Worcester City Councilor Kate Toomey issued a statement on Monday, January 6, “to clarify for the public, and members of the City Council, the actual responsibilities of the (City Council Public Safety) Committee.
Toomey has led that committee as its chairperson for the last nine years, since 2016. The chairperson of each city council committee has exclusive control over what appears on the agenda for consideration by that committee.
The mayor, the chairperson of the city council, has unilateral authority to appoint the chair of each committee.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report on Monday, December 6, covering the findings of its investigation into the Worcester Police Department (WPD) announced on November 15, 2022. Find coverage of the findings of the DOJ report related to excessive force, or coverage of its findings related to sexual misconduct.
After the release of the report, the record of the city council committee responsible for the city’s public safety departments has come under scrutiny.
During its meeting on Tuesday, December 17, city councilors heard over two hours of statements from the public and municipal employees of the police department related to a petition by International Brotherhood of Police Officials Local 504 President Richard Cipro, its Vice President Anthony Petrone, and New England Police Benevolent Association Local 911 President Thomas Duffy.
Later in the meeting, during debate within the council on the petition and the DOJ’s report, Councilor At-Large Khrystian King described the Public Safety Committee as “impotent.”
Toomey specifically mentions King in her January 6 statement.
As This Week in Worcester previously reported, during Toomey’s tenure as chairperson of the committee with jurisdiction over matters related to the Worcester Police Department, no item related to police misconduct or citizen complaints about police has appeared on the committee’s agenda.
The Responsibilities of the Committee
In the first paragraph of the statement, Toomey says:
“The City Council Public Safety Committee is not, nor was it intended to be, an oversight board for the Worcester Police Department. As with all City Council Committees they have no authority over the day to day operations of the departments which fall under their purview. Those responsibilities lie solely with the City Manager.”
Toomey cites the Worcester City Charter Section 2-3 as the reference for this statement. That section of the city charter, the foundational document of Worcester’s city government, says:
“Neither the City Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his/her removal from, office by the City Manager or any of his/her subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of the city for whose administration the City Manager is responsible. Except for the purposes of inquiry and as otherwise provided in section 2-8 of this Charter, the City Council and its members shall deal with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the City Manager and neither the City Council nor and member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager either publicly or privately.”
To take up policy of the police department for review is not directing the hiring or firing of personnel, nor is it an act of giving orders to any employee under the authority of the city manager. Under Toomey’s leadership of the committee, it has taken up administration policy several times.
In the committee’s last meeting on December 4, item 3b reads: “Transmitting informational communication relative to the location of all the fire hydrants in the city. # 9.12B CM October 1, 2024.”
According to the minutes of the meeting posted on the city’s website, Toomey issued a chairperson’s order in response to this item, which it describes as:
“Request City Manager request Commissioner of Public Works and Parks to investigate and address the missing fire hydrant on Main St. at the intersection of Henshaw St.”
During the same meeting, the committee’s last, item 4A of its agenda reads: “Transmitting informational communication relative to a Worcester Rodent Action Plan. # 9.16A CM November 19, 2024.”
In response to this item, Toomey issued a chairperson’s order, which the minutes describe as:
“Request City Manager request Commissioner of Inspectional Services consider working with Worcester Polytechnic Institution’s (WPI) Major Qualifying Project (MQP) and/or Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) to participate in the Worcester Rodent Action Plan studies.”
In the committee’s previous meeting on November 20, item 3d reads: “Transmitting informational communication relative to ShotSpotter and Resource Router programs. # 19f CC September 10, 2024,”
Toomey issued a chairperson’s order in response to this item, which the minutes describe as:
“Request City Manager request Police Chief consider new methods of alerting residents about the anonymous crime tip line via ALERT Worcester.”
Toomey is correct, the council or its subcommittees cannot issue orders to the administration. Both can, however, review policy and make requests to the manager to take an action.
Toomey could have chosen at any point in the last nine years to take up, for example, the efficacy of internal investigations at the police department.
One option could have been to take up a report from the Bureau of Professional Standards, the internal investigation unit inside the police department, where their investigation found the officer at no fault, but the city later paid out a settlement in a lawsuit for violation of civil rights in the same incident. The committee could be critical of an investigation report where the evidence cited didn’t match the conclusion (there are several).
Toomey could have then issued a chairperson’s order to request the city manager request the chief of police to take an action. Just like her other chairperson’s orders.
Neither the charter nor the rules prohibit such an examination.
