As This Week in Worcester previously reported, three mental health organizations, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) of Central Massachusetts, NAMI-Massachusetts, and the Parent-Professional Advocacy League, filed a lawsuit on March 16 against the City of Worcester. The lawsuit claims that the city’s emergency response program discriminates against residents with mental health disabilities.
In short, the lawsuit alleges that the city’s practice of responding to medical emergencies with emergency medical response but responding to mental health emergencies with a law enforcement response is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Issues related to police response to individuals in mental health distress became part of the public conversation long ago. For example, in 2017, the mother of a 10-year-old autistic child called 911 seeking medical help for her son, something she hadn’t done previously. After her son had a reaction to medication and stopped taking it, the two had an argument in the family vehicle. The 911 operator told the mother that they dispatched an ambulance. Two police officers arrived at the scene first to find the 10-year-old in the vehicle.
The officers said that when they approached the vehicle, the boy screamed profanities at them and pounded on the seat and armrest. The mother says when the officers approached the car, the boy barely spoke to them and threw a bag of potato chips out of the car. She said the bag did not strike either officer.
Officers used force to remove the boy from the car, force him to the ground, and handcuff him. The incident left the boy with a broken arm. Neither officer faced discipline. The city settled the civil case for $250,000.
That wasn’t enough to warrant interest from the Worcester City Council.
Any time between the beginning of time and March 15, the day before the mental health organizations filed their lawsuit, would have been appropriate for the Worcester City Council to seek information about how the department handles calls to emergency response related to mental health. After an interaction with police left a 10-year-old boy’s arm broken would seem like an appropriate time. It did nothing.
Now, after the filing of the lawsuit, we find the following item on the agenda for the Worcester City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 31, from City Councilor At-Large and Chairperson of the City Council Standing Committee on Public Safety Kate Toomey:
“Item 10j
Request City Manager provide City Council with a report concerning the current process used by the Worcester Police Department (WPD) and Emergency Communications and Management Department when responding to mental health-related emergencies, as well as any initiatives, measures, or programs the City has adopted related to current process used by the Worcester Police Department (WPD) and Emergency Communications and Management Department when responding to mental health-related emergencies. (Toomey)”
The chairperson of each city council committee has almost total control over the business of each committee, including when meetings occur and the items on its agenda. With Toomey as that committee’s chair, it does very little. In its only meeting this year, on March 10, the public safety committee’s agenda had two items: a report on the ALERTWorcester program and a report on the Worcester Fire Department’s Public Education Unit.
That’s it. The meeting adjourned after just under 40 minutes.
With a decade as chair of that committee, Toomey’s interests are transparent. That committee operates as a promotional arm of the police department and, far more importantly, come election time, the NEPBA Local 911, the union that represents patrol officers in Worcester.
While a council committee may only take up agenda items forwarded to it by the full council, a horrible flaw that needs reform, we see with this order that Toomey could introduce those items herself. Performing no meaningful oversight over public safety agencies is a choice.
The other councilors share a significant amount of blame as well. They should be introducing items to the full council that fall within the jurisdiction of the public safety committee. With a majority of current city councilors receiving endorsements from the Local 911 in the election last November, they may vote such items down and prevent them from getting to committee.
Even if the council forwards items to the public safety committee, meaningful oversight is unlikely with Toomey as the committee chair. Yet Mayor Joe Petty has appointed Toomey as the chair of the council’s public safety committee for over a decade.
Forcing councilors to vote is still important. Sending items of importance to the committee is also important.
I’d petition the council myself, but the majority faction of the council has no interest in what the plebs want, so they don’t allow that anymore.
While I have no illusions that any suggestions will go anywhere, here is one item that should be sent to the public safety committee.
That the Standing Committee on Public Safety review all available evidence and hold public hearings related to the case of Natale Cosenza, who served 16 years in prison before his conviction was overturned, a civil jury determined two Worcester Police officers violated his constitutional rights, and the City of Worcester paid a $2 million settlement in 2025. Further, that the Standing Committee on Public Safety review all available evidence and hold public hearings related to the case of Dana Gaul, who remained held pending a murder charge for five months that was later dismissed and which the City of Worcester paid a $260,000 settlement in 2025. Further, that the Standing Committee on Public Safety issue a written report of its findings, including policy recommendations designed to prevent similar future occurrences.
While I have no expectation that a majority of councilors have anything but indifference to wrongful incarceration, they could at least try to prevent additional millions of taxpayer dollars being paid out to more people who forced to endure the consequences of their indifference.