In response to a public records request, This Week in Worcester received the text of each citizen petition to the Worcester City Council denied access to its agenda during calendar year 2025. The documents span 406 pages and include 133 denied petitions. The denials provided included up to Aug. 12, 2025.
A report delivered to the city council in April 2025, which listed denied petitions from January 2022 to July 2024, showed 66 denied petitions.
The current City Solicitor, Alexandra Kalkounis, received the appointment to the position of City Solicitor on Jan. 10, 2025.
When calculating by number of calendar days per rejection, the period between Jan. 1, 2022 and July 30, 2024, saw one rejection per every 14.3 calendar days. From Jan. 1, 2025, to Aug. 12, 2025, the average days elapsed per rejection is 1.75 days, representing an increase of 715 percent.
Seven Hundred Fifteen Percent.
When a resident submits a petition to the council, the office of City Clerk Niko Vangjeli receives the document. That office reviews the petition for compliance with the rules of the city council and defers legal questions to the Office of City Solicitor Kalkounis, an employee of the administration of City Manager Eric Batista. The clerk’s office then communicates the ruling of the solicitor back to the petitioner.
Many of the rejections are legitimate. For example, one petition submitted amounts to a bigoted rant by a person using a fake name and providing no contact information. Another resident wrote about the problems they have with a neighbor. Others received rejections via the city council’s Rule 30, which prohibits similar items from being raised on the agenda within 90 days of its last being heard by the council.
Others included spurious legal arguments, defiance of common sense, and relying on legal standards or rules simply created out of thin air.
Let’s look at some of the most ridiculous rejections.
Ordinances can only be Brought by the City Manager
In response to several petitions seeking the council to consider ordinances on various matters, petitioners received notice that:
“Ordinances can only be brought forth by the City Manager, either at the request of the Council or at the Manager’s own will.”
The solicitor did not include any citation to any statute or other document as a source for this wildly inaccurate claim, because such a citation does not exist. They made it up out of thin air.
In the Worcester City Charter, the foundational document of city government, Section 1-3 Distribution of Powers reads:
“The administration of the fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs of the city of Worcester, with the government thereof, shall be vested in an executive branch headed by a city manager, and a legislative branch to consist of a city council.”
As the city council is the legislative branch, it is the sole entity empowered to pass ordinances.
It is the practice of the city council to abdicate its responsibility to create ordinances to the administration, as the city council irresponsibly refuses to hire its own legal counsel.
This practice has no legal basis. Given the legislative functions are exclusively delegated to the city council, this deference should be viewed as a violation the city charter.
This practice also betrays core principles of American civics, including the principle of separation of powers.
James Madison rolls in his grave.
“Reach out to a Councilor…”
Several petitions instruct the petitioner to reach out to a city councilor.
- “Reach out to a Councilor to discuss your concerns to see if they are able to request the City Manager bring forth a specific ordinance.”
- “The authority to bring forward Resolutions lies within the City Council’s purview and jurisdiction. As a result, you should reach out to the Mayor/City Councilors to advocate someone bring forward the item in question.”
- “Requests for special recognitions, including the creation of special weeks in the city, are appropriately submitted directly to the Mayor/City Council, rather than the City Clerk’s Office in
the form of a petition.”
Again, the city manager has no official role in the process of establishing ordinances. Deferring the creation of ordinances to the executive branch is a practice of the city council. It is abdicating its responsibility.
Nobody petitioned the city manager. Nobody petitioned the city solicitor. The petition is to the city council.
The position of a Worcester City Councilor is part-time. Several work full-time jobs while serving on the city council. If they work first shift and you work second shift, and they decline to respond to your email, what should you do?
Go away. That’s the message.
Worcester residents have jobs, families, and stuff to do. They shouldn’t have to be lawyers to petition their government with precise language. They shouldn’t have to become lobbyists and chase around a city councilor to petition their elected representatives.
The petition is the outreach.
A city council that cared to enable residents to participate in this city government would forward such petitions, regardless of how poorly written, to the relevant committee. That committee could then return to the council the appropriate type of item, with its recommendation to support or not support the item.
Rule 30 Self-Own
A petition signed by 259 individuals submitted to the city council specifically addressed Oread Castle Park and the problem of needles found there.
On May 5, an employee of the city clerk’s office informed the lead petitioner that the item would be on the May 13 agenda.
On May 8, the clerk’s office contacted the lead petitioner again to inform them that the petition would not appear on the agenda, because similar items were added to the May 13 agenda. Another councilor planned to bring an item before the council on June 10.
During the May 6 meeting, two councilors issued orders from under suspension of the rules, which allows councilors to issue orders not already on the agenda. Those orders require inclusion in the following meeting agenda to comply with state law.
The two orders issued on May 6:
- ORDER of Councilor Khrystian E. King – Request City Manager request Assistant Commissioner of Public Works and Parks look to the National Recreational and Parks Association, for referential purposes, to consider devising a comprehensive response to the substance use crisis. – Item #19n CC Order adopted.
