Legal equity for domestic partners was a topic addressed at the latest meeting of the Somerville City Council’s Legislative Matters Committee.

By Joe Creason

Long standing debates around several proposed ordinances were revisited by the City Council during their Legislative Matters Committee meeting on May 6.

City Councilors submitted a proposal for the forward-thinking Domestic Partnership Ordinance, which redefines some legal definitions around spousal relationships in Somerville. Among other reasons, interest in the proposal was driven by people who experienced difficulty visiting those they considered family while at hospitals, amid the Covid pandemic.

“We have lots of people who live in the city and recognize their relationship as more than two adults,” said Ward 6 Councilor Lance Davis.

Both state and Federal laws provide many privileges to married couples with spousal status. According to Davis, the Domestic Partnership Ordinance adjusts the existing municipal code by amending the concept that a domestic partnership has to be just two people and by using the term spouse and domestic partner interchangeably.

The new ordinance is attempting to secure many of the privileges which have typically been granted to married couples with regards to dependency status, taxation, and healthcare coverage. However there have been some complications with regards to the General Insurance Commission (GIC).

“I think this is an excellent reason to reassess our commitment to the GIC as a whole,” Davis said.

The GIC is a state-run organization which provides health insurance to employees of the Commonwealth and participating municipalities within Massachusetts. When the City of Boston tried to pass a similar domestic partnership ordinance, they were blocked by state courts citing that the language around the GIC is clear and domestic partners do not count as spouses.

According to City Councilors, the GIC service is unpopular with many in Somerville.

“In terms of the GIC, a lot of unions might say that they were kind of coerced into agreeing to it, I don’t think they’re fans of GIC,” said Ward 1 Councilor Matthew McLaughlin, “We should include them in the conversation and they might be willing to consider this option because GIC compared with Cambridge Healthcare system, is not as good.”

While the Domestic Partnership Ordinance may not be able to affect the healthcare coverage status of Somerville employee dependents and partners, a home rule petition proposed by the city has the chance to carry more governing authority.

A home rule provides flexibility to local governments by petitioning the Massachusetts General Court under the Home Rule for special legislation affecting their community. According to the City Council, their petition is a two-part request to recognize any member of a domestic partnership as a dependent under GIC coverage and to treat domestic partners as spouses in other applied contexts

The City Council is continuing its debate around the decriminalization and deprioritizing of drug possession offenses by means of a city ordinance. New information has come to light since the issue was last brought up in committee.

“Could the city pass an ordinance decriminalizing drug possession? The answer is no. Somerville, as a body politic, lacks the authority to make an ordinance which conflicts with the enforcement of state law,” said Assistant City Solicitor Hannah Pappenheim.

Pappenheim would go on to explain that the ordinance has issues which include encroaching on the executive authority vested in the Somerville Police Department, as well as contradicting Massachusetts State drug laws.

In Pappenheim’s assessment, the best way to address the issue in an enforceable way moving forward would be to implement an official policing policy with regards to the deprioritizing of drug possession offenses.

“I want the world to know that we’re doing the right thing and that is the best way forward for the country, so I want the strongest possible policy in place,” Councilor McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin says he would like formal recognition of the policy and that SPD Officers know this as a priority.

Ward 4 Councilor Jesse Clingan posed a question as to why states were able to pass laws in violation of Federal statutes, using the legalization of cannabis as an example.

“The state is generally given police power, so most criminal statutes will be found under state law. There are some larger issues like inter-state commerce that have Federal criminal law effects which people are still at risk for,” Pappenheim said.

Some agenda items were kept in committee, though the Council moved to approve the long-debated Leaf Blower Ordinance.