The Worcester City Council has jostled over speaking time during its review of the city’s annual budget for two consecutive weeks.
The debate appears to be about the duration each councilor can speak in the city council’s finance committee meetings. The finance committee is unique, as it includes all 11 councilors while other committees only include three councilors. However, other committees have no such rules.
Changes to the rules in city council require two-thirds of councilors to approve the change.
During the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, an item proposed the same rules that apply to the full city council on speaking time also apply to the finance committee. Councilors rejected the change.
During its Sept. 24 meeting, councilors voted to reconsider the item, and then passed it, after an amendment. Now, during finance committee meetings, the rules limit councilors to speaking twice on any one department allocation, for up to 10 minutes each time.
The city council rules provide each councilor the opportunity to speak up to twice on each item, up to five minutes each time.
Councilors Khrystian King, Etel Haxhiaj, and Thu Nguyen opposed the item, which passed by an 8 to 3 vote.
City Councilor’s Limited Powers
Worcester’s form of government limits city council’s power to three main areas:
- Hire and fire the city manager
- Pass ordinances (which it cannot write itself)
- Approve the budget (which it cannot amend)
When the city council receives the budget proposal from the city manager, it can only reduce the total budget. It has no power to amend any item in the budget.
City Councilor George Russell requested a report on amending the city charter to give the council the power to amend the budget. Should council pass an item giving it the power to amend the budget, the state legislature must approve it before it is enforceable. That change will not happen soon, if at all.
As currently constructed, the city council can only remove amounts from the total budget.
Let’s use an extreme example to illustrate the point.
If a future city manager included $500,000 in the public works department budget to begin the city’s own space program, city council can only reduce the total budget by $500,000. That city manager would have to adjust the budget, less that $500,000. In theory, the council would expect the adjusted budget to show $500,000 less in the public works department budget.
However, nothing stops that city manager from cutting other expenditures from the parks department and still spending $500,000 from the public works budget on starting a space program. Council can only do one thing: fire the city manager.
The Unique Opportunities of Budget Time
Each councilor speaking up to 20 minutes per department seems like a long time, but the budget process provides the unique opportunity for councilors to question department heads for what may be the only time all year.
Along with the limited power provided to the council, it cannot require any administration official to attend any meeting and answer questions. It must request the city manager allow that official to appear. If the city manager declines, the city council has only one recourse.
Fire the city manager, which is not realistic and could cause chaos across city operations.
In Boston, and other cities, the city council has the power to subpoena witnesses from the administration and ask them questions under oath. Issuing a subpoena for a witness is very rare. When it asks someone to appear, they do willingly, because they can be required to do so.
And when Boston City Council committees ask questions of those witnesses, they provide answers under oath.
In Worcester, city officials cannot be required to appear, and no one providing information to the city council is legally required to do so truthfully.
While the change in rules appears to be an attempt to limit the duration of long, sometimes painful meetings, it’s much more than that.
City council voted to reduce its own very limited power to conduct oversight of the city government, and its budget of over $894 million this year.
The structure of the city’s government, and the rights and powers provided to city council, are so far removed from good governance, it’s difficult to call it governance at all.
