SalemNews.com, Salem, MA

Opinion

March 25, 2013

Letter: Council should return Salem health board to three members

To the editor:

What follows is an open letter to the Salem City Council:

We thank you in advance for taking the time to meet with us regarding our request to appeal the 1972 amendment that provided for the expansion of the Salem Board of Health. In preparation for this meeting, we would like to make certain that we have provided you with a clear understanding of the history and rationale for this request.

In 1912, Massachusetts General Laws, Section 111, Chapter 26, established that all “boards of health have three members.” Up until 1972, Salem was in compliance with this law and had a three-member board. There were no documented issues with this. All members were appointed by the mayor, and each received a stipend of $400 in addition to municipal health and retirement benefits.

Then, in 1972, Salem purchased and built the long-term-care hospital on the present site of Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital. It was at that time that the city petitioned the state to expand the membership of the board to seven. The purpose of this was to retain the three members of the existing Board of Health and to accommodate the three-member board of the hospital to include doctors Kaplan and Shaughnessy; the seventh member was added to break a tie. This plan also allowed for all to keep/receive stipends and municipal health and retirement benefits.

Currently, the city no longer manages a long-term-care hospital, so the reason for the expanded board of health no longer applies. In compliance with the Mass. General Laws, Section 111, Chapter 26, our surrounding communities of Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Marblehead and Swampscott all have three-member boards. In some communities, the members of the health board receive stipends; in one, the chairperson receives $6,000 and the other two members each receive $5,541 per year. The Salem Board of Health no longer receives either stipends or municipal health/retirement benefits. Our point is not that we should be paid or that others should not. The point is that if this were the case in Salem, the cost of retain a seven-member board would be $39,246, and that expense would certainly be a great incentive to grant our appeal to reduce the size of the expanded board.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Opinion

AP Video
Raw: Families Travel to Taiwan Plane Crash Site Arizona Execution Takes Almost Two Hours Gen. Odierno Discusses Ukraine, NATO at Forum Gaza Fighting Rages Amid Cease-Fire Efforts Mint Gives JFK Coin a Face-lift Creative Makeovers for Ugly Cellphone Towers Ariz. Inmate Dies 2 Hours After Execution Began Crash Kills Teen Pilot Seeking World Record LeBron James Sends Apology Treat to Neighbors Raw: Funeral for Man Who Died in NYPD Custody Migrants Back in Honduras After US Deports Israeli American Reservist Torn Over Return Raw: ISS Cargo Ship Launches in Kazakhstan Six Indicted in StubHub Hacking Scheme Former NTSB Official: FAA Ban 'prudent' EPA Gets Hip With Kardashian Tweet Bodies of MH17 Victims Arrive in the Netherlands Biden Decries Voting Restrictions in NAACP Talk Broncos Owner Steps Down Due to Alzheimer's US, UN Push Shuttle Diplomacy in Mideast
Comments Tracker
Roll Call
Helium debate
Helium