Worcester Pride candidate forum 7/26

Update 7/27 – There was video posted of the forum; I am never able to get all of the comments from any candidate (and, I feel, I tend to write what I personally find interesting, which may not be what the reader would find most interesting) so I think the video may give a better flavor of the forum than these notes. Yenni posted a roundup of threads of the forum as well.

This is a forum for at-large city council and school committee candidates. I’ll type more (liveblog) when we get started.

(While we wait, I’ve been thinking about a better way to evaluate candidates than these sorts of political forums. What about a reality show with a mock city council made half of candidates and half of former elected officials? Three months and whoever gets Paul Clancy to agree with them the most wins.)

Council Candidates present: Bergman, Creamer, Hampton-Dance, King, Nguyen, Perrone, Petty, Toomey (are there enough seats for all council candidates???)

School Committee Candidates present: Mailman, O’Connell Novick

(There are various other candidates present but not on panels)

moderators are Lamar Brown-Noguera (Them/They) and Eric Roldan, LICSW (He/Him)

Candidate intros; I may skip unless it’s someone I think you may not be familiar with

Bergman wants to see everyone with a roof over their heads. Also homeownership

Petty is proud of what he’s accomplished – diverse accepting city

Hampton-Dance speaks softly and will now speak louder. Make residents stay here. Fresh eyes, fresh ideas. (That seemed awfully quick)

Perrone raised in multigeneration household by strong women, health equity, affordable housing, sustainable development, inclusive city, celebrating diversity

Nguyen – first Southeast Asian, first nonbinary councilor – they are the crowd favorite (so far)

King running to be your next mayor. Supported Yes on 3 for inclusive environments; in day job fought for foster kids to have equitable services

Creamer – community oriented focus

Toomey wants the same things you want: opportunity for housing for everyone, safe (or was it clean?) streets, good schools, etc

Novick: never more important to pay attention to who is being elected to school committee. (Come on, you know her, you love her.)

Mailman: what we do in MA, in every city and town, for schools, matters in terms of equity and inclusion.

Event rules: 3 minutes to answer questions, there will be time for audience questions or clarifying questions

Pride has been a movement, not just a party. The queers have always been informing you about how to stand up for yourself since Stonewall. Since anti-trans legislation happening across country, where are we in this fight?

School committee Q: comprehensive sex ed implemented; how as a candidate (or on SC) would encourage parents/students see 3Rs as a viable option?

Mailman: serves on Teaching, Learning, Student Supports – they review opt-in/opt-out; Molly McCullough is here and chairs that. Talk to parents & kids one on one to describe what the curriculum is. We are welcome to listen to suggestions to make people comfortable. They will need to see what the new numbers; they are watching on six month basis and doing whatever we can about better educating parents about what the curriculum is, not what they hear from unreliable sources.

Clarifying q from audience: why has it taken so long to move it through?

Mailman: the curriculum is implemented throughout the system; we are now watching the opt-in and opt-out numbers. We need to do a better job of parental education.

Clarifying question from audience (Kamara): curriculum is implemented, but parents need to know more.

Novick: thanks Bill Shaner for records request to show OML request that prevented this from happening.

Form to inform parents had part that they could sign/send back in to opt-out. Not required by law – but previous admin used it. We are no longer using this form and expecting a better opt-in.

Novick is asking Worcester to endorse new statewide comprehensive sex ed guidelines; on the agenda for August.

Clarifying q from audience: why the school committee is not having teachers educating parents after school on this?

Novick: what we have been doing at parents nights – when are family members actually available to come to those nights? Info not just available for when you go to school, but virtual options, translated in to many languages. Parents need to feel good about what their kids are learning.

Q from audience: if sc can organize a group for parents who may be questioning or queer? Is there something like that for WPS?

Novick: there are certain things we are required to have by law; we do not have a parent group like this yet. Our GSAs at the high schools need to better connect. Appreciates this idea.

Q about children’s identity at school, pronouns, sexual identity, not being discriminated against, etc.

Novick: one of 6 sc s in the commonwealth last year that asked state (in resolution) to take this into consideration because we will be a sanctuary state and needs to protect trans youth esp those moving here from elsewhere

MA policies about trans youth – protected class

Fed lawsuit against Ludlow schools because parents were not informed by school that kids were trans; this is legal obligation but we need to hold the line and continue to protect

Mailman: our teacher training is going to a different level this year. New diversity officer. Teacher training is critical; everyone is up to speed. Fortunate to have new super – these are the kinds of things she takes very seriously

Q to councilors about billboards the governor put up in other states. How to make this city a safe destination for queer families.

