Worcester council to consider resolution opposing marijuana repeal question

The Worcester City Council will take up a resolution Tuesday, Oct. 20, urging residents to vote no on Question 8, the statewide ballot measure that would end recreational marijuana sales in Massachusetts.

Mayor Joe Petty introduced the resolution, which, should it pass, puts the council on record against the question and voices support for “a responsible and well-regulated adult-use cannabis marketplace.”

The resolution argues that repeal would put industry jobs at risk and cut off tax revenue that Worcester and other host communities collect from licensed businesses. It contends that demand for marijuana would remain after repeal, pushing sales to an illegal market that skips product testing and age checks. The document describes the council’s position as a preference for a regulated market and states that it does not endorse marijuana use.

Worcester has collected $8.54 million in local cannabis excise revenue since legalization, including $1.89 million last year, according to the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce, which endorsed the campaign against Question 8.

What Question 8 would do

Massachusetts voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2016, when nearly 54% backed Question 4. Question 8 would repeal the laws that allow licensed retail sales of marijuana for adult use, with the change taking effect Jan. 1, 2028.

Under the measure, adults 21 and older could still possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, including no more than 5 grams of concentrate, and give that amount to another adult, according to a Boston.com breakdown of the proposed law. Adults caught with 1 to 2 ounces would face a $100 civil fine and forfeit the marijuana.

People under 21 found with up to 2 ounces would pay a $100 fine, complete a drug awareness program and perform community service. Their parents or guardians would also receive notice.

The measure would end home cultivation, which current law allows at up to six plants per adult. Licensed recreational businesses could apply to become medical marijuana dispensaries, and the Cannabis Control Commission, which has its headquarters in Worcester, would regulate only the medical market.

Licensed adult-use businesses recorded $1.65 billion in sales in 2025, according to the commission, and the industry generated $289 million in state tax revenue in fiscal 2025. About 18,000 people work in the industry.

What a yes or no vote means

A yes vote would ban the licensed, taxed retail sale of recreational marijuana and change the penalties for possession, according to the official ballot summary from Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s office. Passage would make Massachusetts the first state to repeal recreational marijuana.

A no vote would leave state marijuana law unchanged. Licensed retail sales and home growing would continue under current rules.

Who supports and opposes the question

The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts leads the yes campaign. Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action, a Virginia-based group, supplies most of its money and has contributed nearly $3.5 million, according to WBUR.

Coalition spokesperson Wendy Wakeman said in a statement that the initiative lets voters decide whether the state “should reverse the commercialization of recreational marijuana.” Supporters also cite a Mass General Brigham study that found a nearly fourfold increase in cannabis-related disorders among adolescents receiving emergency psychiatric care.

The Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation leads the opposition and has raised $2.3 million. Gov. Maura Healey said she would vote no, and her Republican challenger, Michael Minogue, has said it is “too late to repeal” legalization.

Recent polling

Public polls show Question 8 trailing by wide margins. A University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll released in late September found 71% of respondents planned to vote no and 24% planned to vote yes.

A MassINC Polling Group survey for CommonWealth Beacon of 800 likely voters, conducted Sept. 14-22, put the no side at 61% and the yes side at 27%, with 11% undecided.

An August poll by the University of Massachusetts Amherst and WCVB found 55% of registered voters opposed or leaned against the measure, while 33% supported it.

The state election falls on Tuesday, Nov. 3. Early in-person voting began Saturday, Oct. 17, and runs through Friday, Oct. 30. Residents must register by Saturday, Oct. 24, according to the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office.

Worcester County police departments receive $939,751 in state road safety grants

Police departments in 41 Worcester County communities will share $939,751 in federal traffic safety money that the Healey-Driscoll administration announced Friday, Oct. 16, as part of a $13 million statewide package.

The Worcester Police Department received $59,649, the largest award in the county. Fitchburg ($42,640), Milford ($38,510), Shrewsbury ($35,036) and Holden ($34,767) round out the county’s top five.

Of the county’s 60 cities and towns, 41 appear on the award list. Royalston received $7,991 and Princeton $8,621, the two smallest awards in the county.

The county awards come from the Municipal Road Safety Grant Program, which the state Office of Grants and Research runs with money from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Statewide, the program delivered about $5.56 million to 191 police departments, and Worcester County departments took in roughly 17% of that total.

Departments can spend the money on traffic enforcement, pedestrian and bicyclist safety patrols, equipment, officer training and public education, according to the state’s announcement. The program ties award limits to population. Under the grant guidelines, departments in communities with more than 40,000 residents could request up to $65,000, while towns with fewer than 12,000 residents could seek up to $25,000.