On May 14, a citizen petition to the city council requested the public safety committee, ” investigate the issue of systemic racism and public safety with public hearings included.” Toomey first moved to have the petition filed, meaning the council would take no further action on it. After that vote failed, Toomey moved to table the item. That vote passed.
In her remarks, Toomey said the committee had crime statistics on its next meeting agenda.
Since that time, the committee has met five times. Toomey has yet to motion to take the item off the table and sent to her committeee. Instead, the item appears under tabled items on every city council agenda as an embarrassing reminder of Toomey’s refusal to take up the issue.
Almost 150 items referred to the Public Safety Committee
In her statement, Toomey says that during her tenure, “almost 150 items have been referred to the Public Safety Committee from the City Council or the City Manager.” She also says that “over this same period over 300 items have been authored by the committee.
The authoring of items, she says, “would include items to be adopted as Chairman’s Orders and items that were heard and then recommended for filing or approval by the full council.” Not all those items related to the police department, as the public safety committee also has jurisdiction over the Worcester Fire Department, Communications Division, and Inspectional Services Division.
Toomey notes that “none of the almost 150 items referred to the Public Safety Committee were from Councilor King.” She adds that, “it appears that the Councilor who has called this committee ‘Impotent’ does not understand the working of the City Council’s standing committees in general nor specifically the Public Safety Committee.”
Toomey says in her statement that “in order for an item to be brought before the City Council Public Safety Committee it has to be from an Order of the City Council or reports that are brought forward from the City Manager for a review, public hearing and committee recommendations.”
She cites Worcester City Council Rule 47 to support her argument. That rule reads:
“The city council hereby establishes the standing committees as named in Rules Appendix B–Committees of the City Council. Such committees are established for the purposes stated herein and shall have jurisdiction over the items referred to it by the city council.”
Appendix B, item E, of the City Council rules says:
“Committee on Public Safety: to consist of three (3) councilors, to consider matters pertaining to criminal and civil law enforcement, public safety communications services and ambulance, first responder services in the city and inspections of health, safety and environmental stability of Worcester’s business and residential community.
Related City Departments and Divisions:
-
- Emergency Communications and Management Department
- Dispatch Division
- Emergency Management Division
- 311 Customer Service Division
- Fire Department
- Inspectional Services Department
- Building and Zoning Inspections Division
- Housing and Health Inspections Division
- Permits and Licensing Division
- Police Department”
- Emergency Communications and Management Department
Toomey is correct that city council committees can only take up items referred by the full city council. However, Toomey is a city councilor, and can introduce items to the city council agenda. The city council frequently votes to send orders from councilors to committee.
Instead, Toomey uses a public statement to deflect onto another councilor who doesn’t lead the public safety committee. She should answer why she’s never publicly responded to any controversy, violation of civil rights, unreasonable force, or other abuses of power within the police department, or done anything in her committee to try to address the problem.
Rather than attempting to shift the blame, a substantive policy position that exhibits bold leadership would have been welcome.
Accountability is Offensive in Worcester
The U.S. Department of Justice announced its pattern or practice investigation into the Worcester Police Department on November 15, 2022. That year was Toomey’s seventh serving at the chairperson of the committee.
Toomey expressed her concerns about the investigation during the city council meeting the same night.
It is unclear what Toomey hoped to contribute to that community meeting in November 2022. However, the Department of Justice held a community meeting on December 18, 2024, following the release of the report. Toomey did not attend.
Toomey’s suggestion that the investigation should be transparent defies common sense. Imagine demanding transparency into an investigation of the Worcester Police Department. They’d laugh, as they should.
That seems to be the misunderstanding. Toomey appears to believe there was a partnership between DOJ and the city. The city, and its police department, were the subject of an investigation. The city failed so totally, and so completely, to protect the civil rights of its people that the federal government stepped in to do it for the city.
The purpose of the investigation was to determine if there were systemic problems in the police department, and if so, to require the city to fix the problems.
Anyone leading a committee with jurisdiction over a department for nine years that becomes the subject of a federal investigation should expect scrutiny. They should welcome accountability, as they work relentlessly to deal with the problem.
In Worcester, accountability is offensive. In Worcester, we must never look back at our mistakes, but trust the same people who prioritized inaction and denied the problem ever existed for years to fix the problem. The people who have told us for years that the vast majority of Worcester Police officers serve with honor, but refuse to acknowledge evidence that suggests anyone may be in the dishonorable minority, now suddenly get it.
A Class Above
There are two classes in Worcester. The first, we’ll call the government class. This includes the majority wing of the city council, other prominent city officials and their prominent supporters, and some city employees, certainly including the employees of the police department.
The other class is the rest of us.
The differences in the experience of living in Worcester between the two groups was on prominent display inside city hall on November 19 when John Piccolo allegedly assaulted David Webb, a local activist and critic of city and police policy, by spraying paint into the area of his face.
Nearly 8 minutes earlier, Piccolo and Toomey share an embrace and have a brief conversation.
No evidence suggests Toomey had any role or any previous knowledge of the attack on Webb.
Despite being at the scene when police arrived, no arrest of Piccolo occurred. He walked out of city hall and drove away after spraying poison in a person’s face.
Now imagine the rolls were reversed. If Webb attacked Piccolo, is there any chance of Webb walking away?
Absolutely none.
When people, angry after being discriminated against because of their viewpoint and having their first amendment violated, stage a non-violent protest, it’s described as a “riot,” and the government class get police escorts out of city hall.
When a member of the government class conducts a gutless, cowardly attack on someone, using poison that could affect their vision forever, they too get a police escort out of city hall.
That’s the privilege of the government class.
If you aren’t in the government class and are attacked, or worse, by a police officer, you are out of luck. While the majority of officers act honorably, if you dare to say one is in the minority that doesn’t act honorably, they’ll depict you as a cop hating commie brainwashed by “anti-police sentiment.”
What they really mean: They protect theirs. The rest of us are on our own.
Toomey’s full statement appears below:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : 1/6/2025
Since the last City Council meeting in December there has been a lot of discussion about myself as Chair of the City Council Public Safety Committee and the Committee itself. With this release I would like to clarify for the public, and members of the City Council, the actual responsibilities of the Committee. First and foremost, the City Council Public Safety Committee is not, nor was it intended to be, an oversight board for the Worcester Police Department. As with all City Council Committees they have no authority over the day to day operations of the departments which fall under their purview. Those responsibilities lie solely with the City Manager. Reference City Charter Section 2-3 Prohibitions below.
Per the rules of the City Council and the City Charter the role of Committee Chair has jurisdiction over the items referred to it by the City Council. Rule 47 states “Such committees are established for the purposes stated herein and shall have jurisdiction over the items referred to it by the City Council.” This means that in order for an item to be brought before the City Council Public Safety Committee it has to be from an Order of the City Council or reports that are brought forward from the City Manager for a review, public hearing and committee recommendations.
Over the past nine years, since I became Chair of the Public Safety Committee, almost 150 items have been referred to the Public Safety Committee from the City Council or the City Manager. All of these items received before November 19, 2024 have been addressed except for one which was held at the request of a fellow City Councilor due to lack of information. Three new items will be addressed in the next committee meeting later in January. Over this same period over 300 items have been authored by the committee. The authoring of items would include items to be adopted as Chairman’s Orders and items that were heard and then recommended for filing or approval by the full council. Not all of these items dealt with the Worcester Police Department.
None of the almost 150 items referred to the Public Safety Committee were from Councilor King. He might have filed items that were referred to the manager and then sent to the committee as a report from the City Manager.
As chair of the Public Safety Committee, I have carried out all of the duties required by that committee in a timely manner as required. It appears that the Councilor who has called this committee “Impotent” does not understand the working of the City Council’s standing committees in general nor specifically the Public Safety Committee.
As per my responsibility as a City Councilor, any information that I have received about an employee under the purview of my committee I have informed the City Manager and the head of the specific department of the issue immediately, as per my responsibility per the Charter.
Reference Material:
City Charter Section 2-3 Prohibitions – Neither the City Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his/her removal from, office by the City Manager or any of his/her subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of the city for whose administration the City Manager is responsible. Except for the purposes of inquiry and as otherwise provided in section 2-8 of this Charter, the City Council and its members shall deal with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the City Manager and neither the City Council nor and member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager either publicly or privately.
From Rules Appendix B – Committees of the City Council
E. Committee on Public Safety: to consist of three (3) councilors, to consider matters pertaining to criminal and civil law enforcement, public safety communications services and ambulance, first responder services in the city and inspections of health, safety, and environmental stability of Worcester’s business and residential community.
Related Departments and Divisions
– Police Department
– Fire Department
– Communications Division
– Inspectional Services Division
Related Boards and Commissions
– License Commission
