North Adams Approves 'Safe & Inclusive' Resolution

The City Council approved the resolution unanimously after another modification.

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution declaring North Adams a safe and inclusive community.

The vote was greeted with applause by a crowded City Council chamber.

The resolution put forward by Councilors President Benjamin Lamb and Nancy Bullett in December went through a few modifications before Tuesday's final vote.

It generated a great deal of discussion at its first appearance at council, which found it referred to the Community Development Committee. The committee took no action on the resolution, instead of allowing the discussion to inform further amendments.

Lamb read the trimmed-down draft that has changed dramatically, he said, "to be more of a positive statement and less of a factual noting of the challenges that we're facing."

The resolution states the "city of North Adams does not and shall not tolerate hate crimes and expressions of hate" and "recognizes pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the United State Constitution, whereby Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, Article 3, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person, and Article 5, no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment."

The only objection came from Councilor Robert M. Moulton Jr., who felt that specifying anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia as redundant because of the reference to freedom of religion in the second graph. Others in the list the city was committed to protecting residents and visitors from included racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-immigrant, misogynistic acts.  

"You can do that, why not have Christian? I mean they're probably the most persecuted religious group in the country," he said. I would like to see in paragraph five, taking out Islamaphobic and anti-Semitic because I think it's incorporated in 'any exercise of any religion' in the second paragraph."

"It's an interesting point," responded Merrigan, however, she thought the reason for being explicit in this circumstance was because of the history and lack of power in the United States of the groups listed. "I can certainly understand people can make an argument for Christians being persecuted. I think the reason I would want to see these in here is these are groups ... that have less conventional, social and political systemic power. I think in our culture, people who identify as Christians tend to have a lot of historical and political and conventional and social power. ...

"It's harder to discriminate against people with a little more power."

Several councilors said they could support the resolution with or without the two words being included. Councilor Joshua Moran tended to agree with Moulton on their removal more because he felt the document needed to be broader and less contemporary.

"We want to make this relevant for a very long period of time," he said, adding it could still be posted in a school 50 years down the road. "I think maybe that's exactly what we're dealing with now. ... it seems like it's covered elsewhere. But I'm in favor of the whole document as it is, but I tend to lean toward Councilor Moulton's recommendation."

Councilor Ronald Boucher said he was fine with the document as is, feeling the term "protects" used the fifth graph was different than the statement of freedom of religion.

"I think identifying folks is important," said Bullett, noting those designations were as pertinent 20 or 30 years ago as they are today. If it could be done in a broader way, she said she could support it, otherwise, she was fine with it as written.

In trying to find a solution that continued to address faith groups without being specific, Merrigan offered a clause to replace the two words  with "those targeting others on the basis of religious belief and practice."

Cost, Access to NBCTC High Among Concerns North Berkshire Residents

By Tammy DanielsiBerkshires Staff
06:15PM / Thursday, April 25, 2024

Adams Select Chair Christine Hoyt, NBCTC Executive Director David Fabiano and William Solomon, the attorney representing the four communities, talk after the session. 

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — Public access channels should be supported and made more available to the public — and not be subject to a charge.

 

More than three dozen community members in-person and online attended the public hearing  Wednesday on public access and service from Spectrum/Charter Communications. The session at City Hall was held for residents in Adams, Cheshire, Clarksburg and North Adams to express their concerns to Spectrum ahead of another 10-year contract that starts in October.

 

Listening via Zoom but not speaking was Jennifer Young, director state government affairs at Charter.

 

One speaker after another conveyed how critical local access television is to the community and emphasized the need for affordable and reliable services, particularly for vulnerable populations like the elderly. 

 

"I don't know if everybody else feels the same way but they have a monopoly," said Clarksburg resident David Emery. "They control everything we do because there's nobody else to go to. You're stuck with with them."

 

Public access television, like the 30-year-old Northern Berkshire Community Television, is funded by cable television companies through franchise fees, member fees, grants and contributions.

 

Spectrum is the only cable provider in the region and while residents can shift to satellite providers or streaming, Northern Berkshire Community Television is not available on those alternatives and they may not be easy for some to navigate. For instance, the Spectrum app is available on smart televisions but it doesn't include PEG, the public, educational and governmental channels provided by NBCTC.