City Clerk’s “Wedding-Gate” Could Change State Laws
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Presently, Massachusetts’ law allows City and Town clerks to collect a fee for solemnizing civil marriages in municipal buildings. Clerks can get up to $100 dollars per ceremony performed inside a municipal building.
Worcester, specifically, is in the process of changing their policy after City Councilors took issue with Clerk, David Rushford, for making an additional $30,000 a year by marrying couples at City Hall, while on the clock. This comes on top of Rushford's $125,000 salary. According to an email Rushford wrote in 2009, he marries up to 500 couples a year and charges $60 per ceremony.
Worcester City Council recently took the first steps to reforming the structure by approving a pay raise for the City Clerk in exchange for eliminating fees he was receiving for performing wedding ceremonies. Last Tuesday, the City Council approved a pay raise of $10,000, bringing Rushford’s salary to $135,000. Under the new policy, the city will retain all revenues paid by couples from wedding ceremonies in City Hall.
The City Council will have to vote on the measure one more time next week, because Councilman Philip Palmieri filed an order after the City Council meeting was over, which would force the council to reconsider the vote during the next meeting.
Proposed Ban
State Representative Marty Walz
State Senator Harriette Chandler of Worcester ranked the issue low on her priorities. Senator Chandler said, “I have so many other things that I am working on that are more important. This is the least of my issues.” When asked if Chandler would support such a bill, she responded, “Thank you for bringing this to my attention.” She then hung up the phone.
In contrast, State Representative John Mahoney of Worcester said, “I will support the bill. It should be a statewide mandate. Clerks should not make this extra money on city time.”
Lt. Governor’s Reaction
Lt. Governor Tim Murray weighed in on this issue, "As elected or appointed officials, we need to always be good fiscal stewards of tax payer dollars," said the Lieutenant Governor. "The City of Worcester recognized an opportunity in this regard, and the additional money will be a resource to support the city."
Clerks Support
Agawam’s town clerk, Richard Theroux, told GoLocalWorcester he performs about a dozen ceremonies a year and doesn’t always charge a fee, especially for servicemen and women. Theroux said, “If you are doing these ceremonies on city time I can see the state changing the law. But on nights and weekends that’s the clerk’s time and they should be able to make extra money.”
Shrewsbury’s clerk, Sandy Wright, said she has never performed a wedding ceremony and her predecessor only did it once or twice after work hours. Wright has been following the issue in Worcester. Wright said, “When I read about it I think he should give the money back to the city, but then I think of small towns where the clerk makes a lot less money as their base salary and this is a way to make a little extra money.”
Nancy Yendriga makes $85,000 as Westborough’s Clerk. She marries about 15 couples a year. Yendriga said she does not think the law should be changed, “No, because I benefit from it.”
Reaction from Worcester City Councilors
Worcester City Hall
Councilor Lukes was outraged during last Tuesday’s City Council meeting because the council wouldn’t allow a debate regarding the salary increase to Rushford. Lukes said “City Councilors decided to take a vote on an issue that wasn’t on the agenda and then tried to prevent debate on the issue.”
Councilor Lukes agues that Rushford should not get a salary increase. Both Councilor Lukes and Palmieri believe the council will adopt the raise, but believe it is important for the public to be aware of the issue.One of the motives for adopting the new policy is for the City to financially benefit from the weddings at City Hall.
Councilors Lukes and Palmieri are concerned that the change does not include a benchmark, requiring that the clerk’s office perform a certain number of ceremonies during office hours. Councilor Lukes said, “We don’t actually know how many ceremonies the clerk currently does each year or how much he makes annually from it because the council won’t ask him for that information. If we don’t enforce that the clerk perform a certain number of ceremonies during office hours, he will do them all at night and on the weekends and then Worcester won’t see any benefit from the new order.”
GoLocalWorcester tried to get comment from Rushford, but was unable to. However, GoLocalWorcester did get a copy of an email Rushford sent to the then mayor Lukes defending the practice in 2009:
Dear Mayor Lukes and Councilors,
This communication is made to establish truth and accuracy in light of the outrageous Sunday Telegram article authored by Shaun Sutner dated July 12, 2009 referencing me, civil marriages and budget cuts at the city clerk’s office.
The solemnization of civil marriages in municipal buildings by city and town clerks and assistant clerks during the workday, and for a fee, is authorized by Massachusetts General Laws and clarified by State Ethics Commission opinions issued in 1988 and again in 2002 (copies attached). Court clerks and their assistants are also designated to be granted commissions as marrying justices of the peace.
Records on file at this office indicate that civil marriages have been solemnized within Worcester City Hall and on the Common by municipal employees, and also by justices of the peace not affiliated through employment with the municipality, since this structure was opened to the public in 1898. No solicitation nor advertisement for this service has occurred at this office nor in this building during my tenure of employment which dates to January 7, 1980. A request for the services of a civil official authorized to conduct a civil ceremony is initiated by the applicants filing their intention to be married. In Massachusetts, ninety-five percent of civil authorities authorized by statute to solemnize marriages have sought and received commissions to do so. The public convenience is satisfied via this established process and has been in force and effect for over one hundred years.
A justice of the peace commission is granted by the Office of the Governor’s Council. Commissions are limited based on the population of a community. According to the list provided to me by the Secretary of State, there are 35 justices of the peace who reside in Worcester and hold commissions at the current time under the population allotment. Commissions to municipal and court officials based on their public employment are not part of the population allotment.
