By Adam Swift
The city council will hold a public hearing on a new ordinance for naming public municipal buildings at its meeting on Monday, July 27.
The ordinance was proposed to provide more concrete guidelines for the city, and closely mirrors the one recently enacted by the school committee, according to Rose Burns, aide to Mayor Patrick Keefe.
Burns presented the ordinance to the council at its regular meeting last week.
“It is some housekeeping that aims to establish a consistent, historically accurate, and meaningful process in naming and renaming city property,” said Burns. “This ordinance aims to mirror the school department’s pre-existing charter, with consistent and collaborative guidelines moving forward that maintain accordance (with state law).”
Several councilors stated that they would like to see the ordinance apply to school buildings as well as municipal buildings. However, Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliandro noted that the ordinance proposed by the city mirrors the ordinance that was already approved by the school committee, and that they are effectively similar.
Several councillors also said they would like to see the ordinance revised to allow buildings to be named for people who have been dead for a shorter time than proposed. The ordinance calls for a 10-year window after someone dies before naming a building or property after them.
“I was just curious how the mayor’s office came to the conclusion of 10 years and not an age,” said Councillor-at-Large Robert Haas, III.
Burns noted that it was only a suggestion for the language from the mayor’s office, and that it could be discussed further at the public hearing and by the council.
“We just want to make sure that any property … a significant building with someone’s name on it is named after someone who had a significant impact on the city and stood the test of time,” said Burns. “I think 10 years is a decent sense of time, but obviously, that is something that if we want to, we can have a further discussion about it.”
Cogliandro said he personally believed the 10-year mark was too long, but said he understood there would be further discussion on the issue. Ward 1 Councillor Jim Mercurio said he believed that five years would be a more appropriate marker.