Toomey thought it was a great idea. We are all human beings and need to be treated with respect. Bring new ideas and businesses to our community.

Creamer: we need to hold our values accountable. We are an inclusive city, not easy to elect a non-binary person; in Worcester, a queer person is just another candidate. Continue acting on this – more than just commissions, give them a say and make sure listened to

King: elected officials – more than just rhetoric. One thing he has learned in city government is that you have to be intentional in your representation. He supported Yes on 3; as of last week, filed an order to ask for LGBTQ commission – those are direct actions to foster this. LGBTQIA aging population – this is a challenge; housing ditto. In his day job, has been very intentional about making sure gender affirming care provided to youth in care

Nguyen: I don’t enjoy being tokenized here. I don’t feel comfortable here, I don’t feel comfortable being called disgusting by the mayor, candidates who misgender me and say that we are a welcoming city. As your first nonbinary and Southeast Asian councilor, working on intersectional work – affordable housing – people need to be able to stay here. History says that Stonewall is about police accountability. Center the people that say what they mean and do what they mean.

Perrone: echos many of the things that are said. Goal as elected official is to be transparent with intersectional lens. Sanctuary city in every way shape and form – for undocumented, for gender affirming care, for those who are unhoused. How can we as city officials make sure that we are listening to queer constituents? Sees herself as being a leader and facilitator within the Latino community. We need to fiercely advocate for our young people; gender-neutral bathrooms to senior housing. We need to undo the harms of our ancestors and build a future for our youth.

Hampton-Dance: hearing action, taking action. Looking at council over the last few years. She knows wanting to be seen, wanting equity. Issue of funding. There are churches that people come to for refuge and set up in apartments. When it comes to council and Worcester, we need to provide funds for available services.

Petty has always been present in the lgbtqia community. Gentleman came here because of the church, young lady from Africa, left UMinn, some guy told her to come to Worcester. We needed to have a focus, evaluating city of Worcester at 100% (this is some sort of assessment). Film festival came here because we are accepted here. [This is a very rambling talk] He was on the council when we began gay marriage. People in Florida and Texas, come to the city of Worcester.

Bergman doesn’t think anything we say here will affect things; should use the social media to encourage people from parts south should come here. City doing much better with diversification in city workforce; in 1904 City of Worcester first elected a person of color and a Jewish person to the council. We have been fair in the past; we’re not always there – should continue our tradition.

Community q: King discussed policy. Would you consider LGBTQ+ community center? How would you support? Funding, etc.

Hampton-Dance: discusses support; 1 – funding, 2 – policy, 3 – support

King: will support any and all efforts. A lot of folks vying for different locations; money pot is only so big. But he is an ally – coming together, all ages and groups, is important. Willing to reach out to folks outside the city for additional supports.

Nguyen: need to shift our trust to invest in community groups. We have not done this in the past. With ARPA funding, some of them gave back because they wanted reimbursement process. Community with Clr King pushed the way we help/support grassroots orgs

Q: those less fortunate / chosen family concept. For SC: putting trust in local queer community to help foster safe spaces. How can SC work with existing queer institutions to provide support in schools? For CC:queer-owned businesses?

Mailman: current super has an office to engage with community. She has only been here a year.

Tracy has advocated for safe spaces in schools. There are people in the community who talk about the spaces to say kids are trying to get out of class. This is baloney. Strategic plan needs to have these folks at the table.

Novick: when Dr Monárrez started here, she came for festival season. She did specifically ask if WPS was represented at Pride. We have wraparound coordinators at schools now to introduce kids to resources in the community. Worcester has representation on the statewide GSA – that is our students representing at the state level and organizing at a larger level. How do we make sure students are supported in their efforts? Convo in budget this year – we support sports, what about our student affiliation groups?

(now on to the CC section – this is about support for LGBTQ businesses)

Toomey shows up. She goes to a lot of different businesses, some she didn’t even know were owned by LGBTQ people. Had a good convo with a trans person who could not believe Toomey was so nice to them. [I am not making this up, folks. The material writes itself] House Republicans voted down 3 LGBTQ support centers, one for MA, in a budget bill. There are funds available on state and fed level and would advocate for that.