Three county departments also won money through the State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grant Program. Fitchburg received $47,613, Lunenburg $19,538 and Millville $3,930. The Worcester County District Attorney’s Office picked up $65,750 through a separate program for state agencies.

“These investments will give police departments the enforcement tools, training, technology and resources they need to prevent crashes before they happen, address dangerous driving and ultimately save lives,” Gov. Maura Healey said in a statement.

“Safe roads are a shared responsibility, and communities need the right resources to address the challenges they see every day,” Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll said.

Kevin Stanton, executive director of the Office of Grants and Research, said the agency hears regularly from communities about the effect of the grants.

“We’re proud to provide local communities, nonprofits, and state partners the resources necessary to make Massachusetts roads safer for everyone,” Stanton said.

Jonathan Gulliver, MassDOT’s undersecretary and state highway administrator, said the grants support the state’s goal of eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries, pairing police enforcement with road design and education work.

The statewide package also includes $6.43 million for state agencies, led by $4.78 million for the Massachusetts State Police. Another $767,878 will go toward traffic records and crash data work, and four nonprofit groups will share $246,009 through the Community Traffic Safety Grant Program, which the state launched in 2024.

The Office of Grants and Research also gave 2,833 car seats and booster seats to 86 hospitals and organizations that serve families in need. Each participating organization must keep a certified child passenger safety technician on staff to perform car seat checks.

Massachusetts recorded 354 traffic deaths in 2025, down slightly from 363 in 2024, according to MassDOT’s 2026 Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation plan, which lists the 2025 count as a draft figure. The plan puts the state’s five-year rolling average at 381.6 deaths, the highest figure in data it tracks back to 2017.

The municipal grant period begins on or about Nov. 1 and ends Sept. 15, 2027, according to program guidelines.

Worcester County awards

Awards outside Worcester County

Worcester councilor seeks community forum on Amazon drones

The Worcester City Council will consider an order Tuesday, Oct. 20, asking City Manager Eric D. Batista to arrange a community forum with Amazon on its planned Prime Air drone delivery service.

Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen filed the order, which appears on the Oct. 20 City Council agenda. It asks Batista to set up the forum “as soon as possible” so Amazon representatives can give residents and business owners details about the program, which would launch drones from Amazon’s Westborough distribution center into portions of Worcester. The order calls for holding the forum in the part of the city the drones would serve.

A second Rosen order on the agenda seeks a city solicitor’s report on zoning changes covering drone launch sites.

Amazon’s plan

Amazon wants to build a 6,800-square-foot drone delivery center in the parking lot of its facility at 64 Otis St. in Westborough, the Community Advocate reported Aug. 23.

A service map Amazon showed at a Sept. 15 Westborough Planning Board hearing covers a 7.5-mile radius that includes parts of Worcester, MassLive reported. Amazon described the map as pending analysis. Neither the company nor the city has said which Worcester neighborhoods fall inside it.

Tareq Wafaie, an Amazon economic development policy manager, said at a Sept. 23 community meeting that flights could begin as soon as late October, the Telegram & Gazette reported. A residents’ zoning appeal later pushed the expected start to at least early November, according to the Boston Globe. The Westborough Zoning Board of Appeals hears that appeal Nov. 2. Westborough voters take up a proposed drone bylaw at a Special Town Meeting on Monday, Oct. 19.

Amazon has held a Federal Aviation Administration air carrier certificate for drone delivery since 2020. As of Oct. 18, the FAA’s drone environmental review page listed no assessment specific to Westborough or Worcester. A nationwide FAA review signed July 28 lets qualifying sites skip a local assessment, and Massachusetts joined 14 other states in suing the FAA over that review Sept. 28.

Neighbors raise objections

“I do not support bringing Amazon Prime Air to Westborough,” Westborough Select Board member Shelby Marshall said at an Oct. 1 meeting, acccording to the Community Advocate.

Shrewsbury Town Manager Kevin Mizikar told his Select Board on Aug. 12 that the town cannot control flight altitude or delivery corridors. On Oct. 13, the Shrewsbury Select Board voted unanimously to send Amazon a letter asking it to halt its plans. The letter seeks an in-person public hearing and published flight paths, among other demands.

In Hopkinton, Select Board member Matthew Kizner called the plan “a wildly hostile act” by Westborough at an Oct. 6 meeting, and the board voted unanimously to organize opposition, the Hopkinton Independent reported.

