Chairman of the Marion Board of Health John Howard had to note the “record turnout” of those in attendance on October 26 to join in the conversation about the board’s pursuit to ban flavored nicotine products – both flavored tobacco and flavored electronic nicotine – as well as menthol cigarettes.

Listed on the agenda was anti-tobacco Cheryl Sbarra, director of policy and law for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, who has been assisting the board in this matter for over a year. In her place was D.J. Wilson, tobacco control director for Massachusetts Municipal Association.

Wilson said that 101 Massachusetts cities and towns have already placed a ban on flavored tobacco and nicotine products, but without the inclusion of menthol cigarettes and the mint and wintergreen flavors.

“This started out in Providence,” said Wilson. In 2012, Providence passed an ordinance that adopted the federal government’s 2009 prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco, Wilson said. “They took it and expanded it … to not only include cigarettes … but the [flavored] juices inside e-cigarettes.”

The City of Providence was sued in Federal Court by the tobacco industry, and the tobacco industry lost in the Federal Court of Appeals, said Wilson. The tobacco industry chose not to pursue another appeal.

This is important, noted Wilson, because Marion shares the same Federal Court as Providence.

However, the same federal government prohibition of flavored tobacco exempts menthol cigarettes and mint or wintergreen nicotine products. Providence banned the sale of these products, except within adult-only establishments.

Essentially, the Board of Health would be attempting to make Marion the first municipality in the United States to fully ban menthol cigarettes, if not allowed for sale in adult-only establishments – of which there currently are none in Marion.

“It is a big deal for both the tobacco industry and Tobacco Control because a number of Americans either started or currently use menthol [cigarettes].”

Chris Banthin, director of the Tobacco Control Resource Center at the Public Health Advocacy Institute said, again, that his organization would be willing to represent the Marion Board of Health pro bono in Federal Court should the board proceed with its menthol cigarette ban and be sued by the tobacco industry.

Banthin’s stance: menthol cigarettes make it easier to become addicted.

“Documents point to the use of flavorings to make it easier to start smoking because smoking is a little bit harsh … particularly for kids,” said Banthin. “Menthol cools … so it allows an addiction to connect.” It also makes quitting more difficult, Banthin added.

“While other cigarette rates have dropped, we’ve seen the use of menthol go down very little,” said Banthin. He urged Marion to “get to the heart of it.”

“A ban on menthol would go a long way towards that end,” said Banthin.

Banthin then addressed some of the points expressed in a letter earlier this month from the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers.

“There were concerns expressed by that association regarding the potential impact on the black community,” said Banthin. “[They] raised an unfounded fear that members of the black community would be targeted or disproportionately impacted because they possess a menthol cigarette.”

That’s wrong, said Banthin, “For a number of reasons.”

“It’s not the possession that’s banned; it’s the sale,” said Banthin. “So someone could possess it and they’re not going to be targeted.”

“The sale is not entirely banned,” continued Banthin. “It would be allowed in adult-only facilities, so those adults who wanted to acquire menthol cigarettes would have to go to an adult facility.”

Furthermore, said Banthin, it would not be a police enforcement matter; rather, it would be the Board of Health enforcing the regulation, since the BOH is the body that issues the licenses to sell tobacco.

“It wouldn’t go after possession,” said Banthin.

One issue that MAMLEO brought up, said Banthin, does ring true – the impact that menthol cigarettes have had on the African American community. Roughly 83 percent of menthol cigarette smokers are minorities.

“And really this is unfortunate. It’s a concern, but it’s not surprising,” said Banthin, “but since the 1950s the tobacco industry has targeted the sale of cigarettes to the African American community.”

Banthin stated that during the early 2000s, Ebony magazine was ten times more likely to feature a cigarette ad than People Magazine.

“So there’s a real targeting effort and unfortunately that effort was successful,” said Banthin. “[There is a] disproportionate impact of menthol on the African American community.”

Dennis Lane of the Coalition for Responsible Retailing, a steady attendee at recent BOH meetings, said of course everyone believes that smoking kills, but even a report from The Journal of National Cancer Institute concluded that smoking menthol cigarettes was associated with a lower lung cancer rate than smoking regular cigarettes. (That article stating, “The findings suggest that menthol cigarettes are no more, and perhaps less, harmful than nonmenthol [sic] cigarettes,” can be found at https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/103/10/810/2516529/Lung-Cancer-Risk-Among-Smokers-of-Menthol?searchresult=1).