The July 12th news article stated incorrectly that the city clerk performs an average of about 950 weddings per year, or about 18 per week. During the years in which I have held a commission to solemnize marriages, I have solemnized between 30 and 500 marriages per year either here at City Hall or elsewhere across the Commonwealth. The date, time and place of a ceremony is established by the parties to be married. There is a misconception being portrayed that the clerk is quietly raking in money. Inflammatory language relating to civil marriages being conducted within municipal and court buildings does not negate the fact that the public convenience is served and that the practice has been outlined by statute and clarified by the Ethics Commission for more years than any of us have been alive.
The July 12th article has an underlying theme that civil marriages are my invention and that City Hall has been converted into a Las Vegas-type emporium. That connotation has no basis in fact and is an insult to the decades of unselfish public service and to my entire life career in public service. I can think of no more offensive insult to a public servant than that which has been displayed across the front of the tabloid journal that this daily newspaper has become.
The news article continues, “At $100 per marriage…he could earn an extra $90,000.” The fee for solemnizing a marriage is capped by statute. The fee is discretionary because the language establishes a not-to-exceed fee. I exercise the authority granted to those holding a justice of the peace commission and use my own discretion whether or not to levy a fee for solemnizing a marriage. Although the earnings that accrue to me are not required to be reported as public information, I am willing to inform City Council as my appointing authority that the public is routinely informed upon request that the fee for the service of a civil ceremony is $60.00. I do not have a breakdown of services rendered here on weekdays as opposed to an outside venue on nights or weekends.
Additional misinformation in this article is the statement that I have personally acquired “mementos and gifts” in the wood-paneled office from people who have been married at City Hall. Any and every memento presented to the city clerk office has been inventoried and transmitted to the city manager and then to the city council in a routine transmittal for acceptance as a donation. A copy of the most recent transmittal dated April 18, 2008 was accepted by city council on May 6, 2008 and is attached.
The article continues to misinform the public that my base salary is $131,000. The public document that is the fiscal year 2010 budget states clearly that the city clerk base salary is $125,259. This salary is allocated to the city clerk as official keeper of the records, clerk of the city council and committees and for providing administrative and operational support to the Board of Election Commissioners. Even though there is no written contract between the city council as the appointing authority and the city clerk as the employee, it is understood that there are no limits to the number of hours, nor days per week that the clerk shall provide these services. I have enjoyed a longstanding trustworthy relationship with 46 city councilors, 6 mayors and 4 city managers of which I am most proud. I shall continue to conduct myself in a manner which dignifies the office I hold until the completion of the current term which expires on August 18, 2010, if council so allows me to do so.
The author of the article states and the Mayor is quoted in the article and on talk-radio as stating that the hours at the city clerk office have been reduced. This misstatement is most perplexing and disappointing to me and the hard working staff. The hours at the city clerk’s office are set by ordinance; Ch. Two, Art. 6, sec. (b), attached. After a search of the ordinances, I find that the hours have remained the same since the 1960s. The city council has not voted, nor have I formally requested, to reduce the hours that the office is open to serve the public. In fact, the opposite is true. Please see my attached communication dated September 26, 2006 currently pending before the Standing Committee on Municipal Operations that is my request to consider expanding the city clerk office hours to include Saturday mornings. Additionally, with the city treasurer’s office, we were the first city department to offer products and services on-line, thereby expanding our level of service to be 24/7.
For the record, the minimal hours that this office is open to serve the public continue to be weekdays from 8:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. and Monday until 5:00 p.m.
I exhort the city council to kindly correct and counteract the damage that the misinformation the mayor has circulated saying that the city clerk office has reduced its hours of operation. We make every effort possible to advertise the hours we are open to serve the public; on every page of our area of the city website, in our written communications and in our day-today conversation with the general public so that they receive the access to you and the administration who are committed to providing, even under these most difficult economic conditions, service that we can all label satisfactory.
There has been a well-crafted effort in this article to somehow establish a connection that because of a reduction in staff, marriages should not be solemnized at the city hall. Staff at this office who perform clerical functions are not commissioned to solemnize marriages. By insinuating that, personally, I should somehow be capable of performing all tasks assigned to this department single-handily might somehow be construed to be a compliment to my multi-tasking abilities. However, that is a play to the cheap seats. I am not capable of performing all tasks even though I am, as councilors are aware, present at city hall from a minimum of 45 hours per week to as many as 70-80 hours per week during election and budget cycles. In this age of limitless communication devices, I am commonly available, nights, weekends and while on vacation. I enjoy this level of support to city council. Please do not in any way consider long work weeks as a complaint.
The April 16, 2009 fiscal year 2010 impact statement, attached, has begun to be implemented incrementally. We have been successful in postponing some of those impacts because of the seasonally slow Summer months. However, as we approach election season and our residents’ return from Summer vacation schedules, I anticipate additional stress to staff time and abilities to fulfill all tasks. I will continue to seek the mayor and council’s assistance so that we can return to meet our potential as a revenue generating department and full-service provider.
In summary, the solemnization of marriages is not an invention of this city clerk and is not unique to this municipality. It is as commonplace as motherhood and apple pie. There has never to my knowledge been a complaint lodged with the Governor nor the Governor’s Council concerning the conduct of any justice of the peace associated with this office. If the city council wishes to discuss this further, I am most willing to do so because any additional truth that might be shed on this topic can only work towards vindicating me from the sensational tabloid writing that currently shrouds my longstanding and ethical public employment. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the topic of civil marriages in relation to me, the city clerk office and the fiscal year 2010 budget.
Cordially,
David J. Rushford
City Clerk
EDITOR'S NOTE: At approximately 7pm on Monday an earlier and incomplete version of this story was posted as live. That story was shut down immediately.
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It