- ORDER of Mayor Joseph M. Petty – Request City Manager provide City Council with a report concerning ordinances and policies other communities have regarding needles stemming from substance use in their public parks. – Item #190 CC Order adopted.
The order expected to be brought by Councilor Luis Ojeda on June 10:
- Request the Standing Committee on Public Health and Human Services hold a meeting to consider devising a comprehensive plan to address the substance use crisis in the city of Worcester.
The conclusion of the clerk’s office:
“We are unable to place this petition on the upcoming agenda because it is similar in nature to items discussed this past week.”
There are two obvious issues here. The first is that these three orders have nothing to do with Castle Park.
The second issue: if these three orders are interpreted as all on the same topic, how are all three on the agenda? That clearly violates the same rule.
This is the city council making a clear statement: Rules are for thee, not for me.
The City Solicitor Controls how Councilors can Interact with Residents
I submitted a petition asking the city council to hold a public forum on the aspects of the Department of Justice pattern and practice report on the Worcester Police Department that are true, and request the City Manager and Chief of Police attend. The response:
“The power of the city council is generally said to be the power to make “sweeping determinations of municipal policy”, Gorman v. Peabody, 312 Mass. 560 (1942), or “to make new law” as opposed to the execution of laws already in existence. Moore v. School Committee of Newton, 375 Mass. 443 (1978). The legislative power is exercised by the adoption of orders, ordinances and resolutions. (city charter, $1-7(d)). Section 3-1(a) of the charter states the city manager “shall be the chief administrative and executive officer of the city responsible for the administration of all city agencies whether established before the adoption of this charter or thereafter, except that of the city clerk, city auditor, or any official appointed by the governor or any body elected by the voters of the city.”
I didn’t ask them to do anything but talk to residents about the report.
I knew this council would never vote to approve this petition. The six-member majority of the council, the protect bad cops caucus, would have done anything in response to the report if they cared to. They don’t.
Instead, the solicitor protected them from taking a tough vote with this nonsense drivel.
Be on notice, councilors. You may not have a public forum without permission from the monarch, the city manager. I guess these election forums happening right now are unlawful, according to the city solicitor.
Only the City Manager can Create Boards, Departments
Several items request boards or departments created, or adjustments made to them.
Petitioners are told that only the city manager can create boards or departments. Somehow, boards and the structure of city government are both represented in city ordinances, which are, again, solely the responsibility of the city council.
Notably, the city solicitor provides no citations for these rulings.
The only reference I could find is the City Charter, section 6-1 Reorganization of City Agencies. In subsection (a):
Submission – The city manager may from time to time prepare and submit to the city council reorganization plans which may, subject to applicable provisions of the general laws and this charter, reorganize, consolidate or abolish any city agency, in whole or in part, or establish new city agencies, as he/she deems necessary or expedient. Any such reorganization plan shall be accompanied by an explanatory message when submitted.
Subsection (b) then requires the approval of the reorganization plan by the city council.
Only if you interpret the word “reorganization” as “any change to city agencies” could you arrive at the conclusion that any change to the structure of city government must originate from the city manager.
The charter also makes no distinction that such reorganization must originate with the manager. It explicitly says the manager “may from time to time prepare and submit” reorganization plans.
I also find no reference to the creation of boards and commissions in the city charter.
Interpretations like this are why people loathe lawyers.
There is a place where disputes of interpretation of law can be adjudicated, the Worcester District Courthouse on Main Street.
The chief executive of city government, the city manager, is appointed and has no veto power. If the administration wishes to contest the application of the law by city council, I’m sure it can find the courthouse. The city spends enough time in court, mostly losing. It should know where it is.
The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy
In October 2024, the city council changed its interpretation of the rules within a 48-hour period, without changing any of the words in the rule, to avoid voting on a resolution that asked them to say both terrorism and starving kids to death is bad. It also asked the council to state it believes that the federal government should follow federal law.
The mayor declared that only items within “the council’s purview” would be permitted on the agenda, despite the city council taking up such resolutions throughout the city’s history. Resolutions of this sort are taken up in city and town councils across the country.
As the city solicitor jumps through hoops to deny residents the ability to petition their government for redress, a core principle of American governance that this council has abandoned, one petition managed make it onto the Dec. 17 agenda.
“request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice release and present in a public forum the full investigatory report, specifically to what the DOJ states are “creditable allegations” of criminal sexual misconduct alleged to be committed by members of the Worcester Police Department. Further, request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice include the dates, times and names of all individuals alleged to have committed the stated misconduct and/or potential criminal activity.”
I have no problem with the petitioners bringing this petition to the council. I believe residents should be able to petition their elected representatives.
Weeks later, this petition, which explicitly asks for the city to request the federal government break federal law, which is clearly outside the council’s purview, was included on the agenda (federal law prohibits the disclosure of the identities of any victim or law enforcement officer in connection with pattern and practice investigations).
It wasn’t an oversight. It was placed on the agenda because the petitioners were police union officials.
Worcester residents should take note of the message this council majority has sent to you.
This government of the big town of Worcester is a big club, and you ain’t in it.
I am thoroughly disgusted. You should be too.