“My recommendation … is to allow the FDA and Congress to take this on,” said Lane. “It makes no common sense to ban menthol, which is deemed to be somewhat less harmful.… What sense does it make to ban menthol cigarettes and not regular cigarettes?”

Lane closed his remarks by saying, “I don’t think it’s my decision or the decision of anyone is this room what adult minority smokers can smoke … If I were black American … I would be upset if someone banned a product I used, but didn’t ban products that non-minorities use. Banning menthol and not banning non-menthol cigarettes in Marion is counterintuitive,” said Lane. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Next up was Denise DePina Reed, vice president of MAMLEO. She said that many in the black community of Boston who smoke menthol cigarettes are unaware of what Marion is attempting to do.

“So to talk about banning menthol cigarettes, it’s new to them. I was just made aware of what you’re doing,” said Reed, “so I would say they need to be at the table, because you’re talking about taking away something that they do.”

Reed emphasized that she is not a smoker and, although smoking is unhealthy, “Smoking is important … It’s a fact of life here.”

The Marion BOH’s attempt to ban menthol cigarettes, Reed stated, is an example of another 21^st century attempt on prohibition.

“Every time the government tries to ban something, it seems to cause other problems,” said Reed, “and another example of government action that disproportionately affects the black community,” which would be driven to the underground market to sell and purchase menthol cigarettes. “They’re going to get these cigarettes one way or another … and it’s gonna be illegal and that’s gonna be another problem with law enforcement,” she said.

Reed turned to the 2014 death of Eric Gardner, who was suffocated while NYPD officers attempted to arrest Garner for selling loose cigarettes on the street.

“I would ask this board of lovely ladies and gentlemen to rethink what you’re doing,” Reed said. “It probable won’t impact your life, but it will impact other people.”

Matthew Duran, manager of government affairs & public policy for Cumberland Farms, said a ban on menthol cigarettes would interrupt the company’s success in providing living wage jobs and careers in regional communities.

“To try to ban something that accounts for … twenty-five to fifty percent of [the sales] of a convenience store like ours,” said Duran, “That is a scary prospect, because you’re essentially shutting us down. You might as well ban all tobacco.”

Members of the board had no questions related to the statement made by the presenters, nor did they make any comments.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Health is scheduled for November 14 at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Health

By Jean Perry

During a quick meeting just before the October 23 Fall Special Town Meeting, the Rochester Board of Selectmen decided to put the brakes on voting to approve ten new stop signs and two yield signs that were recommended after a study that was part of a state-funded safety improvement project for High Street.

State grant money was awarded to the Town of Rochester to fund some safety enhancements on High Street, a roadway the state determined had a higher rate of vehicular accidents.

Selectman Naida Parker requested holding off on the vote until Police Chief Paul Magee could be consulted again. Magee had already signed off on the list with no objections, but Parker said that she had further questions.

What did not make sense, Parker said, was adding a number of new stop signs to shorter side streets that intersect with High Street, yet only request yield signs for two more dangerous intersections – High Street at Walnut Plain Road, and High Street at County Road.

“Why at a dangerous intersection wouldn’t you put a stop sign?” Parker asked. She added, “People come down High Street and go straight through Walnut Plain without yielding because they think it’s that road that goes on continuously.”

The ten requested stop signs for High Street were requested at the ends of Old Tuck Bog Road, Look’s Mill Lane, Ryder Road, Mayflower Lane, Stevens Road, Porter Road, Bryant Lane, Hillside Road, another for Bryant Lane, and Forbes Road.

Also during the meeting, Town Administrator Suzanne Szyndlar said the renovations at the Town Hall Annex were over and business has resumed at the site effective that day, Monday, October 23.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for October 30 at 6:30 pm in the Rochester Town Hall meeting room.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

The citizen’s petition to place restrictions on solar farms along Route 105 and any future scenic highways failed to garner the two-thirds votes a bylaw change requires during the October 23 Rochester Fall Special Town Meeting.

The article was vetted two weeks prior during a Planning Board public hearing on October 10, at which time Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson told the resident bringing the article to town meeting, Sara Johnston, that the Attorney General’s Office would likely not approve a 1,000-foot setback.

