Ice Cream Truck CORI Checks, Parking Regs On Hold

A proposed city ordinance that would require ice cream truck vendors to submit a criminal background check, as part of the permit application process, and restrict where ice cream trucks could park and when they could operate has been sent back to the drawing board.

With most of the aldermen present last Thursday evening for the various committee meetings, the aldermen's Protection and License Committee asked Ward 6 Alderman Peter Mortimer, who drafted the ordinance, to re-work his proposal after noting several potential legal and logistical problems with his first draft.

Mortimer drafted his proposal based on similar local ordinances on the books in Arlington and Malden with the intention of protecting Melrose children and protecting brick-and-mortar Melrose businesses selling ice cream who may face unfair competition from ice cream trucks, he said.

Volunteers for The Bridge: A School/Community Partnership, the non-profit organization that manages volunteers in Melrose Public Schools, are required to submit a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) background check, the same as Mortimer's ice cream truck proposal, he said. Mortimer added that he did not believe pending CORI reform legislation on Beacon Hill would affect the city's ability to ask ice cream truck permit applicants for those checks.

Melrose City Solicitor Rob Van Campen told the aldermen that he did not "know for sure" whether the final version of the state's CORI reform — both the Senate and House passed version of the bill and a final bill has yet to come out of conference committee — would have any affect on Mortimer's proposal. Van Campen did add that both versions of the bill prohibit employers requesting a CORI at the initial employment screening phase, but that "this (ice cream truck proposal) is a little different. This is what the Attorney General's Office deems licensees and vendors and that type of authority, as I understand it, is not addressed in that (state) legislation."

Mortimer's proposal requires ice cream truck vendors to submit their criminal background check to the Melrose Police Chief, who would then obtain the vendor's driving record as part of the application process. However, the Melrose Police Department does not issue permits for ice cream trucks to operate in the city — the Melrose Board of Health does, in the form of a mobile food permit. Ice cream truck vendors are also required to obtain a state hawker's and peddler's license.

Melrose Police Chief Mike Lyle said that because his department does not issue the permit, he cannot legally run a CORI check on an ice cream truck vendor. Lyle also questioned whether the Police Department could require an ice cream truck vendor to provide a CORI check, adding that "to share that (CORI check provided to the Police Department) with the Health Department is a violation."

Van Campen added that in order for the city to run a CORI check on an ice cream truck vendor, Melrose Health Department Director Ruth Clay would have to be certified to run CORI checks, as the permitting process is done through that department.

"We'd need to have access granted by the (state) Criminal History Systems Board, which we don't have," he said. "I'm told that no community in Massachusetts has ever asked for this type of access. In this case, my suggestion would be for the Board of Health to be the agent to conduct that type of check, assuming the Criminal History Systems Board gives us that access."

Alderman at-Large Ron Seaboyer said that through his construction business with his son, he is required to undergo a CORI check when working in municipal buildings and schools and that he always asks for a copy of that report. Having seen those copies, Seaboyer questioned whether having ice cream truck vendors voluntarily submit their own reports — rather than having a city official conduct the background check him or herself — would provide adequate or accurate information.

"I will tell you this: it is so easy to make a copy to look fantastic," he said. "To have it voluntary does little or nothing ...  we want to create a document that can't be shot through, a document that doesn't already exist within our own city ordinances. I don't want duplication. I understand your (Mortimer's) thought process. But we need to do a lot more work on this. There's so much work to do on this, I think it can't be done in committee."

Mortimer's proposal would also put the following restrictions on the operation of "mobile food vendors:"

• Stop or stand in any public place or street for more than 10 minutes.
• Vend within 300 feet of any school between the hours of 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on school days during the school year.
• Stop or remain within 10 feet of any crosswalk.
• Stop or remain within 15 feet of any intersection.
• Drive in reverse to make or attempt a sale.
• Vend after 8 p.m. or sunset, whichever is earlier.

Lyle said that the Police Department can enforce any parking regulations included in the new ordinance and, if officers are free, assist the Health Department in enforcing the "8 p.m. or sunset" rule. Ward 7 Alderman William Forbes pointed out that the 8 p.m. or sunset rule could have an adverse effect on youth sports games and other events, particularly in the summer.

Ward 2 Alderman Monica Medeiros called the wording of the proposed ordinance "vague," pointing out that the term "operator" would seem to refer to the driver, but that an ice cream truck could have additional employees; that the ordinance does not include any means to accept or deny a permit based on the CORI check results; and that the definition of "mobile food vendor" could be read to include restaurants that provide delivery service, such as pizzerias and Chinese restaurants.

"That would hurt some of our stationary businesses, such as Domino's, which has been on Franklin Street for years and years," Medeiros said.

Mortimer said that "this has been a great discussion, I appreciate everyone's points," and that he hoped the other aldermen would propose amendments to fine-tune the ordinance in committee and then vote to move it forward. Knowing the proposal would be held in committee, he said that he would re-work his proposed ordinance, but asked his fellow aldermen to be ready with additional tweaks.

"I'm one person and I don't know everything," he said. "That's why we have committees. I can see this is going to get held in committee ... when it comes back out again, maybe we can come forward with some concrete amendments and I'll do the same."