argued that Sec. 2.04.150 of town meeting procedures prohibited transfers of greater than $100,000 if that transfer increased a department's budget to a level that had not been recommended/approved by the Finance Committee.

Rauseo, however, refused the request.

"I made one procedural error (Monday), I'm not going to make another one now," said Rauseo. "Mr. Cooke's motion is not in order."

Later Rauseo explained his decision by saying that the town bylaw referenced by Cooke only called for a secret ballot in the case of those transfers. It did not prohibit them entirely and therefore the Monday vote did not need to be reconsidered.

Other highlights from the Monday and Wednesday sessions of the Annual Town Meeting:

  • Voters approved Article 17, which allows for the appropriation of $1 million through borrowing, to be used for the repair and replacement of large sections of waterline throughout the town.
  • Voters approved article 19, which allows for the transfer of $25,000 to establish a Senior Tax Relief Work Program. Under the terms of the program, which Town Manager Richard Montuori said had been requested by residents for some time, senior citizens would be eligible to work a certain number of hours each year for the town (for one of several departments) and have a certain amount of money deducted from their property tax bills.
  • Voters approved Article 38, which reduced the Finance Committee from nine to seven members.
  • Voters approved Article 37, which established the town's first electronic sign bylaw.
  • Voters approved Special Town Meeting Article 5, which allows the Community Preservation Committee to spend $275,000 for the rehabilitation of the historic Ella Flemings School building on Andover Street.
  • Voters approved Special Town Meeting articles 8, 9 and 10, which add three sections of town to the Community Village Overlay District. Planning Board Chairman Robert Fowler said he believes the re-zoning will help the town in its economic development efforts, while still retaining the flavor of the community.
  •  However, voters indefinitely postponed Special Town Meeting Article 11, which would have a triangular parcel of land just off East Street to that same Community Village Overlay District. Several abutters and East Street residents spoke against the article and said the re-zoning would have an adverse impact on their residential neighborhood.
  • Articles 7 and 8, dealing with the approval of collecting bargaining agreements with the Firefighters Union and the AFSCME workers were both withdrawn by Town Manager Richard Montuori.
  • Special Town Meeting Article 7, which would have established the town's first "vicious animal" bylaw, was withdrawn so that the language of the document could be gone over more closely.

 

Related Topics: Annual Town Meeting, Police Department, Tim Sheehan, keith rauseo, and special town meeting

denise

8:36 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

I am kinda surprised that there is currently no check on Ice Cream Truck drivers...I dont think it is 'the big brother mentality" it is the "keep the kids safer from the weirdos of the world mentality"...

Reply

Jon Pratt

9:20 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

2.04.150 Procedure for voting on appropriations.
No appropriations or transfers of money in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) by the Town at an Annual or Special Town Meeting shall be valid, when the Finance Committee has recommended a lesser amount than the Department Head has submitted to said Committee, unless the vote for said appropriation or transfer be taken by secret ballot. “In no event shall a secret ballot be required for items under the budget article for a vote on the items.” (Art. 21, STM 2001)

Its not clear if Mr Cook's appeal had merit but when you read this and apply it to Mr Carey's motion to amend article 4 by transfering $302,000 from article 11 to article 4 to fund the firemans overtime to keep south station open it seems it should have been a secret ballot.

The good news I got to finally see something "reconsidered". I was told that would never happen.

Reply

Bee Free

10:04 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

Is this meant as a deterrent? Will the fingerprints be run BEFORE granting the license? Or is this only to have in case a crime is committed ? for which how does this help stop crime? not convinced here.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Bill Gilman

11:06 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

As it was explained, the fingerprints will be taken and the criminal background check will be done before the license is issued.

Bob Rauseo

10:17 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

I'm no lawyer, but the key phrase seems to be:

"...when the Finance Committee has recommended a lesser amount than the Department Head has submitted to said Committee..."

Does anyone know what amount the department head submitted to the FinComm?
If the FinComm recommended a lesser amount, then a secret ballot may have been required. That's my take, anyway.

Reply

Melissa Gleaton

10:48 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012

Let's not forget the fact that when asked, do any of these people have ANY background check at all right now, no one knew the answer to that question. The answer was, "some of them". I guess all these years we didn't care about the safety of the people, but now it's SO important that we have to give up our fingerprints for it.

IMO, This is just another way for the town and state to generate revenue. There are other ways to ensure that people going door to door or selling ice cream are not criminals. I do not trust our government to keep that information for the manner which it is intended.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steevo

12:10 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

Good for you, it's a healthy concern and those who would ridicule even in the name of safety don't understand human nature, authority and the never-ending propensity to control. It's a subject and reality I believe akin to the frog in slowly boiling water, especially with our current generation. The idea that we would stand by in airports and allow us all to be regarded as a possible terrorist would have been repulsive not long ago, but now little kids to seniors can be felt up while we all are suspect by the authorities. (Don't you dare speak out in disapproval!)

Comment_arrow

Shaun

9:07 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

What are the other ways to ensure they are not criminals?

Melissa Gleaton

8:13 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

Gotta admit, going up against the chief of police was scary!

Reply

Melissa Gleaton

9:34 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

Cori checks for one. It's not as if there has been no way to background check people all this time. It is preposterous to me that someone who wants to open a consignment shop has to be TREATED like a criminal and have their finger prints entered into a database. This is too far reaching for my liking.

Reply

Melissa Gleaton

9:36 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

We don't finger print teachers or youth workers but we do background checks. Why are business owners subject to harsher scrutiny?

Reply

Douglas Sears

9:49 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

So if someone who, say, wants to open a plumbing business, is fingerprinted, and a CORI shows an OUI conviction, does the state licensed plumber not get a license to operate a business in Tewksbury because of this criminal conviction, or is it discretionary with town officials? Can a "clean" straw apply for a license to, say, operate a bar, and hire bartenders who have drug convictions for selling illegal substances to customers at other bars? ETC.

I didn't have enough information on this to vote in favor of it,

Reply

malcolm nichols

10:21 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

Hmmm, we don't require all Public Employees to be fingerprinted? Teachers, DPW workers, Police, Fire, etc...?
We will need to get them next year, then everyone else the year after. Within only a few years we would be soooo much safer.

Reply

Melissa Gleaton

12:19 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012

That's what I wonder about the Comcast or Verizon sales people. A whole fleet of people have to be printed BUT the actual workers who come INSIDE your home don't. Not that I think they SHOULD. But it just proves to me that this has NOTHING to do with safety and if it does, it (the tupes of people who would be a threat) was very poorly thought out. Watch out for those restaurant owners and consignment shop owners!!

Reply

Leave a comment