Clancy, (SEE CORRECTION) Rushton rejecting night off; Objections reinstate Aug. 7 meeting.

Byline: Nick Kotsopoulos

The following correction was published July 31, 2007:

WORCESTER - District 5 City Councilor Frederick C. Rushton challenged last week's council vote to cancel the Aug. 7 City Council meeting. Because of an editing error, a headline on a column in yesterday's Telegram & Gazette incorrectly stated that District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr. also sought reconsideration of the vote.

---------------------

COLUMN: CITY HALL NOTEBOOK

When the City Council adjourned its special meeting Thursday night, most members thought it was the beginning of a one-month respite from its meeting schedule.

Before the meeting was gaveled to a close, the council unanimously voted to cancel the meeting that had been previously scheduled for Aug. 7. That meant the council's next meeting would not be until Aug. 28.

Not so fast, however.

Two city councilors were not present when the vote to cancel the Aug. 7 meeting was taken. District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr. and District 5 Councilor Frederick C. Rushton had left City Hall after recusing themselves from participating in the debate on whether to require all Medicare-eligible municipal retirees to take a Medicare supplement plan for their future health care coverage.

Both Mr. Clancy and Mr. Rushton have immediate family members who will be affected by the outcome of the council's vote.

When Mr. Rushton learned after the meeting that the council had canceled its Aug. 7 meeting, it caught him by surprise.

"No one mentioned beforehand that this was something we were going to vote on," Mr. Rushton said. "Nobody contacted me about it or asked my opinion on it."

On Friday, Mr. Rushton challenged the council vote by filing for reconsideration of that vote with the city clerk's office. He was able to do that because no reconsideration vote was taken by the council the night before.

By filing for reconsideration within 48 hours after the council vote was taken, Mr. Rushton said it automatically puts the Aug. 7 meeting back on the schedule. He said he feels it is important that the Aug. 7 meeting take place because there has to be a discussion on how the city is going to bring its budget for this fiscal year into balance.

"We can't wait until Aug. 28 to figure out how we're going to deal with a $5 million budget deficit," he said. "We've got to face the music and make some decision as soon as possible. Now is not the time to go on vacation. The longer we wait, the deeper the cuts will be."

Mr. Rushton said if further cuts have to be made in the school budget, parents, teachers and school officials need to be made aware of it now, not after the school year has begun. He said the same is true for public safety, since recruit classes are planned in the Police and Fire departments.

"We can't wait until the start of the first day of school (Aug. 28) to talk about what we're going to do with this budget," he said. "I don't want to see us putting this off to the fall and then facing the prospects of pulling teachers out of the classroom after the school year has begun. That's unacceptable."

"We'll remember in September" was the mantra repeated by several retirees who addressed the City Council at its special meeting Thursday night. The speakers made it clear that if the council voted to require all Medicare-eligible municipal retirees to take a Medicare supplement plan for their future health care coverage, they would take out their anger on those who voted for it at the polls in the Sept. 11 preliminary election and the Nov. 6 municipal election.

"You're driving us to the poorhouse," one retiree told the council. "We will remember this in September."

While many councilors said they understood and sympathized with the concerns raised by retirees, they said they had to look at a much bigger picture.

"The vote on this issue is a profile in courage," said Councilor-at-Large Michael C. Perotto. "There are many individuals who are not going to be pleased with my decision, but I believe this is in the best interest of all taxpayers across the city of Worcester."

Councilor-at-Large Dennis L. Irish echoed that sentiment, saying the council has an opportunity to save several million dollars by requiring all Medicare-eligible municipal retirees to take a Medicare supplement health insurance plan. He said that will save those retirees who live in Worcester money in their tax bills.

"There's only one right decision and that's to adopt (Chapter 32B), Section 18," Mr. Irish said. "It will save this city millions of dollars in the long run. We've run out of good options and have to deal with this now."

Now that the council has voted 7-2 to adopt Section 18 - Councilors-at-Large Gary Rosen and Kathleen M. Toomey voted against it - it will be interesting to see what happens to those incumbents who voted for it when the September preliminary election rolls around.

Some candidates running for City Council took advantage of the special council meeting by using it as a soapbox to get some public attention.

Among those who addressed the council were the two candidates (Joseph A. Casello and Samuel Rosario) who are challenging incumbent Joffrey A. Smith for the District 1 council seat, and Grace L. Ross, who is seeking an at-large council seat.

Interestingly, both Mr. Casello and Mr. Rosario spoke out against the proposal to make all Medicare-eligible municipal retirees take a Medicare supplement plan for their health insurance, while Mr. Smith voted for it.

One city haller says City Manager Michael V. O'Brien deserves a lot of credit for securing City Council adoption of Chapter 32B, Section 18. In the days before Thursday's special council meeting, he said the vote was not only expected to be extremely close, but there were some signs that it might even go down in defeat.

"The manager really deserves credit for his Herculean effort in getting this passed," the city haller privately said. "There was no way I thought this would have gotten seven votes from the council, but the manager worked hard behind the scenes to shore up support for it. He did a heck of a job to get seven city councilors to vote for it."

NAME: WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL