WORCESTER — The City Council’s Standing Committee on Municipal and Legislative Affairs met on May 1, 2025, for a wide-ranging session that tackled everything from election reform and retiree benefits to rules on political signage and safety concerns for public officials.
Before formal discussion began, Worcester resident David Webb participated via Zoom to comment on multiple items. On the proposed 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for retirees, Webb stated, “Anything the city can do to make it easier to be an older citizen is an improvement and I hope this body is able to move this forward without reducing its impact or changing the entire item to suit their personal or professional agendas.”
Webb also addressed the city’s election system, stating, “Regarding [Item] 4b increasing voter turnout in the 2023 election—where I believe less than 20,000 people out of a city of 200,000 voted—like all other Worcester charts, the Worcester voting chart overlaps perfectly with a map of the redlined neighborhoods in Worcester so this is an issue of equity.”
Councilors first addressed Item 3a, an informational communication from the Worcester Retirement System notifying the City Council of a proposed 3% Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) for retirees, effective July 1, 2025. City Auditor Robert Stearns said the Retirement Board voted to approve the 3% COLA on April 11 and explained, “we have built in the 3% COLA going forward and most of the COLA procedures are built into the statutes.” The committee voted unanimously to file the item.
Overview of city vehicle acquisitions since 2022
Next, the committee reviewed Item 3b, an informational update on all city vehicles acquired since 2022. City Auditor Stearns reported that 459 vehicles were acquired during that time, including 194 buses purchased with Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds—federal emergency relief funding provided to school districts to address the impact of COVID-19. Worcester’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Timothy McGourthy described the volume of acquisitions as atypical, stating, “This is a bit of an outlier period. The procurement of the buses is a first for the City of Worcester.” He explained that 224 vehicles were purchased for the Worcester Public Schools and emphasized, “This was a one-time major purchase. We will now see that kind of rotating through on a replacement schedule.”
In response to a question from Council Chair Morris Bergman, who asked, “What interplay, if any, is there with the issue of hybrid and electric vehicles, lower emission vehicles—does that exist with respect to the grant funding or any sort of policy the city now has in purchasing these vehicles?” CFO McGourthy explained, “All vehicles purchased by the city are in the routing process of approval by the Department of Sustainability and Resilience…to ensure it meets the city’s goals and objectives for either hybrid, sustainable, you know, long-term net carbon neutral.”
Rule 14: Councilor appeal procedures clarified
Council Chair Bergman then introduced Item 4a, an informational communication concerning Rule 14 of the Worcester City Council Rules. Rule 14 outlines the authority of the chair during meetings, including preserving decorum, speaking to points of order, interpreting the rules, and deciding questions of order. It also allows any councilor to appeal a ruling of the chair by making a motion during the meeting.
At Bergman’s request, City Clerk Nikolin “Niko” Vangjeli read the rule aloud: “The chair shall preserve decorum and order, may speak to points of order in preference to other members, shall decide all questions of order, and shall interpret the rules as necessary to conduct the business of City Council. Any ruling of the chair shall be subject to an appeal by the City Council made by a motion of any counselor.”
Councilor Donna M. Colorio raised a procedural question, asking, “Let’s say the chair says I want to send this item to MO [Municipal & Legislative Operations], and there are councilors that want to object to that or they want to appeal it. Do they appeal it right there on the floor or do they have to go through a different process?” Vangjeli responded, “They can appeal it right there on the floor. They can vote against it as well. Usually most of the votes are on a voice vote if everybody’s present in the room, and in that case, if there is an objection, the mayor does a roll call.”
(Photo credit: Screenshot via City of Worcester)
Colorio then asked, “So a councilor can say, ‘You know, I object to that. I would like that item to go to Education instead. Could we have a roll call on that?’ And that would be the process of appeal. It wouldn’t have to be a written appeal—it’s just a verbal appeal on the floor as we’re going through the meeting, am I correct?” Vangjeli confirmed, “Correct. So basically, it’ll be a voice appeal and in that case, the council can make a motion to send it to another committee—and this has happened in the past with members of the City Council—and then we take the roll call. If that fails, then we take the second roll call of the—you know—if it’s an item going to Traffic or going to Education or something to that nature.”
Colorio continued by asking whether Rule 14 also applied if a councilor objected to how the chair was conducting the meeting overall. Vangjeli confirmed it did, stating that any councilor can appeal procedural rulings made by the chair during the meeting.
Vangjeli added that suspending council rules—such as extending public comment beyond the 30-minute limit—requires a two-thirds vote of the full council. “If you want to suspend the rules, you need eight members of the City Council to vote in the affirmative,” he said.
