The Battle between District and At-Large Councilors
Thursday, May 24, 2012
“Let’s be honest, in a district race you’re running in a much smaller pool of fish,” said District 1 Councilor Tony Economou. “I would venture to say as an at-large councilor you have a little more leverage. When you’re a candidate for office the question that is always asked is, what’s your stance on taxes?”
District vs. At-Large
Economou was the lone district representative siding with Mayor and Council Chairman Joseph Petty’s tax rate proposal that increased the residential tax rate 98 cents to $16.98 per $1,000 assesses value, while lowering the commercial-industrial rate by more than $5 to $29.08 per $1,000. He joined five at-large councilors in passing the new rates. On the flip side, just one at-large councilor voted in opposition, joining four district councilors.
“You can see they’re playing right to their constituents,” said local business owner Steve Vaillancourt, who along with his wife, Lisa, was among more than 100 people packing council chambers for the tax classification hearing.
No Pandering
One local political analyst doesn’t see a strong correlation between how councilors voted on the tax rate and the voters who elected them.
“They’re not really pandering to constituents,” said Dr. Ravi Perry, an assistant professor of political science at Clark University and GoLocalWorcester contributor. “I remember Councilor Joe O’Brien saying one time if you get 10-15 people calling councilors about a particular issue that is Worcester’s threshold for engaged citizenry. So if they are pandering, they’re doing so to 10-15 people, not the thousands of people they represent.”
City Councilor Philip Palmeiri talks to Councilor Sarai Rivera.
Protecting the District
A couple councilors made it clear they were on the side of residential taxpayers, including District 3 Councilor George Russell.
“The rate that I voted against will mean the home owner is being taxed more for a home that is worth less,” Russell said. “About 50 percent of commercial and industrial properties will see a substantial drop in their tax bill even with the current assessments because that group saw assessments drop or slightly rise. I voted the way I did because I thought it was in the best interest of the people of my district and my city.”
District 5 Councilor William Eddy saw “no justification to look voters in the eye and tell them why I’m raising their taxes.”
All the councilors insisted they had the best interest of the city at heart and were not voting to shore up their voting base. They probably weren’t lying, according to Perry, because the numbers suggest there are no voters for councilors to pander to.
Electability
“Because of low voter turnout in elections, none of the councilors has any pressure to make a decision other than what they want to make,” Perry said. “Councilors that feel pressured by voters, they’re going to go with what they perceive the public asks of them. But in Worcester, with the exception of (Tuesday’s) event and some others, city hall is usually vacant and voters are generally apathetic.”
One would, Perry continued, expect different decisions on major issues between district and at-large councilors, “Yet because of a disengaged citizenry and low voter turnout that does not hold in Worcester. Recent elections do not suggest that pandering or not pandering to either politicians or constituents has an effect on your electability.”
'More Holistic'
At-Large Councilor Michael Germain, however, acknowledged a link between district councilors and the way they might vote. He also said at-large councilors might look at things differently.
“Clearly, the goal of the charter was to have district representation, which means district councilors would be looking at day-to-day neighborhood issues, Germain said. “I would expect they would favor the lowest residential tax rate or go in that direction. At-large councilors are supposed to be looking at the city in a more holistic approach.”
Still, Germain saw no councilors “playing to the cheap seats” with their vote on the tax rate, saying, “I don’t think anyone’s pandering for voters. At-large councilors just look at things in a more fiduciary manner.”
The tax vote became a larger issue than catering to voters, according to Russell, who said, “(Tuesday’s) vote I think was more about commercial assessments and council's willingness, or in my case unwillingness, to ask the homeowner to pay more to offset those assessments. Either the assessor today or the assessor of years past was wrong, one or the other. If the assessor today is wrong the abatement appeal process will make corrections. If (past) assessors were wrong, homeowners have been overtaxed for years. I am sure that all of my colleagues voted the way they did for the same reason.”
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It