Creamer is going to talk about the SC question because the mayor is on the SC. Need to listen to students and educators; current SC has done a great job with this. We are a city that prefers our mom-and-pop shops. We need people to know what it is to actually start a business. Resource needs to be provided by our city.

King: as mayor, will also be chair of the school committee. People want more than just people showing up, looking for action and initiative. The cc supported an LGBTQ commission, which can bring people together. Summit to bring stakeholders together to identify issues for the commission – he will ask for this next month. Let’s move forward and do tangible things on the municipal level. We need to invest in resources to support this community.

Nguyen: I work for a small business as a bartender. I know this issue firsthand because I work in a small biz. We see so many businesses open and close. Worked with small businesses during covid and saw the challenges. We need real people on the ground on council (is the only renter).

Perrone: how are we ensuring small businesses are incentivized to come to the city? Same attn to large scale investors should be paid to queer cultural groups. In terms of visibility, permit process very inaccessible. This is why we don’t have block parties. We do not need to make orgs jump through hoops – do it through grace and trust community orgs. Economic mobility – build back, need to have affordable housing.

Hampton-Dance: innovation, think outside the box. Put them in other places. I like to come up with solutions. Directory of all small businesses, have access to SBIA grant processes and someone to write the grants. Point of small business is to break generational cycles and create wealth.

Petty: small business is really a lifeline in the city. Right now, econ dev works with small businesses. Chamber has the same type of educations programs. On our website we have businesses that we suggest people buy goods from.

Bergman: as an attorney, he represents a lot of small business owners. Only 25% of small biz make it 15+ years; Worcester is no exception. Advocate for home ownership bc people can take a loan based on equity in their home. As long as we can do this in a respectful, non-tokenizing way. Polar Park has been good for small businesses in general. Go out and ask them – false narrative that it’s been bad. Block grants to go to LGBTQ

Community q: when mayor, how to make CM make things happen. There is a homelessness commission that has never been appointed. DEI commission resigned because of lack of action.

Petty: has always held the manager responsible. On homelessness, they meet on a regular basis. He talked about bringing people to his office with the manager.

King: These issues are deeply personal with him. His older brother experienced not being safe (being beaten) in the city. Despite what you have heard, cm does not have veto power.

Creamer: mayor should be chief advocacy officer. Doesn’t know if another commission is the answer. More than just another commission. Lived experience – always at the forefront of what he does.

Q on healthcare. Crisis pregnancy – how would you ensure that they are not misrepresenting as medical centers? (This is a long question)

Bergman: you can google his beliefs about choice. What can you prove and not prove about misrepresentation – he did a background check. One lawsuit against them. If they had deceptive practices proven, we can’t take that as proof. People need their day in court. He was heartened that the state is taking this up at the state level. We should be aware of our fiduciary responsibility of involving the city in a lawsuit. [A real lawyer’s answer…my favorite answer, I suspect]

Petty talks about this support for this, against any deceptive practices. We need to hold people accountable on all these issues.

Hampton-Dance. [Asks about what the heck the question is, in a nice way; this is a question about queer individuals and woman are protected against misrepresentation of medical issues.] If you do not provide those services, you should not say that you do. There are a lo tof agencies that do good work; everyone should get a sheet of what is and is not provided.

Perrone: crisis pregnancy centers and Problem Pregnancy are not health centers. They in their mission are deceptive. That we are waiting for more lawsuits…. [Note: Problem Pregnancy is not being sued] Workshop it on the council floor, create a task force…the things the city council has done for other issues This is harming queer young people in my community. If you voted on it, I want to see it delivered.

[Seriously, if you want to kill something, create a city task force, kids]

Nguyen: that’s not within your purview stuff, we are legislators, we are policymakers, we need to start acting like it. I was told on good faith to wait – in the year, there was a lawsuit. When do we decide to write policy and do what we were elected to do? Northampton, Somerville are moving on this even though they don’t have these centers.

King: we’ve heard about waiting. Healy called for a crackdown, millions to fight against these centers. We have folks who blocked public participation. We got threats about a draft ordinance, we’ve got nothing. If we can’t move as far as we would like, we need to move forward. Need new leadership. Human rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, sometimes a change in legislation is necessary. They overturned Roe, and we’re going to wait?

[Sorry, this is the part where I get punchy, kids]

Creamer: the reason why we are in this limbo is because the city of Worcester functions as a town. We need charter review. We need to elect a man that ensures that we have a charter review. Refer people to Planned Parenthood, Edward Kennedy Center, that provide good care. We can not be the second largest city in New England and not have a strong mayor.

