Legislative Matters Committee

September 8, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Meeting Minutes: Legislative Matters Committee of the Somerville City Council

Meeting Date: Monday, September 8th, 2025 Governing Body: Somerville City Council, Legislative Matters Committee Type of Meeting: Remote Participation

Attendees:

  • J.T. Scott, Chair
  • Lance Davis, Councilor
  • Ben Ewen-Campen, Councilor
  • Will Mbah, Councilor
  • Susan Fontano, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair (Guest)
  • Michael Capuano, Planning Board Chair (Guest)
  • Anne Brockelman, Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chair (Guest)
  • Zachary Zaremba, Zoning Board of Appeals Member (Guest)
  • Sisia Daglian, Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate (Guest)
  • Brian Cook, Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate (Guest)
  • Ann Fullerton, Zoning Board of Appeals Member (Guest)
  • Katherine Garavaglia, Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk (Guest)
  • Lynn Richards, Planning Board Member (Guest)
  • Amelia Aboff, Planning Board Vice-Chair (Guest)
  • Michael McNeley, Planning Board Member (Guest)
  • Luc Schuster, Planning Board Alternate (Guest)
  • Jahan Habib, Planning Board Clerk (Guest)
  • Jack Connolly, Former Alderman (Public Comment)
  • Director Singh, Mayor's Office
  • Commissioner Salerno, Election Commissioner
  • Megan Arruda, Elections Department
  • Solicitor Amara, City Solicitor
  • Assistant City Solicitor Shapiro
  • Kim Wells, City Clerk
  • Michael Poteer, Licensing Operations Manager

Absent:

  • Kristen Strezo, Councilor
  • Jake Wilson, Councilor

Executive Summary

The Legislative Matters Committee convened to discuss two primary items: the potential adoption of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 53, Section 18B, concerning pre-election notification for ballot questions, and the acceptance of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 12D, to allow wine and malt beverage license holders to convert to all-forms alcohol licenses. The committee voted to discharge the MGL Chapter 53, Section 18B item without recommendation, acknowledging the administration's concerns regarding the feasibility of implementation for the upcoming election cycle. The committee voted to recommend approval of the MGL Chapter 138, Section 12D item, recognizing its benefit to local businesses.

1. Approval of Minutes from July 1st Meeting

  • Discussion: No comments were raised regarding the minutes from the July 1st meeting.
  • Action: The minutes were laid on the table for approval at the end of the meeting.

