End of legislative session brings mixed bag of new laws

The end of the legislative session on Beacon Hill always results in a variety of new laws, and the just-completed 2011-2012 session is no exception.

In addition to bills signed earlier in the session, Governor Deval Patrick last week signed into law about three dozen bills the Legislature had passed, and they range from the seemingly simple to complex laws with far-reaching effects on the commonwealth and its citizens.

But it’s always a curious mix of legislation, and some of these laws show cities and towns must take extra steps in order to take care of what some might say should be purely local business.

Among the significant bills passed with statewide implications are a new program to help better protect public water supply lands, a law expanding background checks on all public and private school teachers and other school personnel, the establishment of a loan pool for the repair and removal of problem dams and measures relating to the licensure of behavioral analysts.

All are important laws that will affect every part of the commonwealth.

But how about the handful of laws passed last year allowing certain cities and towns to issue additional liquor licenses?  And what about special legislation regarding retirement benefits for a single member of the Franklin Regional Retirement System? 

And then there were the special laws affecting how Greenfield and several other communities organize their charters and other measures that will determine which elected officials can get health insurance in the West Barnstable and Cotuit fire districts.

Are these state laws needed, or should cities and towns have unilateral authority to make these kinds of local decisions themselves?

Cities and towns actually have a significant amount of authority to manage their own affairs.  They pass budgets, hire and fire employees and provide services ranging from education and health inspections to police and fire protection.

But all this is done under the framework established by the state Constitution and the general laws. Cities, towns, counties, councils of government and districts are all “political subdivisions of the commonwealth,” and the state sets the guidelines for what these political entities can do.

Some state laws allow specific activities by these entities, such as the services described above, while other laws establish an additional path that these governmental bodies must follow when they wish to do something that the state has not specifically allowed them to do.

Pittsfield charter review

The City of Pittsfield offers a good local example.

A study committee is now reviewing the city charter and if the committee recommends changes, such as making a four year term for the mayor or establishing a deputy mayor, these changes are not only subject to voter approval, but they must also get the blessings of the Legislature.

This is usually a formality, as in the case of the charter changes in Greenfield and the other communities approved by Gov. Patrick last week. But it is necessary. 

Cities and towns are usually treated equally under the law, but there are exceptions. For instance, if a city council approves changes in its zoning ordinance, that’s all that needs to happen. No state review is required.

But all zoning bylaw amendments approved by towns at town meetings must also get the approval of the state attorney general. 

The state’s thinking is that most cities have full-time city solicitors who know municipal law and can ensure that the zoning amendment process was done properly.

Most towns, however, usually have only part-time town counsels who the state believes may not always have the same level of municipal legal expertise as city solicitors. Some town officials object to this disparate treatment between cities and towns.

And other local officials don’t like the fact the state has control over a range of local political initiatives by requiring legislative approval for such things as additional liquor licenses or providing individual retirement benefits.

But, considering such approvals are rarely withheld for lawful local initiatives and the fact that, in almost all cases, political subdivisions are treated equally, these additional approvals may be inconvenient, but are actually a good thing.

They allow the state to ensure all local governments operate uniformly within the limits imposed by the Massachusetts Constitution and general laws and is a reminder the state is sovereign, not its political subdivisions.

Interesting fact

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia are all known as commonwealths, but there is no difference between the organization of these and the other 46 states. It’s just they chose to call themselves that when they were established.

Posted by Bruce Garlow on January 17, 2013. Filed under Berkshire Beacon Hill Spotlight,Columns,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry