Council clears table for a rousing session of charter chatter.

Byline: Nick Kotsopoulos

COLUMN: POLITICS AND THE CITY

Worcester would not be Worcester without talk about reviewing the city's charter - the blueprint that sets up the structure of the municipal government and how it operates.

Just as Opening Day at Fenway Park is an annual rite of spring for many New Englanders, talk about changing the city charter seems to be some kind of rite for Worcesterites, especially for elected officials.

One would be hard-pressed to find another city where talk of charter review keeps surfacing time and time again, ad nauseam. It would be one thing if all that talk led to something constructive, such as change, but it seldom has.

It's been just that, talk. And what purpose does that serve? Not much.

Then again, this is Worcester, a city long synonymous with study groups, task forces and "let's talk about it."

Forget that city streets are in less-than-ideal condition, or that the city has an airport that has been without scheduled commercial airline service since September 2006.

Forget that there is inadequate funding for the public schools and municipal services, and that the much-ballyhooed CitySquare redevelopment project has been stalled for months.

And forget that city neighborhoods are under strain from the epidemic of mortgage foreclosures, that local public transportation is woefully insufficient, and that Worcester is increasingly becoming an unaffordable place for residents and business owners.

No, the City Council felt it was more important to talk about charter review last Tuesday night.

Good grief! Now, there's time well spent, NOT!

Mind you, that was the night the council received the monthly economic development status report from the city administration. Because just about every city councilor has proclaimed economic development to be one of the city's top priorities, the council sets aside one meeting a month to focus on those issues.

But when the economic development report came up for discussion Tuesday night, not one question was raised, nor was there any discussion about any project. In a bat of an eyelash, it was on to the next item.

So much for one of the top priorities in the city government.

Instead, the council spent time discussing an order seeking information from the Law Department on what processes are available to initiate a review of the city charter.

Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen, one of seven councilors who voted for the order and was its lead sponsor, emphasized that he and his colleagues are not out to make wholesale changes to the charter or push for a change to the city's form of government.

Instead, he said, they are simply looking for information on what avenues are available, should there be sentiment in the community to make improvements to the charter. The councilors believe it is time to "get a fresh set of eyes" to look at the city charter.

Mr. Rosen said he was prompted to file the order after hearing several suggestions from people while out on the campaign trail last year.

Among some of the suggestions he heard: eliminating the preliminary election, modifying the composition of the council in terms of number, staggering the terms of councilors, increasing the length of their terms to three years, changing the way in which the mayor is elected and even changing the form of government.

Mr. Rosen noted that the city's charter has been in effect since 1985, and that there has not been a significant citywide charter review since the early 1990s.

Supporters of the measure also argued that any charter review should be initiated by citizens and not the City Council - otherwise, such action could be perceived to be self-serving on the council's part.

Say what?

Let's see: These councilors say they are not asking for any kind of review of Worcester's Home Rule Charter, yet, they want to know how it can be done, because they feel it is time to get a fresh set of eyes to look at the charter. And they feel it shouldn't be initiated by the council, yet, they are the ones raising the issue.

Hard to argue with that logic - if you can understand it, that is.

If there is indeed a clamoring out there to review the city charter, then why aren't those people asking for this information?

When the item came up for discussion Tuesday night, the City Council chamber was virtually empty. Not exactly a groundswell of sentiment for charter review.

Things got even more muddled when Councilor-at-Large Kathleen M. Toomey, who also supported the order, said: "This doesn't mean we're going to do something. All it means is that we're going to discuss it."

Translation, please?

District 1 Councilor Joffrey A. Smith then went one step further when he said it would be irresponsible of the council not to be open to discussions on the charter. He pointed out that when the city charter was discussed some 25 years ago, he was only 2 years old.

"I wasn't old enough for the last (charter) discussion," Mr. Smith said. "It never hurts to have this discussion. I'm open to what the people would want. Let's have an open discussion on this."

Heck, none of us was around when the Constitution was drawn up more than 200 years ago, so maybe we should ask for a review of that so we can weigh in and maybe suggest some changes.

There's nothing wrong with having a charter review when people are asking for it. But unless I'm missing something, charter review is not a major topic of conversation in the community today. It isn't even mentioned in passing at neighborhood meetings.

Interestingly, of the four councilors (District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr., District 4 Councilor Barbara G. Haller, District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri and Mayor Konstantina B. Lukes) who opposed Mr. Rosen's order, Mr. Clancy and Mr. Palmieri have been big advocates of the so-called strong mayor form of government in the past and have been involved in previous charter review efforts. That is why some folks did a double take after hearing them chide their colleagues for bringing up the charter issue at this time.

"Why are we doing this now?" Mr. Clancy questioned. "What is so earth-shattering that warrants this review? The charter is not the council's document; it's the people's document. If people want to change the charter, let it begin with them. I don't see any groundswell for that. We have a lot on our plate as it is, and we have more to do than go into a review of the charter. This could become quite a Pandora's box once it has begun."

Given all that's on the City Council's plate at this time, if councilors are seriously interested in charter review, they may want to put it on the back burner, at least for the time being.

Otherwise, let the people drive that bus.

NAME: WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL