By Tiffany Williams –
The issues facing Worcester, Massachusetts, are not part-time. The people who live here do not experience the challenges facing this city only when it is convenient for City Hall to address them. Small business owners do not operate their businesses part-time. Families do not worry about housing, taxes, public safety, schools and the cost of living part-time. Neighborhoods do not suddenly stop needing attention because the City Council is not meeting.
Worcester is the second-largest city in New England. It is a growing city with real challenges, real opportunities and real responsibilities. Yet when it comes to the elected body responsible for representing its residents, Worcester continues to operate with what too often feels like a part-time mentality.
That needs to change.
For years, people have debated Worcester’s form of government. There have been discussions about whether Worcester should move toward a strong-mayor system and away from the city manager form of government. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of that debate, and perhaps that conversation will continue.
But Worcester does not necessarily need to completely dismantle its form of government to demand stronger leadership from its elected officials.
We can start with the City Council.
The Worcester City Council needs to begin treating the business of this city like the full-time responsibility that it is. Being elected to represent more than 200,000 people should never be treated as something squeezed between other professional obligations. Residents deserve councilors who have the time, accessibility and commitment necessary to immerse themselves in the issues affecting this city.
Think about what Worcester residents expect their councilors to understand.
Housing affordability. Property taxes. Public safety. Homelessness. Economic development. Small businesses. Neighborhood development. Infrastructure. Traffic. Pedestrian safety. Schools. Parks. Public transportation. Development projects. Downtown revitalization. Quality-of-life complaints. Constituent services. City spending. Accountability.
None of those issues are part-time issues.
When a small business owner is struggling with permitting, construction disruptions, taxes or regulations, that business owner cannot simply put the problem aside until the next council meeting.
When residents are concerned about speeding vehicles on their street, abandoned properties, deteriorating sidewalks, neighborhood crime or repeated quality-of-life problems, those concerns exist seven days a week.
When a family is wondering whether rising housing costs will force them out of Worcester, that concern does not operate according to the City Council’s calendar.
And when taxpayers are funding a municipal government with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, oversight should not be treated as an occasional responsibility.
This is about more than the number of City Council meetings held every month. A full-time City Council does not mean councilors should spend 40 hours a week sitting inside City Hall holding meetings.
It means governing becomes their primary professional responsibility.
Councilors should have dedicated time for constituent services, neighborhood meetings, business visits, policy research, committee work, budget oversight and direct engagement with residents. They should be visible throughout Worcester, talking with the people affected by the decisions made at City Hall.
Councilors should regularly be walking through Main South, downtown, Green Island, Tatnuck, Webster Square, Burncoat, Lincoln Street, Grafton Hill and neighborhoods throughout Worcester. They should be meeting with neighborhood associations, business owners, nonprofit organizations, police officers, firefighters, educators, developers, renters, homeowners and ordinary residents.
City government should not only come alive on Tuesday nights.
And Worcester should be willing to have a serious conversation about compensation as part of that change. If we expect City Council service to become a full-time responsibility, then councilors should receive compensation appropriate for a full-time public position.
That also expands who can realistically serve.
Public office should not become something primarily accessible to people who already have the financial flexibility, employment arrangements or personal resources necessary to handle a demanding elected position while maintaining another career. A working-class resident, young professional, parent, small business employee or community advocate should have a realistic opportunity to serve Worcester without having to choose between public service and paying the bills.
But increased compensation must come with increased expectations.
If Worcester taxpayers are going to pay for a full-time City Council, Worcester taxpayers should receive full-time representation in return.
That means accessibility.
That means accountability.
That means constituent services.
That means stronger oversight.
That means councilors knowing what is happening in the neighborhoods they represent instead of waiting for residents to repeatedly bring problems to City Hall.
It also means taking ownership of the decisions made by city government. Worcester’s city manager may oversee the day-to-day administration of municipal government, but elected councilors remain accountable to the voters. The city manager form of government should never become an excuse for elected officials to surrender their responsibility to question, scrutinize and demand results.
The City Council sets policy. The City Council approves budgets. The City Council represents the public. The City Council has a responsibility to ask difficult questions on behalf of taxpayers.
That responsibility deserves considerably more than a part-time approach.
Worcester is no longer a city that can afford to think small about municipal leadership. The city continues to grow and evolve. Development is changing neighborhoods. Housing pressures are affecting families. Businesses are trying to survive and expand. Residents are demanding safer streets and stronger neighborhoods. Taxpayers want to know where their money is going and whether they are getting results.
Those challenges require elected officials who can devote themselves to the job.
We ask Worcester’s police officers to serve this city full-time. We ask firefighters to serve full-time. We ask teachers and municipal employees to show up every day and perform their responsibilities. We expect small business owners to open their doors, make payroll and deal with whatever challenges arrive that morning.
Why should we expect less commitment from the people elected to govern the city?
This should not be about attacking individual councilors. It should be about recognizing that the position itself needs to evolve with the city.
Worcester has changed.
The expectations of government have changed.
The responsibilities of elected officials have changed.
The City Council should change with them.
Maybe Worcester ultimately decides to keep the city manager form of government. Maybe the strong-mayor debate continues for another generation. But regardless of what happens with that larger question, there is something Worcester can address without completely restructuring municipal government.
Make the Worcester City Council a full-time governing body.
Pay councilors appropriately. Establish clear expectations for constituent services and community engagement. Strengthen committee and oversight responsibilities. Give councilors the resources necessary to research complicated municipal issues. And then hold every elected councilor accountable for producing results.
Because Worcester’s residents aren’t part-time.
Worcester’s neighborhoods aren’t part-time.
Worcester’s small businesses aren’t part-time.
Worcester’s problems aren’t part-time.
And the responsibility of governing Worcester shouldn’t be part-time either.