Toomey: some of these facilities are not regulated. [Note: Problem Pregnancy is not licensed as a medical clinic by the state, but Clearway Clinic is] We need to ensure that they are and that there is oversight. That this item was held does not mean it’s down the tubes, just means we need more time to work together. Very often we use a hold because people want more information. No one on the council wants to support a facility with deceptive practices. Toomey acknowledges that crowd is not particularly happy with her response.

SC question: proper info in front of WPS students for healthcare.

Novick: having comprehensive medically accurate sex ed from kindergarten; you are much less likely to find yourself in a situation where you are fooled. We are working on that part. We have health centers in a number of high schools; what about access in centers – that would not fly under previous administration. We have opportunity under new admin to have marriage of education and providing services.

Mailman concurs wholeheartedly

Q from audience about state-level some places have this in place but don’t have pregnancy. Why do we let Worc Police do bad things and pay settlements and then excuse to not do pregnancy center

Toomey not a fan of paying settlements, but thought is that it’s less expensive. If we did it locally, state and federal law supersede local law.

Bergman: proactive of what could happen. Some lawsuits settled happened before he was a city council. But to be proactive to avoid lawsuits ; as did everyone else he took an oath to enforce the constitution.

Nguyen says there’s no draft ordinance

Bergman, the Learned Hand of this forum, says this was supposed to mimic exact ordinances that are unconstitutional.

A member of the audience says that slavery was also constitutional.

Some guy is talking about how nonprofits aren’t covered by consumer protection laws. He doesn’t know why the city solicitor thinks it’s unconstitutional.

[Everyone’s a lawyer here – only a couple have actual JDs. Hint: this isn’t consumer protection, it’s that you can’t tell someone to refer someone to an abortion if it’s against their religion.]

Sorry, I didn’t get the q but I think it’s about recruiting people? Or maybe the police? I’ll record interesting answers

Bergman says the police should be here (as a community liaison thing) – various pushback from attendees.

There was supposed to be respect for candidates, but people in back of me are especially obnoxious.

Perrone: police is one of our largest budgets. Has no doubt that there are wonderful people who wear the blue suits. Would not support increasing the city budget.

Nguyen: just because they are LGBTQ doesn’t mean they are on my side. Our liaison said queer folks don’t want body cams. Our skinfolks may be used in the system to harm our people. Not all skinfolks are kinfolks.

King: talking about how community meetings do not represent or reflect the community. Accountability, transparency, consistency.

Creamer: current liaison for LGBT on police paid from overtime. Needs to be changed. We wanted district councilors to bring people to events – more commissions not the answer. Leadership requires something outside of the box.

Toomey: Worcester has openly trans officer. They spoke very strongly about body cams. Derrick Leto felt it was important to have the body cams. Encourages people to go to neighborhood watch meetings. They list them all. [She is challenged by an attendee]

[I find it interesting that the neighborhood councils of the charter have been replaced by police-led neighborhood crime watch meetings…]

SC q: how to protect kids when they are in their communities?

Mailman: community schools has been discussed; many years under previous admin where community was pushed out. Strategic planning that concerns everyone. Some efforts and will continue to do more

Novick: thinking about being young in public. Our society criminalizes being young in public. Assumption that you are up to no good. Unspoken messages from schools about this. School playgrounds are open to public from dawn to dusk – you are not violating and not trespassing; she worked on this a number of years ago. These conversations should not happen at the neighborhood crime watch meetings.

Q to councilor Toomey. Tokenizing of queer people. You have to be careful with that. WHM multi-year project on queer life. WPD members would not go on record. Those who would talked about being left alone, not supported for backup.

Toomey looks at being out as a choice. Does not advocate for what was discussed – would talk with the chief to ensure this does not happen.

Q about investigating racism or inequitable conduct. There is one investigator for the city, his info is nowhere on the city website. How to use/expand mechanisms?

Creamer: major disconnect between council and manager and commissions and manager. Blames Plan E and wants charter review. We must look at budget. One investigator for a city of 200k does not seem enough.

Perrone: the office needs more resources and support, to investigate complaints. We need mechanisms to report white supremacy; last time it happened it was forwarded to the WPD.