Council Chair Bergman closed the discussion by clarifying that the purpose of the item was to ensure transparency and understanding of councilors’ rights under Rule 14. He then moved to file the item. The motion passed unanimously, with votes from Councilors Colorio, Russell (participating remotely), and Bergman.
Voter turnout challenges examined
The committee then took up Item 4b, an informational communication concerning voter turnout in the November 7, 2023 municipal election. Councilor Morris A. Bergman introduced the item by acknowledging the long-standing challenge of civic engagement. “We don’t seem to be able to come up with a solution that reflects what we’d like to see, which is a much higher voter turnout,” Bergman said.
City Clerk Nikolin “Niko” Vangjeli described Worcester’s election system as unusually complex. “Our elections—our local elections here in the City of Worcester—are special elections because of our school committee districts,” he explained. “The way we’ve now gone about changing the school committee districts and also interconnecting with the council districts, I can say without a doubt, it’s probably the most confusing election process to administer in New England—probably in the Northeast—because our lines for schools and council don’t match. But I think our expertise of the last municipal election proved that we can do it without a hitch.”
Despite the complexity, Vangjeli said the process had gone smoothly. He noted that complaints were minimal in 2023 and credited the citywide mailing as helpful. He added that over 7,500 residents had already applied to vote by mail for the 2025 election and emphasized the range of voting options now available. “So we’ve added so many more processes and options for the voters to take advantage of, it’s just they’re not showing up on election day,” Vangjeli said. “I tell people all the time, we go from a presidential election with 65% to 70% turnout to a local election next year, not a lot of people have moved in a year—just the interest does come down a little.”
Council Chair Bergman followed with a personal reflection on criticisms of the council’s commitment to democratic participation. “It always makes me shake my head when I hear people be critical of myself or my colleagues about our lack of interest in democracy or constitutional rights, when on a regular basis we ask the questions about how do we get more people to vote. There’s nothing more democratic or constitutionally protected than giving somebody the right to vote, and we struggle and struggle with trying to embrace how do we get more people to vote. And we never stop having that conversation. That doesn’t mean we have the solution, but it certainly defies logic to suggest that we’re not trying.”
Bergman also commended the performance of the City Clerk’s office, saying, “I rarely if ever hear of any issues that are attributable to you and your staff.” Councilor Etel Haxhiaj praised the city’s youth poll worker program, and Vangjeli noted that his office continues to consult with external experts, including researchers at MIT, on voter turnout strategies.
The committee voted unanimously to file the item.
Recount procedures and outcome explained
Next, the committee considered Item 4c—an informational communication regarding the costs and procedures associated with the March 5, 2024 hand recount of all Republican ballots cast in the First Worcester District race for Republican State Committee Woman. Vangjeli explained that the city was ordered by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to conduct the recount between candidates Lisa Mair and Joanne Powell.
The recount, which took place at City Hall, was Vangjeli’s first as an election official and involved roughly 7,500 ballots. He reported that it cost the city close to $11,000. “We did it actually in this chamber and part of in the hall,” he said, noting that around 30 Republican observers, in addition to state and local observers, attended—some traveling from New Jersey and Florida. “I did have people approach me afterward and say, you know, we’ve been observing even the George Bush–Al Gore recount in 2001—we didn’t see anything like Worcester did,” Vangjeli added. “So I was pretty proud of that.”
When asked by Council Chair Bergman what the vote total difference was, Vangjeli said Mair had 3,683 votes and Powell had 3,716—a 33-vote margin in Powell’s favor.
Bergman followed up by asking whether the recount was permitted based on the narrow margin. Vangjeli confirmed that under Massachusetts election law, a recount can be requested if the vote differential falls within 1% of the total votes cast, and noted that the proper paperwork had been submitted to initiate the process. “In that kind of race, you had to have a 1%, but also they filed the necessary paperwork to have that recount,” Vangjeli said.
City Clerk Vangjeli informed the committee that Powell gained additional votes during the recount as a result of ballot challenges reviewed by the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. He explained that ballots marked in a way that machines interpreted as votes for multiple candidates—referred to as “overvotes”—were initially recorded as blanks. During the recount, those ballots were manually examined to determine voter intent. “The attorneys for both candidates were making their case why it should go for either candidate and then the board decided,” Vangjeli said. He noted that certain markings—such as an “X” next to a candidate’s name or a bubble that had been circled rather than filled in—prompted reevaluation. “Once the board makes that final decision, it’s the final decision,” Vangjeli said. “The only thing that can overturn it is the courts.”
Councilor Colorio, who observed the recount, reflected on the experience. “It is an interesting process. My first election I had a recount and it was very, very interesting—very stressful,” she said. “I did attend the recount that you’re speaking about, and I have to say without a doubt, Niko you did a great job, Claire did a great job, everybody else involved did a great job. It was highly professional. I was very proud to say this is my city.” She added that visiting observers “couldn’t believe how well this went and how professional it was.”