As written, Article 6 was to add an amendment to the Town’s solar bylaw: “Large-Scale ground mounted solar installations are not permitted within 1,000’ of any commonwealth or town designated scenic road unless existing topographic features of the landscape preclude observation of the solar arrays from the scenic road.”

During that Planning Board meeting, Johnston proposed decreasing it to 500 feet, and then Chairman Johnson surprised everyone by proposing an outright ban on large-scale solar farms on any current or future state- or town-designated scenic highways. Johnston agreed to make the motion at Town Meeting using the language the Planning Board devised for her to use in place of the printed article, and the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend the amended article, not to propose the 1,000 feet, but to propose the ban.

At that time, Johnson said Town Counsel Blair Bailey gave the nod for Johnson’s suggestion – but during a follow-up with Johnson after Town Meeting adjourned on October 23, Johnson said Bailey changed his opinion days later, which led to the series of events that occurred that night.

At 7:14 pm, the final of the six articles was called for a motion; no one stood to make that motion.

“If you don’t make a motion, we can’t go anywhere,” said Town Moderator Kirby Gilmore. “We can’t talk about it until someone makes a motion.”

Johnston was nowhere to be found, and the voters appeared visually confused.

One resident approached the microphone and read the article as it was written with the 1,000-foot setback, but town counsel said the motion was not fashioned properly.

Another resident took the microphone and made the motion for the 1,000-foot setback and the motion was seconded by a number of voters seated.

Johnson told the voters that the Planning Board could not recommend the article, saying the board did recommend a prior amendment, but could not recommend this version.

Then Planning Board member Ben Bailey said that although he voted as a Planning Board member to recommend the amended article, as an individual he opposes it.

“First, it’s the hypocrisy,” said Bailey. “The Planning Board does a very good job making sure that solar farms are shielded,” whether by berms, fences, or both, he said. “It’s just not that intrusive.”

Bailey then publically criticized Sara Johnston for a “huge white plastic barn” on her property, saying he did not think a white plastic barn particularly fit in with the character of the town, either.

It was then that Johnston entered the RMS cafeteria – late.

“Now she’s gonna tell people they can’t have a solar farm?” continued Bailey. “Do you really want to start telling land owners what they can and can’t do with their properties?”

Johnston stood in the rear of the room listening.

“Because we can all find reason to object to something,” said Bailey.

Resident John Sheehan rebutted, saying, “You do not have the right to do whatever you please on your own property in this town, particularly when you consider other landowners in this town whose property values could be significantly [affected],” said Sheehan. “I would never buy a house across from a 13-acre solar farm. That’s just me.”

Sheehan tried to get a show of hands on who would buy a house in front of a solar farm from the voters, but was shut down by the moderator for being out of order.

Sheehan then criticized the Planning Board, accusing the board of being complacent, and perhaps complicit, in solar farm growth in town.

“They seem to be very willing to sell out the town to outside interests,” said Sheehan, until Johnson stood up and angrily interrupted him.

Going on the record, Johnson shot back, “That is highly offensive to the entire Planning Board who work very hard for many hours for no pay!” said Johnson, before moving the question to “shut this down.”

The motion to move the question was made, seconded, and followed by a unanimous ‘aye.’

Resident Kenneth Cutler tried to speak further at the microphone but was stopped by the moderator. Cutler claimed he did not know what his ‘yes’ vote would entail and demanded to continue discussing the article. He was not allowed.

“You’re ignoring a man’s comments from the floor,” Cutler said.

Town counsel explained Robert’s Rules of Order and Cutler sat down.

As for the final vote on the article, it was 41 in favor of adoption, 64 opposed. The required two-thirds vote failed. All three selectmen voted it down, as did the town administrator and three of the four Finance Committee members on the stage.

Articles approved were:

– Article 1 to accept the provisions of MGL Chapter 59, Section 57A, which allows the collector to send one tax bill for payment and interest on real and personal property tax bills of $100 or less. The Town had already accepted the amount of $50 or less.

– Article 2 for $30,000 to fund the negotiated police union contract agreement for fiscal year 2017.

– Article 3 for $60,000 to supplement appropriation previously adopted during the 2017 Annual Town Meeting for the FY2017 police budget to fund the negotiated police union contract agreement.

– Article 4 for $10,000 to supplement the FY2017 police budget to address staffing.

– Article 5 for the sum of $2,400 to supplement the FY2017 Planning Board budget for a part-time recording secretary.

Rochester Fall Special Town Meeting

By Jean Perry