Petty shameful if that’s the case (investigator not on the website), that will be taken care of

King wants a civilian review board. Works with Black Families Together to do equity audits in various city departments. We have a Public Safety committee that provides oversight. But only occurs in appointed advisory commission

Q: Community on Queen Street getting the worst of it because of wet shelter. Foster kids for when they come out in the community, Safe places for foster kids – don’t send anyone to Queen Street.

Perrone: CC can work with the SC for wraparound coordinators who support foster kids.

King: trauma of oppressed and marginalized has many manifestations. Public health issue. Worked to expand HHS for a social work position, need more positions of that nature.

Q: where do people stand on civilian review board?

Toomey: we have one at the state level

Creamer: we need one at the local level, HRC has the shell of it, we absolutely need one

King: Tracy Novick always says we fund what we value. To rely on admin to do this, we will fail every single time.

Nguyen – yes,supports, not an expert on this matter. Community members should lead on this and have their vision.

Perrone: subpoena power, not an advisory commission, need staffing and infrastructure within the city to make civilian review board have agency

Hampton-Dance: person of little words and big action. Supports eview board with subpoena power.

Petty: does not support Let’s see if the reforms put in place will work.

Bergman feels state board has more power – would not support

On evaluating the city manager

The past week has been very difficult; my brief re-entry to the blogging world coincided with Ray Mariano agreeing with me, so the fourth horseman can’t be far off.

As I said in my previous post, the city council needs to do a better job evaluating the city manager.  Let’s look at a few ways the city council could do this.

City Manager Takes the Lead

This is part of what happens today.  The city manager writes a long self-evaluation and the city council has its own form for evaluating him.  Is there overlap?  Definitely.  Is the city council giving any goals at all?  Not in the least.

This document combines the city manager’s self-evaluation with the individual councilor’s evaluations; the city council evaluations begin on p. 43:

20230627fib – Laserfiche WebLink (worcesterma.gov)

Let’s look at the first part of the council’s evaluation form:

1. Financial Management
A. Long Term Financial Plan
B. Budget Preparation and Management
C. Bond Rating
D. Energy and Asset Management/ESCO

So…hmmm…what was the city manager expected to do here?  Was he supposed to maintain or improve our bond rating?  Were there specific expectations for budget preparation that were met?  Were there benchmarks for a long term financial plan that needed to be met?  Who knows!

I could show the rest of the form, but it’s just more of the same.  It’s high-level categories, culled from a budget or the city website, with a request to evaluate if the city manager Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, Needs Improvement, etc.  What expectations?  Whose expectations?  It’s not clear.

After becoming city manager, Mike O’Brien created a five-point plan specifically for city finances.  (See O’Brien proposes a five-point plan for city finances, October 22, 2006, Nick Kotsopoulos, T&G)  He was smart enough to make the city council think they’d dreamed it up, and he was frequently evaluated based on how well the specific parts of this plan were going.

Whether he knew it or not, O’Brien had put together his own SMART goals, and he was successfully able to drive his own evaluations for his whole career as city manager.

Eric Batista could do the same; so far, there does not seem to be a great appetite or effort to change the city manager’s evaluation process.  I suspect that he could even start creating his own goals (“I met my goal of having 3 new library book vending machines”) and some councilors might be fooled into thinking they had set those goals themselves.

Individual Councilors Set Goals

This is the other part of what happens today.  The city manager writes and gives a verbal self-evaluation based on high-level topics (not goals), and each individual councilor gives their own written and verbal evaluation on those same high-level topics.  They can decide that anything was a goal, but there is no unity in their evaluation methods.

There are a few possible ways this could be improved:

Option 1: Each councilor gets two SMART goals.  

A sample goal: “By September 2024, provide city council with a draft ordinance to require crisis pregnancy centers to refer clients for abortions.”

Each city councilor would get their two goals (no vetoes).  Then the goals would be on the city manager’s list for the coming year, and these are the goals that are evaluated at the end of the year.

Option 2: In each high-level topic (“Economic Development”, for example), a councilor could submit up to 5 goals.  However, the goals would need to be SMART.  A sample goal would be: by July 2024, find three different methods for the city to acquire the Big D lot for redevelopment with recommendations and challenges for each method.  Provide quarterly updates with a final report due in July 2024.

In this option, the councilors would need to vote on the goals, with the top 5 vote-getters being part of the goals for the coming year.  The goals would be set shortly after the city manager’s evaluation is done.

Each City Council Committee Sets Goals

This would be somewhat similar to Option 2 above. 