State Sen. Michael Moore and state Reps. Kate Donaghue and Hannah Kane asked Amazon in a Sept. 28 letter to pause the project. On Oct. 14, U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren joined U.S. Reps. Jim McGovern and Lori Trahan in asking the FAA and Amazon for a Westborough-specific environmental review with public comment.

Rosen told MassLive on Oct. 5 that he is “presently opposed” to the service.

What the order would do

An adopted order would send Batista a request. The city charter directs the council to deal with city administration through the manager, so the order would not require him to hold a forum. It also cannot compel Amazon to attend.

The council adopted an earlier Rosen order Oct. 6 asking Batista for a report on whether Worcester has authority to control or prevent the drones. The city had not released that report.

The council meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 20, at City Hall.

Lawmakers seek state task force, moratorium

Sixteen state legislators from Central Massachusetts and MetroWest asked Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll and Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell to form a task force that would review state rules for commercial drone delivery, in a letter dated Monday, Oct. 19.

The lawmakers also asked the state to stop any state agency from accepting or processing a certificate application from a commercial drone delivery operator until the review and any rule changes are complete. The letter does not name a specific agency. It lists the Massachusetts Department of Transportation as a copy recipient.

Moore, Kane and Donaghue signed the letter, along with state Sens. Robyn Kennedy, James Eldridge, Ryan Fattman and Peter Durant. State Reps. Meghan Kilcoyne, James Arena-DeRosa, James O’Day, David Muradian Jr., Carmine Gentile, Daniel Donahue, Joseph McKenna, Paul Frost and David LeBoeuf also signed.

The letter lists Worcester among 15 cities and towns that Amazon’s Westborough service could reach in whole or in part. It says constituents have raised concerns “related to noise, flight routes and frequency, operating hours, safety, privacy, drone cybersecurity, impacts on property values, and environmental impacts.”

The legislators acknowledged that Congress and the FAA control the nation’s airspace. They cited FAA guidance that states “have a valid interest in choosing where aircraft may operate on the ground,” and urged the state to plan takeoff and landing sites in advance. Converting existing ground distribution centers into drone hubs “deprives the state of any form of comprehensive planning or say” over where those sites go, the letter says.

The letter also says current zoning law “does not properly account for the interests of our local communities” in the delivery range outside the host town. It notes that DoorDash recently received its own FAA certification for drone delivery and says other companies “will follow Amazon’s lead.”

Amazon’s response

Amazon has not publicly addressed the Worcester forum request.

“Community and customer feedback helps to shape how we operate,” Amazon spokesperson Lindsay Hamilton told the Boston Globe on Oct. 14. At the Sept. 23 meeting, Wafaie said he had heard residents’ opposition “loud and clear.”

Editor’s note: The section related to the letter from state lawmakers was added after the initial publication of this piece.

Image Courtesy of Amazon

State wins $130 million for Springfield rail hub tied to Worcester line

Massachusetts will receive $130 million in federal money to rebuild rail lines and signals around Springfield Union Station, a project state officials call groundwork for future West-East Rail service between Boston and Albany, New York.

Gov. Maura Healey, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey and U.S. Reps. Richard Neal and Jim McGovern announced the award Friday, Oct. 16, in Springfield. The Federal Railroad Administration awarded the grant to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation through its Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI).

The money will pay for the Springfield Hub Modernization Project, a phase of the larger Springfield Area Track Reconfiguration Project. The work will upgrade track and signals to ease a bottleneck and cut conflicts between freight and passenger trains.

State officials said the upgrades will improve on-time performance for Amtrak’s Vermonter and Valley Flyer trains and open room for added passenger service. The Springfield area also holds West Springfield Yard, a major freight facility.

Markey said the latest award brings federal investment in West-East Rail to more than $280 million. MassDOT previously won $36.8 million to design the Springfield track project and $1.75 million for early engineering and environmental work there.

What it means for Worcester

The first new service in the state’s West-East Rail plans runs through Worcester. Amtrak’s planned Inland Route service would run two daily round trips between Boston and New Haven, Connecticut, with stops in Framingham, Worcester and Springfield.

Those trains depend on a separate $108 million CRISI grant the state won in September 2023 for track work on the CSX-owned line between Worcester and Springfield. With matching money from MassDOT and Amtrak, that project totals about $135 million. MassDOT signed its federal grant agreement Jan. 15, 2025.

