WESTPORT — Six months after special town meeting voters threw out the Westport Board of Health’s animal registry, the state Attorney General has ruled that voters had no business undermining the Board of Health and its efforts to oversee farming and animal welfare.

Rallying under the banner of the town’s Right to Farm bylaw, farmers had sought to strengthen the bylaw in ways that would largely prevent the Board of Health and any other town entity from inspecting and regulating farms where livestock is kept. They argued that the state Barn Book process is sufficient and protested against further efforts by the town to keep an eye on animal care and conditions.

That vote went way too far, the Attorney General’s office wrote in a letter received by town officials last week.

A spokeswoman said the Attorney General’s let stand one part of the February town vote — allowing, but not requiring, some sort of “livestock census.”

But the Attorney General rejected the two main elements of the attempt to “strengthen” the town’s Right to Farm rule.

“Disapproved,” were sections that:

• Aimed to prohibit Westport from requiring anyone to register, license, permit and/or pre-approve the keeping of livestock with any town agency except for what already is required for existing farms;
• Sought to prohibit Westport from undertaking any livestock inspections, regulations, guidelines, penalties, fines, fees punishments and/or restrictions that deviate from state laws.

“Local boards of health have broad rule making authority for the preservation of the public health and safety including the authority to regulate matters that pertain to the keeping of livestock in a town,” the letter stated.

Boards of health are authorized and required to investigate all nuisances, sources of filth and causes of illness in a town,” including places within the town that kept livestock,” the AG’s office wrote. 

By prohibiting any town department from requiring registrations, licenses, permits, and pre-approvals for the keeping of livestock in the Town, the AG continued, and by prohibiting inspection, procedures, regulations, guidelines, penalties, fines, fees, punishments, and restrictions, “the bylaw would take away the Board of Health’s authority under state law.”

The only apparent route for appeal of the AG’s disapproval would be for the town to challenge it in court.

But that is unlikely given that the attempt to change the bylaw was not supported by the Board of Selectmen or the town’s attorney. 

In fact, Town Counsel David C. Jenkins of the firm Kopelman and Paige had warned of precisely this outcome in the weeks leading up to that February vote.

Of particular concern, he wrote, is that the article seeks “to limit the authority” of both the town zoning officer and the Board of Health. “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held on numerous occasions that “a town meeting cannot exercise authority over a board … when the board is acting in furtherance of a statutory duty.”

He adds, “as a general proposition, where local bylaws or regulations run ‘directly contrary to the provisions of a State statute’ … [they] have not been able to survive” when challenged in court.”

Finally, he wrote that the definition of farming in the proposed bylaw is “markedly different” than that in state law.

“We are obviously disappointed in some of the AG’s findings,” said Sherri Mahoney, one of the leaders of the effort to amend the Right to Farm bylaw.  “I am especially concerned about the paragraph in the AG’s letter that states that during their review they received correspondence from opponents advocating that the AG disapprove the amendments and that this input aided them in their decision.  We were advised by town officials specifically not to contact the AG since their decision was supposed to be rendered independent of any outside influence.  

“Unfortunately, our opponents didn’t respect this directive,” Ms Mahoney said.  “Additionally, if town officials were involved in contacting the AG, they did so with the intent of undermining the voters in Westport.  This is disheartening since Westport voters came out and clearly made their wishes known.  We have contacted our attorney, and he does not believe that the Right to Farm Article received due process.”

“Ultimately,” she added, “I would hope that the Board of Health heard the voters in our town in their support of our farming community.  Farmers and animal owners in our town are overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and don’t need to be harassed or unduly burdened by a Board of Health working on behalf of animal activists.”

Elsewhere, she was quoted as saying, “Some feel that this (animal site registry) regulation will be the death of farming in Westport.”

Co-organizer Sam Mundel said he, too, is disappointed by sections of the AG ruling, “and disagree with them.  It’s particularly troubling that they received and weighed written correspondence from farm opponents, which we believe is outside the bounds of normal procedure.  We’ll be looking into that correspondence. 

“At the same time, I’m pleased that the definition of a farm has been expanded to provide right to farm to more residents of town, and that the AgCom is empowered to perform a livestock census, which is where this issue belongs.   Irrespective of some of the AG’s erroneous conclusions, I hope the vote and voice of Westport residents, who overwhelmingly want farm rights protected, will be respected.”

Others praise the ruling

“We are pleased with the Attorney General's thoughtful analysis and decision to disapprove the key provisions in the amendment to the Town's existing Right to Farm bylaws,” said Tanja Ryden who chairs the Westport Board of Health. 

“This determination affirms that the Board of Health has broad statutory authority to protect public health and safety and to regulate matters related to keeping livestock. The Attorney General's ruling validates the animal site registry regulation, along with our longstanding pig and equine regulations. The new Animal Site Registry, a one-time no-fee registration of locations with farm animals, will help make sure that all Westport farms with livestock have an annual Barn Book inspection. The board will also be consulting with town counsel for their analysis and further guidance.” 

Animal welfare activists Donna Parrillo and Constance Gee said that the Animal Registry was never the intrusive burden that it was made out to be.

“This was never about ‘strengthening’ Westport's Right-to-Farm bylaw, as its proponents claimed,” said Ms. Parrillo. “Our RTF bylaw was already among the strongest in the state.  It was about weakening — weakening our public health laws by forbidding BOH oversight.  

 “Swine and Equine regulations have coexisted with the Westport Right-to-Farm bylaw since 2004.  If that has not caused a problem for local farmers, I can’t see how a simple one page/one-time free registry (simply stating that you have livestock) would.”

“I’d like for Sherri Mahoney to explain why a free, one-time, simple-to-complete-and-return livestock site registry is going to be ‘the death of farming in Westport,’” said Ms. Gee. “She has used trumped-up histrionics to frighten and coerce a certain segment of the Westport farming community for far too long, with very negative consequences for our town. Ms. Mahoney needs to either substantiate her charges or cease her noxious propaganda.”