Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:45 pm

March 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

It is expected that Mayor David Maher will announce the City Council committee appointments either tonight or tomorrow. Let’s hope the persons most suitable to the tasks at hand find their way into leadership positions on these various committees (see March 1 notes below for elaboration). The City Manager’s Agenda is relatively routine this week, but there are a few notable Resolutions and Orders:

Resolution #5. Retirement of Marsha Weinerman from the Election Commission.   Mayor Maher

Though I have not always enjoyed the friendliest relations with Marsha during her time at the Election Commission, in the end it’s fair to say that she always tried to make the operation as professional as possible and was open to constructive suggestions even from the likes of me. In addition, when controversies arose over errors in the voter lists or what activities were permitted at the polls, she was always quick to defend her staff and take the heat – even when the national press chose to make a federal case out of relatively small and understandable missteps. I’m glad that as she leaves the job, she and I have managed to attain some level of mutual respect.

Order #5. Availability of public meeting space at the Cambridge Main Library and other library related issues.   Councillor Kelley

Though Councillor Kelley is well known for his frequent requests for information, often of questionable value and requiring substantial staff time, this particular request is of some interest. The new Main Library has become a very popular place and with this success has come some perhaps unintended consequences. Kelley’s Order notes that some staff from the various branch libraries have been needed at the Main Library with resulting decreased service at the branches (at least according to the Order). Councillor Kelley also asks about the availability of public meeting rooms and the new café space. Access to Library space is of some interest to me as a teacher who occasionally needs to arrange for makeup exams for a few students, and the Library is a great location for miscellaneous tasks such as this. Though not in Kelley’s Order, I would like to know if the room that houses the Cambridge history collection is open yet or when it will become open to the public.

I’m especially intrigued by this line in Kelley’s Order: “WHEREAS: Coping with the influx of high school students at various parts of the day has proven to be somewhat problematic.” High school students using the Library is a good thing to be sure, but perhaps there can be too much of a good thing.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to convene a meeting of various stakeholders in the Central Square community for the purpose of discussing and reviewing current action plans for Central Square.   Councillor Reeves

This Order is both necessary and timely. Anyone passing through Central Square today is struck by the number of commercial vacancies. This includes a number of properties that have remained vacant for several years now – perhaps most notably the MIT-owned space next to the new theater and the recently vacated space previously occupied by Pearl Art. A recent Council Order (with a response this week) inquired about making some of these vacant spaces temporarily available to various nonprofit groups. Though a nice sentiment, this is a distraction from the more serious challenge of attracting good, economically sustainable businesses to Central Square with a spectrum of spaces and rents that will ensure an economically diverse mix of businesses that match the needs and interests of residents in the greater Central Square area. This should not be about temporary solutions.

Councillor Reeves’ Order also makes note of the never-ending presence of people in the Square engaged in substance abuse and other problematic behavior. However, as long as the City directly or indirectly concentrates most of its shelters and social service agencies in the Central Square area, this problem will remain insoluble.

Once upon a time during its relatively brief existence, the Central Square Neighborhood Coalition was very successful in convening various stakeholders (residents, business owners, landlords, and City officials) to collaborate for their mutual interests in Central Square. Now is the time for more of that collaboration and it’s appropriate that Councillor Reeves should file the Order as he was, once upon a time, a major advocate for the betterment of Central Square before it was fashionable.

Order #10. City Council support for Massachusetts House Bill 4526 “A Bill Relative to Municipal Relief.”   Councillor Seidel

This Order is specifically about making loans available to private property owners for energy efficiency projects. It’s appropriate that with the conclusion of the “Cambridge Climate Congress” this past weekend the City Council should be advocating for initiatives such as this. Though the activity and outcome of this Cambridge Climate Congress is perhaps a topic for a much more involved discussion, at the very least we should expect to see some specific and sensible energy efficiency goals and City initiatives in the coming days and years. — Robert Winters

March 1, 2010

Marjorie Decker has withdrawn from the State Senate race

Filed under: 2010 State Senate election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:50 pm

March 1 – Marjorie Decker has withdrawn from the State Senate race to replace Anthony Galluccio.
Here what she had to say:

After consulting with my family, friends, and close supporters over this past weekend, I have decided to withdraw from the Special Election for the Mass State Senate to replace Anthony Galluccio.

I chose to run for Senate for many of the same reasons that motivate me to serve on the Cambridge City Council. To me, public service is advocating for good jobs, affordable housing, better access to health care and equal opportunity.

Last year I called on my family, friends and constituents to give me their time, effort and financial support for my re-election to the City Council. They worked hard and sacrificed much to help me win that election. I have never run for office just for the sake of running.