MassDOT lists these components in or near Worcester County:

• 2.4 miles of new double track west of Worcester
• 3.7 miles of double track west of East Brookfield
• a 1.6-mile siding in North Grafton, plus a 600-foot connecting track to the Grafton & Upton Railroad yard, to cut the time freight trains spend stopped on the main line
• positive train control, a collision-prevention system, on the MBTA-operated Worcester Line
• replacement of the old cab signal system between Worcester and Schodack, New York, with trackside signals
• track speed upgrades between Worcester and Springfield

The state’s 2023 grant application said the work would raise the top authorized speed on the 53-mile Worcester-to-Springfield segment to 80 mph and reduce delays along 44 miles of single track. The application also said the improvements would shorten travel times for Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited, which connects Boston with Pittsfield and Albany.

MassDOT’s project timeline calls for construction to begin in 2027. The Oct. 16 announcement set 2030 as the start date for the two daily Inland Route round trips.

How the Springfield and Worcester projects connect

Inland Route trains leaving Worcester will continue to Springfield before heading south into Connecticut. MassDOT said in 2023 that its Springfield planning work complements the Worcester-to-Springfield track improvements, and that both support any future Boston-Albany passenger service.

The state also described the Worcester-to-Springfield upgrades as a necessary first step toward more frequent, faster trains on the full corridor to Albany. MassDOT won $3.5 million in August 2025 through the FRA’s Corridor Identification and Development Program to write a service development plan for that route. The plan will judge whether Boston-Albany service can work, recommend capital projects and set an operating plan.

Today, the MBTA’s Framingham/Worcester Line provides frequent commuter rail service between Worcester and Boston. CSX owns the line west of Worcester and serves as host railroad for the Inland Route work.

McGovern, whose district includes Worcester, said finishing West-East Rail would leave Massachusetts “better connected from Boston to Worcester to Springfield and beyond.”

Neal credited the 2021 federal infrastructure law, which he helped shape as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, for the federal rail money Massachusetts has received in the five years since its passage.

The Springfield and Inland Route projects fall under Compass Rail, MassDOT’s plan for intercity passenger rail across the state. Residents can sign up for project updates on the Compass Rail website.

Image credit:By Benjamin Turon – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Top candy by state: What Massachusetts craves before Halloween

Swedish Fish led Massachusetts candy searches for a second straight year, while Jolly Rancher took over the top spot as Halloween season neared, according to a new Innerbody Research analysis of Google search data.

Swedish Fish drew the most Massachusetts searches over the past 12 months. During a three-week window from Aug. 29 to Sept. 18, which Innerbody used to measure the run-up to Halloween, Jolly Rancher moved to No. 1 in the state. Nationally, Jolly Rancher ranked 13th over the same stretch.

The health research website ranked 34 popular candies by search interest in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Swedish Fish finishes 16th nationally for the full year.

The candy traces its roots to Sweden. Confectioner Malaco developed the fish shape for the North American market in the late 1950s.

Massachusetts shows less overall appetite for candy than most of the country. The state ranks 39th of 51 in total candy search interest. Innerbody found that coastal states clustered near the bottom of the list, with Hawaii in last place.

Sour Patch Kids leads nationally

Across the U.S., Sour Patch Kids drew the most search interest over the past year. Skittles, Snickers, Starburst and Twix round out the top five.

Utah ranks as the most candy-interested state, climbing from fifth place in 2025. Nebraska, last year’s leader, slipped to second. Midwestern states claim five of the top 10 spots.

Fruity and sour candies continue to gain ground on chocolate. Non-chocolate candy grew to 40.9% of U.S. confectionery sales in 2025, up from about one-third in 2015, according to the National Confectioners Association. The trade group reported record confectionery sales of $55 billion last year.

Halloween reshuffles the list

National searches shifted during the late-summer window as well. Candy corn jumped from eighth to second, trailing only Sour Patch Kids, and led in four states. M&M’s climbed from 19th to 11th.

Halloween falls on Saturday, Oct. 31, this year.

New England picks vary

Massachusetts’ neighbors spread their full-year favorites across the candy aisle. Connecticut favors Sour Patch Kids, and New Hampshire leans toward York peppermint patties. Tootsie Roll leads in Maine.

Rhode Island and Vermont both chose 3 Musketeers, which tops seven states, more than any other candy in the study.

Innerbody built its rankings from Google Trends data and national search volumes, weighting each candy by total searches. The results track online interest, which can differ from what shoppers buy at the register.

*Innerbody’s text says Reese’s and Hershey’s Kisses tied for the top spot in Pennsylvania over the full year; its map shows Reese’s.

