It’s time for the Providence City Council to put a question before the voters to revise the structure of the council to provide for three at-large seats. Such a reform would bring fresh ideas and a more citywide perspective to a body that sometimes focuses too keenly on very parochial interests rather than on the common good for the greatest possible percentage of citizens of Providence.

One such plan is being pushed by the 12 plus 3 Coalition, a group of hundreds of local residents, including some prominent community leaders. The coalition seeks to change the current 15-ward system to one of 12 wards with three at-large seats — council members chosen by a plurality of the city’s voters, as is the mayor.

This is hardly a revolutionary idea. The Providence Charter Review Commission, after undertaking significant research and holding hearings, recommended such a mixed system of ward and at-large seats way back in 2002. Indeed, a mixed system is used in many cities across America, including in Cranston.

But there are always strong forces that grow up around the status quo in politics, and they have been doing their best to keep Providence from moving into the modern age. Now, however, seems a particularly good time to press hard for change, with talk of three council members retiring in 2010.

Time is running out for action in this election cycle, though. The council is slated to consider the 12 plus 3 plan at a 6 p.m. hearing tomorrow in council chambers at City Hall. The deadline for sending an approved resolution to the state to be put on the ballot is Aug. 6. And several councilors are complaining that there is too much of a “rush” under way to give the voters a chance to change city government.

Their delaying tactics are not in the city’s interest.

It seems clear that such a reform would improve governance in Providence. It would reduce the effects of narrow parochialism and local political deal-making and prompt the council to focus more on the general interest of the city. It would encourage attractive candidates who have the intelligence and ambition to make a case citywide — rather than solely in a neighborhood — to get involved in the process, thus building a stronger “bench” for future mayoral candidates. It might also encourage greater minority representation on the council, since voters scattered over different wards would be able to rally together behind a candidate who stood for their values and interests.

Instead of obstructing reform, the City Council should give voters the opportunity to decide this important question. Citizens who want a greater focus on the common good should call their councilors and ask for a vote on the plan this fall.

(An earlier version of this editorial had an incorrect time for the hearing.)