Following Councilor Colorio’s remarks, the committee voted to file Item 4c without further discussion or action.
Legal limits on political signage clarified
The committee then took up Item 5a, an informational communication concerning the types of political signage and messaging permitted at public meetings. During public comment, Worcester resident and activist David Webb stated that he had brought a sign reading “Vote for change” into the council chamber at a recent meeting after pulling nomination papers to run for office. According to Webb, the sign led Councilor George Russell to raise concerns about whether candidates are allowed to display political signage during council meetings. “It was originally requested, as you all may remember, by Councilor George Russell in response to a sign that said ‘Vote for change,’” Webb said. “His objection was primarily that I had pulled papers to be a candidate for office and his question was, ‘Can people who are running for office display political signs?’”
Council Chair Bergman opened the formal committee discussion by emphasizing the issue’s constitutional dimensions, stating, “I know that there’s been some constitutional rulings at the Massachusetts state level regarding what speech is or isn’t permissible. This is a slightly different question, but it still nevertheless has First Amendment considerations.” Bergman then directed a question to City Solicitor Alexandra Kalkounis, asking her to explain specifically “the interplay between the signage and hanging signage up on City Hall.”
Kalkounis clarified the legal basis for restrictions on political signage inside the building, noting that City Hall itself is not considered a public forum under the First Amendment. She explained, “City Hall specifically is not a designated public forum,” and further stated, “so we don’t typically allow the hanging of political signs and electioneering campaigning activities.”
She referred explicitly to Rule 44 of the City Council’s rules, which states that “no sign or display shall be located within the rail of the council chamber,” and also cited a 2014 executive order prohibiting signage from being affixed to the walls due to the historic preservation requirements of the building.
Kalkounis provided additional clarification regarding appropriate locations for political expression, contrasting the restrictive setting of City Hall with more openly available public spaces. “A more public forum would be the public sidewalk back on the Common where you can rally,” she said. “There are certain city buildings such as the public library…that are designated for political purposes. People go rent them out and they can have any types of meetings they want there.” By contrast, she emphasized, “this chamber, by virtue of the fact that it’s not a public forum, allows the chair to regulate that activity.”
Councilor Donna Colorio then asked whether a sitting city councilor could display political signage during an official meeting. City Solicitor Alexandra Kalkounis responded that doing so would violate state campaign finance law, stating, “Regarding your question as whether a city councilor could hold a political sign—that would be a campaign finance violation.” She explained that councilors are considered “special municipal employees” during meetings and are “on the city’s time,” which subjects them to stricter conduct rules. Kalkounis also cautioned that wearing campaign-related clothing while acting in an official capacity could pose ethical concerns: “If you’re wearing your campaigning shirt and you’re somewhere representing…that you’re a city official, that might be considered an unwarranted privilege.” She added that it would be an ethics violation as well.
As the committee neared the end of its discussion on signage policies at City Hall, Council Chair Bergman said he was inclined to file the item, then asked City Solicitor Alexandra Kalcounis, “Is there anything more that should come out of this?”
“I don’t think so,” Kalcounis replied. “I think the rules in the existing City Hall conduct [policy] are there, they’re adopted, they’re applicable. If there’s an issue, then we have the existing rules that will apply.”
Bergman then asked the city clerk whether there might be a need to display signage about the rules or keep things as they are. The clerk responded that while it’s ultimately the committee’s decision, they could bring back a report on how other cities handle signage in council chambers.
Bergman moved to submit a chairman’s order requesting a comparison of Worcester’s signage policies with those of other municipalities. “Let’s see what, if anything, they do,” he said. He then changed his motion from filing the item to holding it pending that review.
The motion to hold was approved unanimously by roll call vote.
Councilors raise concerns about threats and safety
Shortly after Item 5a concluded, discussion turned to concerns about potential threats to city officials. Council Chair Bergman acknowledged a recent uptick in hostility toward public servants, particularly in the last six months. “My sense [is] there’s a heightened level of anger out there,” Bergman said. “A lot of times it’s toward people in positions of authority, and that concerns me deeply.” He added that even if there’s no legal obligation to report threats, “do I have a moral obligation? I do”.
Councilor Khrystian King supported the sentiment, sharing that he has at times alerted the clerk, mayor, and city staff about possible safety concerns. “It’s been six years or so, five years of a lot of things that I don’t talk about,” he said. “But I have had to inform the clerk, the mayor, the manager and council staff if I feel as though there could be a potential that they need to be aware of.”
Bergman concluded the exchange by initiating a chairman’s order asking the administration to clarify what steps are taken to notify councilors, school committee members, and other employees if credible threats arise. The meeting was then adjourned.
