Sex-offender law clears closer vote on council
City councilors said they have taken an important step in passing tough new rules on where convicted sex offenders can live and work in Marlborough, but questions remain about the measure's legality and how it would be enforced.
The ordinance, drafted by the mayor and formally approved this week by the City Council, is one of the strictest of its kind in the state; it bans sex offenders from visiting and living in nearly 85 percent of the city, and prohibits them from visiting public places, such as the Solomon Pond Mall and city parks, frequented by children or other potential victims.
Sex offenders already living in the city would be allowed to stay where they are, but the ordinance bans new arrivals from moving within 1,000 feet of a school or place where children, senior citizens, or the mentally retarded congregate.
"I'm just glad we've taken a positive step," City Councilor Steven Levy said after Monday night's vote. "The bottom line is we need to do whatever is necessary to protect these sites."
Mayor Nancy E. Stevens will have 10 days to sign or veto the bill before it automatically becomes law. Last fall, she issued a last-minute veto of a similar measure, and in the following weeks drafted the current ordinance with help from police officials who will have to enforce the new ordinance. Her version was in many ways more restrictive than the first, as it includes a list of public and private places, like the mall, where sex offenders are forbidden to go.
Charles Onley, a researcher at the Center for Sex Offender Management in Maryland, a federal program to train people who counsel newly released sex offenders, said he was unaware of any local jurisdiction with as many restrictions as Marlborough.
"That's the most I've seen," Onley said. "Usually, you're just talking about schools and day-care centers and places like that."
John Reinstein, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, called Marlborough's rules "more extensive in scope" than in other communities and raised the possibility of a lawsuit.
Robert Prentky, a forensic psychologist and director of research at the Justice Resource Institute in Boston, which studies and treats sex offenders, called the new measure "idiocy," pointing out that "sex offenders have to live somewhere.
"This is all driven by fear," he said. "Fear is understandable but rarely results in rational legislation."
Such criticisms did not deter a majority of the City Council from tentatively passing the measure two weeks ago in a 7-4 vote, and finalizing the decision Monday, 6-5. Councilors Paul Ferro, Arthur Vigeant, Peter Juaire, Richard Towle, Robert Katz joined Levy in supporting it. Edward Clancy, Trish Pope, Michael Ossing, Scott Schafer, and Maura Navin Webster voted against it. Clancy, who was cited as voting for the measure two weeks ago, said his prior vote was incorrectly recorded by the city clerk.
Clancy said he didn't support the ordinance because it creates divisions between neighborhoods where sex offenders would be allowed and those where they would be banned. In his district, one small residential area along Fort Meadow Reservoir wouldn't be included in the sex offender ban. According to a draft map provided by the city, portions of the wealthy Carisbrook subdivision on the Sudbury town line and the newly built Fairfield apartment complex along Interstate 495 are also outside the banned zone.
That's "pitting neighborhood against neighborhood," he said. "It's creating more problems than solutions."
Nathaniel Bowen, the city's geographic information systems administrator, is working on a map that shows which areas will be affected by the new rule.
He said it is modeled after maps that ban the sale of drugs from within 1,000 feet of schools, measuring 1,000 feet from the edge of a day-care center, nursing home or other designated property and drawing a ring. In some neighborhoods, the current boundary line bisects a house.
"I'm not sure how they're going to enforce it," Bowen said. "You can't tell someone to live on half a property."
Both West Boylston and Fitchburg have passed ordinances restricting sex offenders from living or working near children. West Boylston's regulation was passed only recently. Fitchburg's, which passed last year, is on the books but not in effect.
Marlborough's new rule imposes noncriminal sanctions. Violators must pay a fine of $150 and would have 30 days to move; subsequent offenses bring a $300 fine.
Enforcing the rule will be difficult if not impossible for police, who will have no way of knowing whether someone in a park or at the mall is a sex offender, Police Chief Mark Leonard has said. But he supports the ordinance, saying he views it as another "tool in the toolbox" for police responding to problems.
"I think this is uncharted territory," he said.
Councilor Levy, who proposed the initial ordinance a year ago, said he was spurred into action because legislators have not passed tougher sex offender sentencing laws statewide.
He acknowledged police could have a tough time identifying sex offenders and regulating where they go, but he said the ordinance would still help.
"Do police catch everyone who speeds? No," he said. But if sex offenders "are caught in a place like the mall, at least now you have the grounds to remove them."
Megan Woolhouse can be reached at mwoolhouse@globe.com. 