Option 3: In this case, each city council committee would meet very shortly after the city manager’s evaluation to review proposals and (maybe) to have a hearing with residents to see what their thoughts are.  At the end of their session (or sessions), they would create 2-3 SMART goals related to the purview of their committee.

A sample goal from the Veterans’ Memorials, Parks & Recreation committee could be: “Improve water safety in the city.  By December 2023, begin training and recruiting lifeguards and water safety instructors for the coming summer.  By March 2024, present the council with a plan to provide swim classes every morning during the summer season.  By September 2024, provide a report of how many children were educated in swimming, with a goal of 500 children receiving at least 4 swim lessons over the summer.”  (I’d like to note that there can be stages and different sections to a larger, overarching goal.)

Summary

The Worcester City Council has not had a great evaluation process for the city manager.

With a new employee (=their only employee, the city manager), the council had (and still has!) the opportunity to change the process to something that is clearer and relevant to what the city needs.

What I’ve outlined above is not perfect, but any of the three options is infinitely better than what we have now.  I think we might need provisions for how to add a critical item to the goal list (with an upper limit on how many critical items can be added), and perhaps regular quarterly goal check-ins.  

But every single councilor needs to take this seriously — I hope someone will propose a real evaluation process soon.

Worcester City Council: worst boss ever

I’ve been thinking (more than I should) about the situation with a proposed crisis pregnancy ordinance in the council chambers, especially what happened on Tuesday.

This post assumes that you have some familiarity with this; if you aren’t familiar:

Worcester City Manager Scuttled Council Crisis Pregnancy Center Order, written by Neal McNamara in Worcester, MA Patch really precipitated much of the discussion.

Coverage by Marco Cartolano of the Worcester Telegram: ‘Why did you lie to me?’ – City Council debates ordinance on anti-abortion clinics (WPL link)

Coverage by Sam Turken at WGBH: Worcester councilors asked to regulate anti-abortion centers. It still hasn’t happened.

Behind Worcester and Easthampton’s struggle to regulate crisis pregnancy centers by Kieran Dunlop of masslive is an especially good summary, especially of the legal issues at hand

And a summary by Mark Henderson on Twitter.

Now, on to this post…

I’m a big fan of Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and any movie about a mutiny, and what I think they are about (especially The Caine Mutiny) is how one person’s perception of a workplace can be different than another person’s. (Also, in the case of Mutiny on the Bounty, to never take a job where you’ve never met the boss…but that’s another story for another time!)

So, rather than get into the legal aspects of this ordinance, which I am not expert on, I’ll talk a little bit about the dysfunctional workplace that got us to this point.

First, a good workplace

I have never talked about the work I do on this blog, but it’s a somewhat technical field that I’ve been working in for about twenty years.  I have a boss, who gives me direction, as well as a handful of customers who give me requests for work that needs to be done.

I frequently meet with my customers to decide which of their requests is most important.  I have a long running list and we review that list to make sure that my understanding of the urgency is accurate.

My boss also has requests that might involve a lot more of my (and others’) time.  Let’s use an example:

My boss tells me he wants me to work on Project X in July.  He asks me to review the proposal and then to create a project plan.

I take a look at the technical requirements for the project and determine that it just can’t happen.  I call friends who may have worked on something similar and ask them for their input; they tell me they’ve tried and failed.

So I schedule a meeting with my boss in September and tell him that Project X can’t happen.

My boss: “Have you talked to your friends at Y University?”  [This is something he frequently does ask me!]

Nicole: ‘Yes, I talked to them, and Bobo, the world’s expert, told me that Project X can never make it off the ground for [outline of the reasons].”

My boss: “OK, sorry to hear that.”

Months pass…it’s my annual review in June.

My boss dings me for not delivering a project plan for Project X.

But wait…didn’t we have a whole conversation about why Project X couldn’t happen?  Why would he want a project plan when I told him that this couldn’t happen?

And why didn’t my boss ever tell me between September and June that Project X was (a) still a priority and (b) going to be part of my evaluation?

Note: this wouldn’t actually happen.  

My boss and I collaborate on what my priorities are for the year.  We discuss them frequently, and if there is a change (a cancelled project, a new item), we discuss it like adults and rearrange the priorities.

I am then evaluated based on those specific priorities.

Then, a bad workplace

I’m going to tell you about a different workplace.

In this workplace, there are 11 bosses.

In the course of a week, these bosses can assign their employee (let’s call him Eric) any of a number of items, none of which are prioritized.  Eric has numerous people who work for him that he can assign this work to.