2. Order from Councilor Mbah: Acceptance of MGL Chapter 53, Section 18B (25-1373)

  • Description: An order from Councilor Mbah for the City of Somerville to accept the provisions of Chapter 53, Section 18B of the Massachusetts General Laws. This section defines a process for pre-election notification of citizens regarding the content and arguments for and against ballot questions initiated by a government body.
  • Sponsor's Introduction (Councilor Will Mbah):
    • Councilor Mbah introduced the item, noting it was brought to him by a constituent, Harriet, from Davis Square.
    • He emphasized that the state law makes it optional for cities to implement this procedure, which the state itself must follow for its agencies' ballot questions.
    • Councilor Mbah sponsored former Alderman Jack Connolly to speak on the item.
  • Public Comment (Jack Connolly, Former Alderman):
    • Mr. Connolly, a former ward and at-large elected official for 33 years, expressed his pleasure that the Charter Review Commission reviewed the city charter.
    • He highlighted that the new revised charter does not include Chapter 53, Section 18B, which would require the city to send out a notice prior to an election on any ballot question.
    • He referenced the 2022 "millionaire's tax" and 2000 recreational marijuana ballot questions at the state level, where the Secretary of State sends out a summary of proponent and opposing viewpoints a week before the election.
    • Mr. Connolly urged the City Council to pass and accept Chapter 53, Section 18B to inform voters about the charter revision, which he described as a "major revision of the process and procedure of the city."
    • He stated that "49 out of 59 cities" in Massachusetts have adopted this process.
    • He concluded by stating that voters deserve to be informed about substantive changes and that adopting this section would allow the city to notify voters for the upcoming charter issue and any future initiatives.
  • Administration's Position (Director Singh, Mayor's Office):
    • Director Singh stated that the administration is open to continued discussions on adopting MGL Chapter 53, Section 18B.
    • However, based on internal conversations, the administration believes "adoption and implementation is not feasible for this year's election cycle" due to timelines and deadlines.
    • She noted that the Election Commissioner and Law Department would elaborate on logistical and budgetary impacts.
    • Director Singh clarified that the administration is aligned with the goal of informing voters about the charter ballot question and believes a voter information plan can be developed without opting into this general law.
    • She mentioned that any outreach would need to comply with OCPF guidelines regarding the use of public funds for ballot question information.
    • The administration cannot commit to mailing a guide to each voting household due to budgetary and logistical concerns.
  • Election Department's Concerns (Commissioner Salerno and Megan Arruda):
    • Commissioner Salerno reiterated that the department is not in a position, budget-wise, to send out a notice.
    • Megan Arruda, Elections Department, explained the timeline challenges:
      • Election laws have not fully caught up with mail-in voting, creating conflicts with existing timelines.
      • The deadline for the charter question to be approved by the State House is September 30th, which is also the due date for the final text of the question to the Elections Office.
      • Ballots are typically ordered after the recount timeline ends (September 22nd for this election), but the charter question's approval delay impacts this.
      • Another constituent-initiated question has a challenge period in early October, further delaying ballot ordering.
      • If MGL Chapter 53, Section 18B were passed, the Law Department would need to reach out to proponents and opponents of all three questions to develop summaries for a mailing.
      • An estimated 33,000 households in the city would require a mailing, leading to significant budget constraints.
      • Ms. Arruda noted that Framingham, which has a charter question on its ballot, began preparing its voter guide a year in advance and had it ready for mailing in early September.
      • She highlighted that with early voting, once a ballot is cast, it cannot be re-cast, which could lead to voters receiving information after they have already voted.
  • Law Department's Concerns (Assistant City Solicitor Shapiro and Solicitor Amara):
    • Assistant City Solicitor Shapiro clarified that if the distribution of information is not undertaken consistent with the statute, governmental resources cannot be used to distribute voter information commenting on the substance of a ballot question. A mass mailing requires acceptance of the statute.
    • He noted that only "about seven to eight communities" in Massachusetts have opted into this, citing Cambridge, Chelmsford, Groton, Nantucket, Shrewsbury, Sudbury, and Westwood from a 2023 document, and Newton, Cambridge, Sudbury, Burlington, Dedham, Lancaster, Yarmouth, Shrewsbury, Plymouth, and Hubbardston from a 2015 OCPF document.
    • He shared that Cambridge, a city that adopted the statute, also faces timeline issues with early voting, where voters might receive the guide after casting their ballot.
    • Solicitor Amara emphasized the lead time required to "get it right" and the difficulty of finding pros and cons for the charter question, which was a collaborative effort.
    • She stated that it is "unusual to put this adoption of the statute right on the heels of an election," especially since two of the three potential ballot questions are not yet finalized by the state.
    • She confirmed that the Palestine ballot voter petition has been certified to be on the ballot.
  • Councilor Discussion:
    • Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen: Expressed strong support for the goal of informing voters but was compelled by the administration's timeline arguments. He suggested adopting the statute for future elections but not for the current one to avoid a "mishap."
    • Councilor Will Mbah: Reiterated his support for the adoption, emphasizing the importance of informing voters and that cost should not be an issue. He questioned if the city council could order information to be sent out without adopting the statute, to which the Law Department clarified OCPF guidelines prohibit mass mailings without statute adoption.
    • Councilor Lance Davis: Questioned if the administration had previously considered adopting the statute and asked about the administration's plan for voter information if the statute is not adopted. Director Singh stated that the administration is working on a "one-pager" summary and will determine appropriate, legal ways to distribute information, such as on the city website or at meetings. He also inquired about the possibility of adopting the statute with a later effective date.
    • Chair J.T. Scott: Expressed frustration that the issue was not addressed sooner but acknowledged the tight timelines. He noted that the $40,000 cost for mailing is a small fraction of the city's budget and that the city has handled similar expenses through interdepartmental transfers. He was inclined to support the adoption of the statute but also recognized the need to avoid a "willy-nilly" implementation for the current election. He sought clarification on whether delaying the charter vote was possible if the statute was adopted. Solicitor Amara indicated that while the charter has language allowing for delay if state election requirements cannot be met, it's unclear if this would apply to a voluntary adoption of a new statute.
  • Motion: Councilor Davis moved to discharge the item without recommendation.
  • Vote on Motion to Discharge without Recommendation (25-1373):
    • Councilor Davis: Yes
    • Councilor Mbah: Yes
    • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
    • Councilor Scott: Yes
    • Outcome: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent. Motion Passed.

3. Public Communication from Former Mayors and Elected Officials (25-1335)

  • Description: A public communication from several former mayors and elected officials regarding the acceptance of MGL Chapter 53, Section 18B.
  • Action: Placed on file.

4. Licensing Commission Requesting Acceptance of MGL Chapter 138, Section 12D (25-1317)

  • Description: A request from the Licensing Commission to accept Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 138, Section 12D, to allow current wine and malt beverage license holders to apply to convert to a non-transferable all-forms alcohol license.
  • Introduction (City Clerk Kim Wells and Licensing Operations Manager Michael Poteer):
    • City Clerk Kim Wells introduced the item, noting it is a state legislative option for cities and towns to opt into.
    • The Licensing Commission unanimously supported making this opportunity available to licensees.
    • Michael Poteer, Licensing Operations Manager, explained that adopting this law would make it easier for existing wine and malt beverage license holders to convert to all-forms licenses.
    • He clarified that converting a wine and malt license to an all-forms license under this provision would not impact the number of available all-forms licenses, as the converted license would remain within the "wine and malt bucket" for state allocation purposes.
    • Mr. Poteer provided a brief overview of the city's alcohol license allocation system, which includes quota licenses based on population, and additional licenses for specific areas like Assembly Square, "enhancement" areas (existing restaurant/bar scenes), and "transformative" areas (to encourage development).
  • Councilor Discussion:
    • Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen: Expressed strong support, noting positive feedback from constituents.
    • Councilor Will Mbah: Supported the item and inquired about the number of existing wine and malt licenses and all-forms licenses in the city, as well as any state caps or historical issues with license withdrawals. Mr. Poteer offered to provide specific numbers later but reiterated the forward-looking nature of the measure.
  • Motion: Councilor Ewen-Campen moved to recommend approval.
  • Vote on Motion to Recommend Approval (25-1317):
    • Councilor Mbah: Yes
    • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
    • Councilor Scott: Yes
    • Outcome: 3 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent. Motion Passed.

5. Approval of Minutes from July 1st Meeting and Adjournment

  • Action: A single roll call vote was taken on the motion to adjourn and to approve the minutes from the July 1st meeting.
  • Vote:
    • Councilor Mbah: Yes
    • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
    • Councilor Scott: Yes
    • Outcome: 3 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent. Motion Passed.

Meeting Adjourned.

Last updated: Oct 6, 2025

Back to Meetings