Source: Innerbody Research analysis of Google Trends data. Full-year data covers Sept. 19, 2025, to Sept. 18, 2026. Halloween trend data covers Aug. 29 to Sept. 18, 2026.

Image courtesy of Innerbody

Worcester vice detectives arrest 2 men, seize 110 grams of fentanyl

Worcester vice detectives arrested two men Wednesday, Oct. 14, near Pleasant and Merrick streets after watching what police described as a street-level drug deal.

According to the Worcester Police Department, detectives set up surveillance in the area after receiving complaints about open-air drug dealing.

During the surveillance, detectives allege they saw Zachary Bailey, 38, and Darryl Ekeh, 37, take part in a suspected drug transaction, police said. The release did not list hometowns for either man.

Detectives stopped Bailey after the exchange and allegedly found several bags of crack cocaine and fentanyl on him, according to police.

When other detectives approached Ekeh, he ran off at a full sprint, police said. Detectives caught up with him as he tried to climb a large fence on Merrick Street and took him into custody.

Inside a cross-shoulder bag Ekeh carried, detectives allegedly found about 110 grams of purple fentanyl and 18 grams of crack cocaine, both packaged for sale, police said. Ekeh also had $2,882 in cash.

Police charged Ekeh with trafficking 100 to 199 grams of fentanyl, a Class A substance, and trafficking 18 to 36 grams of cocaine. He also faces one count of distributing cocaine and one count of distributing fentanyl.

Bailey faces charges of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He also had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, police said.

The law presumes both men innocent unless a court finds them guilty.

Possible penalties under Massachusetts law

The ranges below come from Chapter 94C of the Massachusetts General Laws and apply to a first offense. A judge sets any actual sentence after a conviction.

Darryl Ekeh

• Trafficking fentanyl, 100 to 199 grams: 8 to 30 years in state prison, with an 8-year mandatory minimum. A judge may add a fine of $10,000 to $100,000 on top of the prison term (Chapter 94C, Section 32E).
• Trafficking cocaine, 18 to 36 grams: 2 to 15 years in state prison, with a 2-year mandatory minimum. A judge may add a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 on top of the prison term (Section 32E).
• Distribution of cocaine: Up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or a combination of prison and fine (Section 32A).
• Distribution of fentanyl: Up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both (Section 32).

Zachary Bailey

• Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl: Up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both (Section 32).
• Possession with intent to distribute cocaine: Up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or a combination of prison and fine (Section 32A).

Penalties for the distribution and intent-to-distribute charges climb for anyone with a prior drug-distribution conviction, including a 3.5-year mandatory minimum for a repeat Class A offense.

Editor’s note: The information provided in this report is based on recent events as described by the police. The claims within are allegations by police, which may be challenged by the accused in court.

State fire board approves annual checks for recalled sprinkler heads

Massachusetts property owners must check sprinkler systems every year for recalled sprinkler heads under new rules that a Fall River fire captain proposed after the deadly 2025 Gabriel House fire.

The Massachusetts Board of Fire Prevention Regulations voted Thursday, Oct. 15, to add the requirements to the next edition of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Safety Code, which state officials expect early next year. Gov. Maura Healey announced the board’s approval the same day in Stow.

The fire at Gabriel House, an assisted living residence in Fall River, killed 10 people and forced more than 50 other residents to evacuate. Fall River Fire Capt. Joshua Hetzler brought the sprinkler proposal forward after the fire.

Under the updated code, sprinkler systems must undergo an annual check to identify any recalled sprinkler heads. Property owners who find recalled equipment must notify their local fire department and replace it promptly. Local fire departments may require additional fire protection measures until owners replace the recalled heads.

“The Gabriel House fire was a heartbreaking tragedy that devastated families and the Fall River community. We owe it to those families to do everything we can to prevent something like this from happening again,” Healey said.

She thanked the Fall River firefighters who brought the recommendations to the board.

State Fire Marshal Jon M. Davine, who sits on the board and voted for the sprinkler provisions, said the people affected by the fire remain on officials’ minds.

“The Gabriel House residents and their families have not left our thoughts in the 15 months since that tragic night in 2025,” Davine said. “Nothing can fill the void left by their loved ones, but I hope this makes clear to them that we are committed to saving other families from enduring the same heartbreak.”

“Strong fire prevention standards are essential to protecting lives and keeping our communities safe,” said Public Safety and Security Secretary Gina K. Kwon, who credited the Fall River Fire Department for the recommendation.

Local lawmakers also praised the vote. State Sen. Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport, singled out Hetzler for advocating for the rules.

