MA: Westfield moves to repeal unconstitutional sex offender ordinance


By Hope E. Tremblay

Special to The Republican

WESTFIELD – The City Council’s legislative and ordinance subcommittee Thursday took the first step toward repealing a local ordinance that unconstitutionally restricts where registered sex offenders may live or visit.

The motion to repeal the ordinance was made by Chairman Ralph J. Figy, who said a decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court indicates the ordinance goes against the state constitution.

First Assistant City Solicitor Shanna R. Reed said Westfield has not received any notification from the state regarding the ordinance, but other cities have.

“There was a case against the city of Lynn that had a similar ordinance,” Reed said. “A lot of communities have them.”

Reed wrote Westfield’s ordinance in 2011. Forty other communities in the state had similar ordinances at the time, she said. She said town bylaws must be reviewed by the state attorney general. “So even the attorney general thought it was OK,” she said.

The state’s Sex Offender Registry, created in 1999, requires comprehensive data about registered sex offenders. The SJC ruled that was all any community needed, Reed said.

“They said it’s enough and we can’t go beyond that,” she said.

Westfield’s sex offender ordinance exceeded the state laws simply by existing, said Reed.

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

From the article:
“It’s not a good choice, but it’s the only choice,” Onyski said.

I really don’t like this line of thought. They’re saying that following the Constitution is the only choice, but they don’t like it. Isn’t that like getting rid of Jim Crow Laws, but they don’t like it?