When the council last considered at-large city councilor Karen Kalinowsky’s legislation on February 14th, confusion reigned over whether or not the body had given final approval to the petition that would allow voters to decide on returning North Street to four lanes of traffic. Citing the chaos surrounding the issue, at-large city councilor Earl Persip used a charter objection to boot the petition to February 28th. As with the meeting prior, Pittsfielders opposed to the move showed up in force to voice their concerns Tuesday night.
“My issue is seeing that people want to put a safety issue up for a vote," said Pat Sheely of Pittsfield’s commission on disability, who uses a motorized wheelchair.
She urged the council to stand up for residents with mobility issues.
“When there were four lanes of traffic, two lanes going each way on North Street, it was a challenge, even in a crosswalk," Sheely continued. "And now that with the bike lanes, it is safer to cross, the traffic is slowed down, and I don't feel like I'm taking my life in my hands every time I want to cross the street. So, this is not a topic that should be decided by a vote. Safety is for everybody, not an inconvenience.”
When the question again came up before the council, it concerned approving a new version of the original ballot question proposal from Kalinowsky after a revision by city solicitor Stephen Pagnotta.
President Peter Marchetti attempted to navigate the uncharted waters after a process beset by vagaries, miscommunication, and legal minutia.
“The solicitor sent a revised ballot question with the yes or noes," he said. "I think there's a lot of confusion, and we can sit here and splice words. Clearly there was a vote to place the question on the ballot, but then there was a motion to refer to the solicitor for language. I think there are some members of the council that thought they got a second stab at the apple when they finally saw the whole language. The minutes kind of refer to that.”
After extensive debate around parliamentary procedure, it was decided that approval of the revised ballot question by the council would send it to the city clerk for inclusion on the ballot. If denied, it would enter a legal limbo to be resolved by a future vote to rescind the whole effort.
Kalinowksy attempted to paper over the obvious chaos in an effort to preserve her measure.
“I don't really understand why this is becoming such a big issue," she said. "I just believe that the voters should have the right to vote on this. A lot of people have passion on what's going on, and I get it, and how else to allow people to have a voice than to allow them to vote? As the council, we voted yes to put the question on the ballot. The next step, and I know our city solicitor is giving us a gray area here, but basically says we don't have to vote on the yes and no part. We just submit it to the city clerk and it gets put on the ballot because we already voted to put the question on the ballot.”
Persip, who missed the original January 24th vote on the issue but voiced his opposition to it at the last meeting, noted the historic level of dysfunction the process had attained.
“I guess there's a confusion like no other I've seen," he said. "I don't know how we can say we voted for something that wasn't final. You voted for what? That's what I still don't understand. We voted for the question, so that's on the ballot. Something totally different is in front of us now for the summary.”
Underscoring the oddity of the moment, City Clerk Michele Benjamin took the rare step of criticizing both the proposed ballot question and the situation at large.
“The question doesn't match the yes and noes, and everyone still here is completely confused," she said. "The audience is confused. Every resident in the city is probably confused.”
Ward 6 City Councilor Dina Lampiasi didn’t mince words about her opposition to the proposed ballot question, citing the recent car collision death of a city resident and pedestrian who was walking with a toddler.
“We are setting our voters up for failure," she told her colleagues. "There's a possibility of returning to a situation of death for some people. Somebody just died on West Street, and we're actually debating whether or not to have more people die on North Street. This is ridiculous.”
At-large city councilor Pete White offered his own path forward out of the gridlock.
“To make this the cleanest process for the voters, I'm going to make a motion to table with the intent on making a motion to rescind when this is brought back up at our next meeting," he said. "If the motion to rescind passes, it can be done- There's nothing saying that this has prejudice. There is still time for Councilor Kalinowsky, if she so chooses, or any other councilor, to write a cleaner petition for us to vote on so we're not looking at the mess we have in front of us where we have a stark difference of opinion on where this is going.”
After yet another last-minute revision to the ballot question, a motion to move it to the city clerk failed on a 7-3 vote with only Kalinowsky, Ward 1 Councilor Kenny Warren, and Ward 2 Councilor Charles Kronick in support.
Ward 7’s Anthony Maffuccio, who has missed a number of recent meetings due to what Marchetti described as a health issue, was absent.
Finally, White followed through on his plan to table the question until the March 14th meeting to allow for a vote to rescind. The council approved the motion unanimously.