“These changes will ultimately lead to saving lives and protecting our residents,” Rodrigues said.

State Rep. Carole Fiola said the regulations “will address gaps that were made evident in the horrific Gabriel House fire.”

Other Fire Code changes

The board approved several other updates at the same meeting. One bans welding, grinding and other hot work when winds exceed 15 mph and requires workers to renew hot work safety training every three years.

Other changes consolidate permitting and certification requirements and bring the state code closer to national standards while keeping protections specific to Massachusetts.

Earlier steps after the fire

The vote follows earlier actions the Healey administration took after Gabriel House. Healey convened the Assisted Living Residences Commission, which brought together families, firefighters, first responders, advocates and providers to look for ways to improve safety and oversight.

In July, the administration finalized regulations that require annual fire inspections and more frequent fire drills at assisted living residences statewide. The administration also posts compliance reports online and is developing disclosure rules to help families choose care for relatives.

The board dedicated the upcoming code edition to Deputy Chief Thomas J. Ferraro of the Billerica Fire Department and the state Department of Fire Services. Ferraro died of occupational cancer in 2025 after nearly 40 years in the fire service.

Massachusetts created the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations to write a statewide fire code after the 1942 Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire in Boston killed 492 people. The governor appoints its members, who represent the fire service, technical specialties, inspection officials and the public.

Complexity isn’t the issue, The Legislature’s dysfunction is

by Jay Kaufman, CommonWealth Beacon

A recent commentary piece by Senate counsel James DiTullio arguing that criticism of the Legislature’s productivity is misplaced because we are one of just seven states that allow for multi-issue “omnibus” bills drew considerable attention, including three op-eds written in response that we are publishing. In addition to the commentary below by former state representative Jay Kaufman, there are responses by Scotia Hille of Act on Mass and Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass.

In his commentary piece, “Critics of the Legislature’s productivity ignore a key legal distinction setting Mass. apart from nearly all other states,” James DiTullio castigates critics of the Massachusetts Legislature’s productivity for failing to see the virtues of the complex bills passed by our lawmakers. DiTullio, the counsel to the Massachusetts Senate, correctly points out that 43 states have a single-subject limitation for any bill to be considered, and Massachusetts – like six other states and the federal government – does not.

This distinction, he argues, makes claims that our Legislature is among the country’s least productive very misleading when based solely on a tally of the number of bills passed, since we are one of a handful of states that can enact omnibus bills covering many issues.

The complexity of our few bills tells us very little, if anything, however, about the quality of the bills or of the process that produced them. In fact, the complexity of bills covering multiple topics often only adds to the dysfunction and underperformance of our Legislature. And DiTullio never addresses the question that really matters.

For six of my 24 years in the Massachusetts Legislature, I had the privilege of serving on the board of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the professional association serving legislators and legislative staff. I came to appreciate the wide diversity of practices and cultures in our 50 states. That experience leads me to suggest that the right question to raise is how our practices and culture translate into the quality of work produced and the quality of the exchange of ideas and information, both within the capitol and with the public. By these metrics, the Massachusetts Legislature is failing miserably.

DiTullio overlooks the Legislature’s practice of assigning bills to a “study” – a euphemism for making them disappear – or the cynical and intentional exploitation of multipurpose legislation to control the pace and outcome of what, in a well-functioning legislature, is called debate and deliberation, the democratic process. We, the public, don’t get to see committees grappling with complex and difficult issues, taking public action, and then sending bills to the floor of the House and Senate for active consideration and a vote.

Instead, if bills don’t vanish into alleged “studies,” they head to the all-powerful Ways and Means Committee or secretive conference committees. From there, if they appear at all, they emerge changed and blended with other similarly disappeared bills into new bills which, under the Legislature’s rules or practices, are simply voted “aye” or “nay,” with no amendments considered.

These long, multi-layered bills, written behind closed doors, are almost always released immediately before the chambers are asked to vote on them, certainly without adequate time for legislators, much less the public, to know what is in them or give them due consideration.

Sadly, few members, lobbyists, or advocacy organizations are willing to speak out against this and risk the access and goodwill that comes with staying quiet. In the silence, the anti-democratic practices continue unchallenged.

Perhaps requiring single-subject bills would make the omnibus bill sleight of hand harder to pull off. Perhaps requiring that any bill sent to “study” lead to a real report – complete with a recommended action to be taken by a real deadline. This would result in manageable and realistic action items in place of what are currently thousands of faux studies.

But these, however valuable, wouldn’t begin to address the underlying issues.

