Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 37
rule that they are — this is not something that the Board of Aldermen came up with. This is the Board of
Health who is asking and who wants to implement this rule and they are asking the Board of Aldermen to
approve it. So | bow to their expertise. If they say this would be an effective way of reducing the amount of
exposure to this virus, then | believe them and | support them in that.
The other category of objections to this are that they are questioning whether or not the Board of Health
and the Board of Aldermen in Nashua have the authority to impose this Ordinance to begin with — that is it
unconstitutional, that is a violation of people’s rights. | would ask Attorney Bolton if he could comment on
the authority of the Board of Health and the Board of Aldermen to enact this Ordinance and whether or not
that violates people’s constitutional rights.
Attorney Bolton
New Hampshire is what is known as a Dillon’s Rule State, which essentially means that the localities, the
cities, and towns, have only such power as the State Legislature has granted them. In this case, the State
Legislature has granted cities the authority to enact health-related, Ordinances, rules regulations and by-
laws. That’s RSA 47:17. Now in Nashua pursuant to the City Charter, which was also originally adopted
by the State Legislature, in Section 79 of that Charter, provides that the Board of Health shall have control
of and attend to all matters and perform all duties relating to Public Health and shall perform such special
duties as may be imposed upon them by Ordinance or by the General Statute of the State. Now as part of
that duty, the Board of Health is granted the authority to make such rules and regulations relating to the
Public Health as int their judgement the Public Health and Safety may require.
All such rules and regulations shall be subject to the action of the Board of Aldermen approving the same.
And that extends into Charter Section 81. So that is what you are doing here tonight, considering whether
you are going to approve a Regulation already enacted by the Board of Health. So | don’t believe there’s
any question that there’s been a proper delegation by the State Legislature of the authority to make rules,
regulations that the Board of Aldermen then adopt by Ordnance for the betterment of the Public Health.
Now we have loads and loads of Public Health related laws all over this country. There are laws requiring
shoes and shirts in restaurants and in stores selling food; those are laws. If this was unconstitutional, that
would be. There are laws concerning the safety of food, there are laws concerning the wearing of head
coverings by people who work in kitchens of restaurants. There are laws concerning requiring screens to
separate the condition of the kitchen from infestation by insects. There are laws requiring cleanliness in
restaurant kitchens. There are laws concerning alcohol consumption in restaurants. There are laws
concerning the disposal of rubbish and waste and leftover food from restaurants.
It is inconceivable to me that all of these other laws can be held to be constitutional and a face covering
requirement in the face of a pandemic which has now killed nearly twice as many people as we lost in all
the years of the Vietnam War. All we have to do to pass constitutional muster is to have a reasonable goal,
it's reasonably achievable by the measures we are undertaking. Reasonable goal is to try to reduce the
spread of the Coronavirus. I’m not a doctor, I’m not an epidemiologist. The people on the Board of Health
who are doctors and in their discussion of this last week talked about the medical literature that they had
read and they believe that this would be effective to reduce the spread of this virus. | don’t think there is a
serious constitutional question at all.
Alderman Jette
Thank you.
Alderman Dowd
You are on mute.
