Robin Freedman, counsel for Nuclear Free Cambridge, said after the meeting that "under the law it should go on the ballot." But Kenneth A. Cohen, the Draper attorney, said. As I understand it, they voted go on the merits on the measure.
City Solicitor Russell B. Higley, who would rule on the status of the proposal said he thought the proposal was blocked unless the council changed its mind, although he said he would research the question further.
City Manager Robert W. Healy said there are "two schools of thought" and that the election commission will have to take it up."
The council also passed a resolution asking Healy to hire a constitutional lawyer pro bono to advise the councilors on the constitutionality of the measure although Healy said he doubted he could find a lawyer acceptable to both sides in time.
Opponents have raised two constitutional questions. The first is whether or not the measure violates First Amendment freedoms by restricting certain research. The second is whether the city is overstepping its sovereignty bounds by restricting what has been authorized by the federal government.
The nuclear debate came during the council's second and final summer meeting which ended at 12:30 a.m. In the first part of the meeting, the city officials rejected another request to place a referendum on the ballot. The Cambridge Rent Control Coalition had asked the councilors to place on the ballot a non-binding six-part plan to stem tenant displacement.
Willium Noble, a member of the Coalition said the organization would over the next 10 days conflect signatures as put the question before the voters. Because it would be nonbinding, the tenant question follows different procedures than the Nuclear Free Cambridge initiative.
In other action at the seven hour session the councilors agreed to delay until a public hearing a request from Draper Labs to build a pedestrian bridge between its two buildings.
Graham used her charter tight during a public hearing to delay consideration of an application for an Urban Development Action Grant by a private development firm in the Lichmere area. She said that the council had not been given enough time to examine whether the proposed development had too much luxury housing and not enough low and moderate income availabilities.
In another public hearing the council passed a proposal by Duehay instructing the city solicitor to investigate the legality of a rooming house located on 151-3 Mt. Aubum St. The council will await the report before deciding how to deal with that specific place and with what residents call an extreme proliferation of rooming houses in the Cambridgeport area.
John D. Solomon assisted with the reporting of this story