Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester committee to study charter-change options; solicitor to report on differences between review and home-rule routes
Summary
Committee members and residents debated whether to pursue a voter-initiated charter review commission or council-led charter changes. The subcommittee voted to hold the items and requested a solicitor’s report on the legal options and best practices from other cities.
The Municipal & Legislative Operations Subcommittee on Jan. 28 discussed multiple ways to pursue changes to Worcester’s city charter and voted to hold related items while requesting further information from the city solicitor.
The debate centered on whether to initiate a voter-led charter review commission — which the city solicitor said requires the approval of 15% of voters to establish — or pursue alternative methods such as council-initiated charter amendments or special legislation.
Public commenters urged action. Fred Nathan said he believed it has been about 40 years since the last charter review and said a review could address infrastructure and governance issues. Tom Marino warned that creating a charter-review commission by petition requires substantial manpower and funding; he said putting a charter change on the ballot via signatures can be costly and time-consuming.
“From everything that I can determine, to put a charter review election, have an elected charter review commission on the agenda, that requires 20,000 signatures,” Marino said; the committee’s city solicitor corrected the group’s description of the thresholds and said the distinct processes carry different signature and legislative requirements.
Councilors voiced mixed views about opening the entire charter. Chair Councilor Morris Bergman and others said opening the whole charter could lead to far-reaching changes and noted timing complications with election cycles. Some councilors said a targeted, piecemeal amendment route could be more practical for limited changes; others argued that a full review could be warranted if there is broad public support.
The committee voted to hold items 4A and 4B to allow staff and the solicitor to return with a written report that compares charter-review commissions, home-rule amendments, and special legislation, and that summarizes best practices from other municipalities. The chair also asked for a report identifying who is currently organizing any petition efforts and for examples of other communities’ approaches.
No final change to Worcester’s charter was approved by the committee at the Jan. 28 meeting; the matter remains under study.