Perhaps eliminating the Legislature’s much-abused and corrupting leadership stipend practice would weaken the Speaker and Senate president’s hold on members and encourage more independence of thought and action. Perhaps having a nonpartisan office for policy and budget analysis (as most states do) would enhance the quality of the work and empower members to better understand and evaluate proposals before them.

Perhaps it makes sense to curtail the pay-to-play culture the results of which can be seen in legislative leaders’ campaign coffers filled by those seeking access and influence. Perhaps Ranked choice voting and serious campaign spending limits would change who runs for election and who serves in our name on Beacon Hill. Perhaps term limits for legislators (leadership positions in particular) could undermine the wait-your-turn and go-along-to-get-along culture that encourages members to surrender their independence and power to the person at the top.

Each of these reforms would make a positive difference. Would any or all make the Legislature more effective, transparent, accountable, and democratic? Let’s dare to find out. Allowing multi-subject bills is an interesting procedural distinction that sets us apart from most states, but it’s a distraction from the real issues that should be at the heart of any evaluation of how our Legislature functions.

Jay Kaufman is a former Democratic state representative from Lexington.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Income gap widens across Worcester County as poverty rate holds near 10%

The gap between Worcester County’s highest and lowest earners grew from 2012 to 2022, while the share of residents living in poverty stayed at about 10%, according to a new report.

The Worcester Regional Research Bureau and the Greater Worcester Community Foundation released the analysis in October as part of their Insights Insider series on poverty and cost burden. The report draws on American Community Survey five-year estimates from the Worcester County Insights data dashboard.

The authors measured inequality with the 80/20 income ratio, which divides the household income at the 80th percentile by the income at the 20th percentile. Countywide, that ratio rose from 4.8 to 5.1 over the decade.

The share of cost-burdened households, those spending more than 30% of monthly income on rent or a mortgage, fell from 36% to 32% in the same period. The report said the two trends together may indicate that incomes in the middle rose enough to ease the county’s overall housing cost burden as the top and bottom pulled apart.

The income gap grew in rural and suburban communities and narrowed slightly in the county’s four cities, according to the report.

More residents in poverty, steady rate

Worcester County counted more than 3,400 additional residents in poverty in 2022 compared with 2012. Population growth in the tens of thousands kept the poverty rate roughly flat.

Statewide, the number of Massachusetts residents in poverty fell 3.71%, from 698,286 to 672,361. Worcester County joined Middlesex and Norfolk among four counties where the count rose.

The report sorts the county’s 60 municipalities into 33 rural towns, 23 suburban communities and four cities. The cities posted the highest poverty rates and the largest shares of cost-burdened households.

Suburban communities saw their number of residents in poverty rise by more than the combined margin of error, which points to a likely real increase. The rural count dipped slightly, within the margin of error.

Worcester carries the heaviest load

The report’s charts place the city of Worcester at the top of the county’s 60 communities for poverty in each of the three five-year periods it examined. More than 40% of the city’s households were cost-burdened in each period.

Newer Census figures show the same pattern. About 19.6% of city residents lived below the poverty line in the 2020-2024 American Community Survey estimates for Worcester, nearly double the 10.3% countywide rate. Worcester holds about 24% of the county’s population and about 43% of its residents in poverty.

About 42.5% of Worcester households spent more than 30% of their income on housing, compared with 32.9% countywide. Among renters in the city, the share topped 52%.

The city’s 80/20 income ratio reached 5.9, compared with 5.0 for the county. A Worcester household at the 80th percentile earned about $143,200 a year, and one at the 20th percentile earned about $24,300.

Those figures come from the same 2024 survey release the report used for its poverty map, and they do not compare directly with the report’s 2022 numbers.

Sharp swings town by town

In Barre, the number of residents in poverty grew 217%, an increase of more than 500. Templeton’s count dropped 60%, or about 600 residents. Both changes exceeded their margins of error.

West Boylston recorded the largest suburban increase after accounting for margin of error, rising from 234 to 547 residents in poverty. Fitchburg’s count fell by 1,700, a decline well beyond the margin.

Southbridge ranked high among suburban communities on both poverty and cost burden. Hardwick ranked high among rural towns in 2012 and again in 2022.

The authors cautioned that small towns carry large margins of error. Estimates for larger places such as Worcester and Fitchburg tend to run more accurate.

An east-west divide

A map built from 2024 survey estimates shows communities on the county’s eastern side, between Worcester and Boston, generally have lower poverty rates than those to the west. Northwestern towns post higher rates than southeastern ones, including among rural communities.