One of the bosses prioritized a work item, which 5 other bosses approved and assigned to Eric to work on.  Eric is technically supposed to finish any work item within 90 days, when possible.

This work item has multiple parts: (a) review language from other places and (b) draft something based on those other places.

Within those 90 days, Eric has a private meeting with that boss (let’s call them Thu) in which he tells Thu that part a is done.  The language from other places has been reviewed.  For a variety of reasons, part b can’t happen.  It’s unclear whether he ever hears about this from Thu privately, but it is clear that Thu never asks him about it publicly.

That is, until Eric is evaluated.  Thu then tells Eric that he didn’t complete this request.

But Eric had told Thu he wasn’t going to work on it, along with reasons why, and Thu never asked about it again.

In most workplaces, we’d consider this to be unfair.  If Eric has hundreds of items on his plate, and no one has told him which ones are more important, then it seems it’s up to him what to work on.  If he has actually communicated about this to his boss, and never heard “this is still a priority” in a formal way, then I’m not sure why he would assume it was a priority.

The Complicating Factor

Of course, the complication here is that the workplace is a public elected body, and the employee is the city manager.

I think there are a few ways to look at this:

1 – The city manager had not been in his job very long, and these private meetings were standard under the previous administration.  From my perspective, the private meeting could be a polite way to give complicated information so that the councilor could decide how to proceed.

The request for an ordinance only passed 6-5 (WPL link to Telegram article,“Worcester council votes on abortion rights”, Cyrus Moulton, July 21, 2022).

If the city solicitor contacted the attorney general’s office and determined this would be impossible to write without a first amendment suit, the city manager may very well have decided to bring this information to Councilor Nguyen.  Considering the request just barely passed, he may have actually been preventing political embarrassment (to Nguyen) for something that other councilors might vote down with the prospect of a lawsuit.

2 – If you have 11 bosses who never prioritize your work, are you going to work on something that only 6 of them want, or something that more of them want?

3 – Shouldn’t the city manager have reported this back to the whole council?  Shouldn’t the city solicitor have drafted the best ordinance he could, along with a legal memo outlining all the ways we could be sued?

I recommend you read the actual city council item:

Request City Manager work with the City Solicitor to review ordinance language in Somerville, Cambridge and Easthampton in an effort to draft a similar, parallel ordinance in the city concerning deceptive advertising practices of limited pregnancy centers and prohibiting such activities from being permitted in the city. Worcester should join Somerville and Cambridge in ensuring that any such establishment operating within city limits with a primary purpose of providing services to people who are or have reason to believe they may be pregnant, including mobile facilities, must either directly provide or provide referrals for abortions or emergency contraception. Said draft ordinance should be provided to City Council and the public.

There are two main parts to this:

1 – The City Manager should work with the City Solicitor to review ordinance language from various communities.  That part appears to have happened.  In fact, the City Solicitor asked for outside advice on this.

2 – Worcester should join two municipalities (who do not have crisis pregnancy center) to require certain things; this would be in a draft ordinance.

For #1, should the city manager have provided the measured opinion of the city solicitor before proceeding with a draft ordinance?  Yes.  He did this privately.

Should it have been done publicly?  I think yes as well.

For #2, should there have been an ordinance drafted?  I think no.  It makes sense to first ask for a legal opinion on the ordinances that exist in other communities, especially since the city councilors knew enough to provide the ordinances they liked.  The question of “could we have this in Worcester?” could first be answered and then the council as a whole could decide whether to proceed.

So, from my perspective, the Manager should have had the Solicitor provide an opinion to the best of his ability, reviewing the existing ordinances and the legal problems therein.  Then, he could have given the Council a decision on whether or not to proceed.  That is, I think, his only culpability here.

On the other hand, he let Councilor Nguyen know about this and was leaving it in their court.  It’s unclear to me why, after meeting with the city manager, Councilor Nguyen didn’t just request a public update after 90 days.  Rule 52 of the City Council (p. 76 of the pdf) is a bit unclear; a councilor can request a discharge order of any item pending in a committee of the city council, which would bring the item back before the city council.  It’s unclear what happens if something has been waiting for the city manager for 90 days, but Councilor Nguyen could have, and should have, let the City Manager know they were going to request a 90 day update publicly.

The city manager is not subject to the Open Meeting Law; he’s allowed to have private meetings that don’t otherwise violate OML.  If the council feels he’s doing too much work behind closed doors, without ever bringing updates before the full council, they need to first give him that direction and then evaluate him based on how well he is doing.

