Last week’s vote for City Council president ended in the election of Brighton’s Liz Breadon by a 7-6 margin. Brian Worrell of Dorchester, who cobbled together a unique coalition of colleagues, fell one vote short of winning the gavel.
His backers framed the defeat as a missed opportunity for the council to display independence from the mayor. Breadon’s last-minute “compromise” candidacy was animated by councillors who’d previously pledged their support to East Boston’s Gabriella Coletta-Zapata, who dropped out of the running the day before. It was a surprising turn since she had claimed in November that she had secured enough votes for the presidency.
But Worrell —along with At-Large Councillor Julia Mejia— rejected Coletta-Zapata’s claim to the Iannella Chamber throne. Mejia, in particular, suggested that Coletta-Zapata had pre-empted a robust and more public debate about who should serve as its next leader.
Worrell, who served as vice-president under Ruthzee Louijeune, presented himself as the middle-ground alternative. He’s hardly been a foe to Wu or her policies, but enjoys a rapport with the group’s more dissident-minded wing. So, after Coletta-Zapata’s withdrawal, he seemed the likeliest choice.
But, as many longtime observers of the bi-annual council contest can attest, it’s not unheard of for an eleventh-hour switch-up to upend expectations. Take 2001, for example. In that year, outgoing council president Jimmy Kelly engineered the election of Charles Yancey (the last Black man to serve as president) in a vote that stunned most everyone, including Councillor Yancey.
From left, in 2001: Peggy Davis-Mullen, Charles Yancey, Michael Flaherty, Jimmy Kelly, Mickey Roache, and Maureen Feeney. Bill Forry photo
At the time, Kelly was in one of his numerous pissing matches with Tom Menino, who had his own favored candidate, the late Brian Honan from Allston-Brighton. The Charles Yancey-ex-machina maneuver was a classic Boston “screw-you” to Menino and his allies, who regarded Yancey, a frequent Menino critic, as an annoyance.
The dynamics have changed a bit in recent years, since the council decided to change its rules. Council presidents can now only serve one two-year term and then must pass the gavel on to a new person. In part, the change was made to prevent the concentration of too much power under a single member of this 13-member body. Kelly, for instance, controlled the gavel for seven years until yielding to Yancey. Michael Flaherty held the top spot for several years after Yancey’s one-term tenure.
The term-limit rule is a reform that ensures that someone like Brian Worrell, who in our view presented an excellent case for leadership this cycle and should have been chosen, can mount a credible candidacy in two years without an entrenched incumbent in the way.
And while some have raised concerns about what last week’s vote portends for the council’s willingness to serve as a check-and-balance on the Wu administration, the heft of Worrell’s challenge suggests otherwise. One outcome of last week’s vote may be a correction, of sorts, in upcoming votes to send that message.
One note of caution to those who might get too caught up in the intrigues of this specific vote. The national headwinds that are on such stark and frightening display in Minneapolis should be top of mind. This elected council, this city as a whole, are very much in the same foxhole on a whole myriad of matters. Those urgent tasks, sadly, may very soon make this intense council contest seem a distant, if not fond, memory. The council shouldn’t wait for that moment to arrive to work together to ensure our preparedness.