The report advises against comparing the 2022 and 2024 figures directly because their survey years overlap.

The analysis uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty definition, which applies the same income thresholds nationwide regardless of local costs. The authors wrote that families above those thresholds may still struggle with prices for food, housing and heat that vary from region to region.

Where to find help

The foundation highlighted several nonprofits that serve households facing financial hardship.

Worcester Community Action Council, the county’s designated anti-poverty agency, offers fuel assistance, financial coaching, tax preparation, early education and employment services.

Worcester County Food Bank distributes donated food through a network of 115 partner agencies across the county.

In Leicester, Deja New Leicester helps residents cover rent, utilities, taxes and transportation costs and provides free rides to nonemergency medical appointments.

Worcester DPW adds mechanics and brine trucks after eighth-snowiest winter

Worcester’s Department of Public Works heads into the 2026-27 winter with nearly three times as many mechanics as last season and at least nine brine trucks, up from three, according to a report sent to the City Council.

City Manager Eric D. Batista forwarded the report from Public Works Commissioner John K. Westerling in a letter dated Tuesday, Oct. 13. The report lays out changes DPW made over the spring and summer after reviewing how it handled last winter.

Batista put that season’s total at more than 6 1/2 feet of snow, with two blizzards and several ice storms. The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported 76.8 inches fell from December through February, the eighth-highest total for those months in city records.

“I know how frustrating the experience was for residents because it was frustrating for me too,” Batista wrote.

New equipment and staff

DPW expects seven six-wheel dump trucks with wing plows to arrive between November and February. The city will also receive a loader, a loader-mounted snowblower and four sidewalk machines, two of which can help plow roadways. Westerling wrote that delivery schedules remain a problem.

Crews spent the warmer months fixing existing equipment, and DPW is buying spare parts for components that failed repeatedly last winter.

The Operations Division hired seven new CDL-licensed operators, four mechanics, six laborers, three temporary laborers and a staff assistant. Offers to three more operators and another mechanic remain pending. Overtime stays voluntary unless the city declares a state of emergency, and DPW continues to look for ways to increase participation.

DPW also dropped its practice of sometimes skipping plows for storms that produce less than 2 inches of snow. Crews will now plow when conditions call for it rather than relying on salt alone.

Salt costs climb

The three lowest salt bids rose from $69.29, $69.86 and $72.90 per ton in 2025 to $72.24, $79 and $80.70 this year, an average increase of about 10%.

To stretch supply, DPW will calibrate every city-owned salt spreader this season. The department’s updated brine system came online in February, too late to use more than three trucks. This winter, at least nine trucks will handle pretreatment and deicing, and DPW is drawing up new pretreatment routes.

Training, software and contractors

An internal training program now has employees learning loaders, backhoes and sweepers, with plows, spreaders, sidewalk machines and brine equipment to follow. Crews will take a formal spreader calibration class this month through the UMass Transportation Center’s Baystate Roads program.

Two employees attended the American Public Works Association’s North American Snow Conference in Cleveland. Two others competed at the association’s National Snow Roadeo in Colorado after winning the 2026 Massachusetts Driver Skills and Training Safety event.

The city is also buying routing software that will track equipment in real time, give drivers turn-by-turn directions and let them flag road hazards. Westerling wrote that the system should help with missed streets and with tracking contractor hours.

DPW recommended higher plow and spreader rates to keep experienced contractors and draw new ones, citing rising fuel and insurance costs.

“We simply could not handle a major storm with municipal equipment and employees alone,” Westerling wrote.

A new Bagela BA10000 pavement recycler, likely based at the Millbury Street Recycling Center, will let the city make hot asphalt from reclaimed millings for winter pothole repairs and cut trips to Boston for material.

Parking crackdown ahead

City departments now plan to hold a coordination meeting about 24 hours before an expected storm. They aim to finalize decisions and public notices at least six hours before snow starts. DPW, the fire department and the police department will jointly decide when to lift parking bans.

Before the first storm, the city will launch a public education campaign on illegal street parking. Staff from several departments will leave warning notices on illegally parked cars, and stricter enforcement of year-round parking rules will follow. Residents can look up winter parking ban rules for their street on the city’s website.

Risks remain

Westerling wrote that DPW worries about regional salt shortages like the ones last year and is working to keep its storage sheds full. The number of large contractors in the region has also dropped. If gaps remain, DPW will prioritize main routes and pull larger equipment from secondary streets.

“I believe DPW is better prepared today than we were this time last year,” Westerling wrote.