One way this could have been handled

I’ve heard rumors that a right-wing organization had sent threatening letters to the city council and administration warning of a lawsuit if such an ordinance were passed.

So, if there were concerns about discussing a legal opinion in the open council, this could likely have been discussed in executive session.

See the Open Meeting Law Guide, Ten Purposes for Executive Session, Reason 3 – Litigation Strategy:

“Discussions relating to potential litigation are not covered by this exemption unless that litigation is clearly and imminently threatened or otherwise demonstrably likely.”

Let’s imagine a conversation between employee Eric and boss Thu in September…choose your own adventure!

Eric: “We’re not going to draft an ordinance because we’re going to get the daylights sued out of us.”

Thu: “I think this is sufficiently important that the public needs to hear that, and I still want an ordinance.”

Option 1:

Eric: “OK, I’ll put that on the agenda for our next meeting and tell you why this is something we’re not going to pursue.”

Option 2:

Eric: “I’m not talking about this in public.”
Thu: “Well, I’ve taken an Open Meeting Law training, and we can discuss this in executive session.  I will request an executive session to discuss this at the next city council meeting.”

How hard was that?

What the City Council needs to do

No one likes going to city council meetings.  They alternate between really boring and very hostile, but ultimately, they are not effective.

If you’ve watched a few city council meetings, you’d be hard pressed to find any common theme or overarching priority that the council shares.

When we’d worked on having public comment at city council meetings more than a decade ago, it was because items might languish without being heard by a committee for months (if ever).  A public comment at the main city council meeting would at least give councilors a sense of the importance of an item.

Well, a decade later, we’ve never moved beyond that to what the next steps should be:

City council committees need to meet regularly.  If there are items pending, the committee should meet within 60 days of the request, or if there are so many items pending (let’s say 10).  

City council committees should be full hearings, where the public feels that they are heard and where items are discussed robustly.

City council committees need to report back to the council.  As anyone who’s watched a council meeting can attest, committee “reports” consist of chairman’s orders and other items that are voted on in a large swathe.  Unless a councilor was there or watched the meeting video, there’s little understanding of the way the conversation went.  And so – the public continues to not feel heard, both because their items may never make a committee and, when they do, there’s no sense of the work of a committee.

Other problem areas:

There is, still, a “city council agenda” and a “city manager agenda” – this reinforces the idea that the city manager is off on his own, doing his work, independently of the council.  This is not the city manager’s meeting, it’s the city council meeting.  One agenda.  If items are not submitted in time for Open Meeting Law requirements, they’ll just have to make the next meeting.  (No other Plan E government in the Commonwealth does this, by the way!)

The city council gives the city manager so many requests that it is impossible to complete them in 90 days.  This means that requests need to be prioritized on a regular basis (perhaps when they are past the 90 day mark).  In the case of this specific ordinance request, I am not sure that, given the split vote, it would be prioritized very highly, but it would be at least clear to both the public and the city manager what he should be working on next.  I don’t think it’s fair to say “you didn’t work on X, Y, and Z” when there are literally hundreds of items to work on and no way to distinguish which ones to work on first.

As I said above, there is no theme to what the council’s priorities are, and they change weekly based on current events and the whims of various councilors.  Each councilor should have 1-2 larger items they’d like to focus on for the year, and there should be one city council meeting a month just devoted to those items.

Council orders need to be clear.  The item in question had multiple parts, was disjointed, and had “effort to draft an ordinance” vs the command to “draft an ordinance.”  Ask for what you actually want!

The city council has sets of rules they need to follow (their own rules, Robert’s Rules in the absence of their own rules, the Open Meeting Law, etc.); the city manager is not bound by many of these rules.  Anyone who wants to play a game needs to read the rulebook; it’s unclear to me that some councilors have done that and know what their options are.  Outrage is not an adequate replacement for preparation or competence.  If your goal is legislative change, or compelling the executive to do something with your request, outrage and outbursts don’t get you very far.

Finally, the city manager needs clear priorities.  I am not sure how you evaluate someone on performance when you haven’t specifically told him the items you want him to focus on.  The evaluation process needs to be completely overhauled.  If you’re going to give the guy a hard time for telling his employee not to work on something, then you need to tell him WHAT to work on.  Otherwise, I think it’s fair for him to assume that 11 votes is a bigger priority than 6 votes.