Committee Report - Leg Matters - 9-20-11 — File 191995

September 20, 2011 Legislative Matters Committee Page 1 of 2 Printed 9/21/2011 REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS COMMITTEE Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Thomas F. Taylor Chair Absent William A. White Jr. Vice Chair Present Bruce M. Desmond Alderman At Large Present John M Connolly Alderman At Large Present Rebekah Gewirtz Ward Six Alderman Present William M. Roche Ward One Alderman Present Maryann M. Heuston Ward Two Alderman Present Walter F. Pero Ward Four Alderman Absent Robert C. Trane Ward Seven Alderman Absent Dennis M. Sullivan Alderman At Large Present Sean T. O’Donovan Ward Five Alderman Absent Robert May OSPCD Present Jason Grossfield Law Department Present Corey Mashburn Teen Empowerment Present Stephen Mackey Chamber of Commerce Present Ton Bent Chamber of Commerce Present Dave Shapiro Law Department Present Mark Stern Director, Sugar Law Center Present 191563 - That the City adopt the attached Local Hiring Ordinance.: Mr. Shapiro discussed similar ordinances and the legal issues that may be associated with this proposal. The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution does not present a problem but the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution does. If an Ordinance can be read to impact workers from out of state, then court decisions place a heavy burden on a community to justify the ordinance. Vice Chairman White asked that Mr. Shapiro provide the members with a decision from the seventh circuit appeals court that provided an in depth analysis of the requirements that local communities must follow to meet the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. Mr. Stern spoke about the diversity of the community and expressed his opinion that fostering local hiring is fostering diversity. Members then raised the issue of whether the ordinance would not be subject to challenge if it didn’t apply to out of state workers and Mr. Shapiro opined it would. Vice Chairman White then said one decision the committee would be required to make would be whether the ordinance should exclude applicability to out of state workers. That issue would be debated at the next meeting. Vice Chairman White also stated that he would be prepared to go over the draft ordinance line by line at the next meeting. Questions

Committee of the Whole September 20, 2011 Legislative Matters Committee Page 2 of 2 Printed 9/21/2011 were raised about the proposal’s impact on the city’s Responsible Employer Ordinance and collective bargaining agreements that unions might have with contractors, which Attorney Shapiro will address at the next committee meeting. RESULT: KEPT IN COMMITTEE 191788 - Requesting approval of a Home Rule Petition authorizing the increase of the number of liquor licenses that the Licensing Commission may issue.: The committee discussed this matter and expressed concern over its impact on the value of current licenses in the city. Mr. May provided his opinion that the privately owned licenses would increase in value as a result of this proposal. Alderman Connolly requested that the Chairman of the Licensing Commission weigh in on the proposal and that the committee be provided with a copy of the Commission’s rules and regulations. Vice Chairman White stated that he would contact Commission Chairman Upton to arrange for a convenient time for him to appear before the committee. RESULT: KEPT IN COMMITTEE 191924 - That this Board ordain the attached Nuisance Control Ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the city’s inhabitants.: Mr. Shapiro discussed the changes made to the proposed ordinance since the last meeting and reported that Somerville’s proposal is consistent with those from other communities. According to the ABCC, fraternity parties do not require a one day license. The committee discussed whether the ordinance could also apply to commercial businesses and was advised that it could. The Committee recommended changes to the ordinance so that it didn’t only apply to social gatherings and that the police department contact the landlord of property at which there is a noise disturbance at the time of the offense, if possible. RESULT: KEPT IN COMMITTEE