When the Special Election for State Senate was first announced, I considered the prospects for victory extremely promising. Since I announced my candidacy, the number of candidates has increased dramatically – more than doubling – thus my chances of winning have been greatly reduced.

In good conscience, I cannot ask my family, friends and supporters to give more time, effort and financial support if there is no realistic prospect of success.

Consequently, I have decided that at this time I can best serve by focusing all of my energies and efforts toward my role as a Cambridge City Councilor. As the effects of the recession continue to devastate working families, we have many challenges that must be addressed.

I want to thank my family, friends – new and old, and supporters –from Cambridge, Charlestown, Chelsea, Somerville, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Allston and Brighton for their willingness to consider my candidacy and to offer their support to me.

It’s worth noting that, up to a point, it was the fact that there were many candidates in this race that helped make Marjorie’s campaign viable – as the only woman in an election that would likely be determined by vote-splitting and personal identity. Denise Simmons’ entry into the race changed the equation substantially, and now Simmons’ candidacy becomes immediately viable for the same and related reasons. Denise is now the only woman in a six-way race and she will likely be able to use her status as an African-American woman, an openly gay woman now legally married to her partner, and as the most recent Mayor of Cambridge to her advantage. This should translate into campaign donations from within the Senate district and from outside the district from various interest groups just as Jarrett Barrios was able to draw those donations a number of years ago for this same seat. Whether this helps her to succeed throughout this district remains an open question.

One factor worth considering in Marjorie’s decision to withdraw (though you’ll have to ask her!) is that she would have to share the support of labor unions with several of the other candidates. Another important factor is that this April/May election will have to be done all over again in September/November and you can only spend your campaign donations once. It is likely that, regardless who wins in the special election, many of the same candidates will do it again this fall, and short-term incumbency is not likely to provide that much of an advantage. It’s entirely possible that Marjorie will keep her resources intact and try again in September under more favorable conditions. If not, she really does have the potential to be a very good city councillor if, as we teachers like to say, she would only apply herself.

Regarding the Simmons vs. Decker aspect to this, I ran some numbers yesterday using the November 2009 municipal election ballots from the 11 Cambridge precincts in this Senate district. Denise Simmons was ranked somewhere on 48.9% of those ballots compared to Marjorie Decker being named on 21.1% of those ballots. Certainly, Marjorie’s status as a write-in candidate was a factor, but it’s reasonably clear that Denise Simmons would have the greater degree of Cambridge support in this election. Denise will, of course, have to share that Cambridge support with Tim Flaherty, Dennis Benzan, and Sal DiDomenico, each of whom have some base of support in the Peoples Republic.

Most of the speculation continues to be that Sal DiDomenico has the best chance right now in this election with Tim Flaherty driving hard for the hoop. Much of this is determined by the fact that Everett is expected to generate 30% or more of the votes in this election and Sal is the Everett candidate (with Cambridge roots). However, the likelihood in this race where vote-splitting will determine the outcome as much as anything is that the winner will largely be dictated by who can raise the most money and assemble the strongest get-out-the-vote effort on April 13. — Robert Winters

March 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:58 am

March 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Council now has a mayor – Mayor Maher – and hopefully we’ll have City Council committee appointments today or very soon. David Maher has often portrayed himself as the “common sense” candidate and councillor, so let’s hope that rings true in his committee appointments. Several years ago, I posted the Grimm’s Fairy Tale “The Mouse, the Bird, and the Sausage” in connection with these appointments to emphasize what can go wrong when responsibilities are assigned for the wrong reasons (see below). Some of the choices for the members and chairs of these committees should be obvious to anyone who follows City Council business. Here are some random thoughts on the possibilities:

Ordinance: Unless the Mayor wants to break from tradition and appoint himself, I suppose this leaves Councillors Seidel, Davis, and Toomey as the pool of most logical choices for Chair or Co-Chairs of this committee.

Finance: Though it would be a significant responsibility for the new guy, Councillor Cheung has the background most suitable for the job.

Health and Environment: Councillor Davis is the obvious choice, but the task of this committee is quite flexible and could lean more toward public health. In that case, Councillor Toomey’s work in the state legislature would make him an excellent choice as Chair of this committee.

Human Services: It would seem logical that Councillor Reeves’ not-yet-implemented initiatives from the previous Council might warrant his continuation as Chair.

Civic Unity: This is, as always, anybody’s guess since this committee’s function has often been at the whim of its Chair except when responding to some hot issue of the day. Mayor Maher should flip a coin on this one.

Transportation, Traffic, and Parking: This was Councillor Davis’ bailiwick, though Councillor Kelley remains a logical choice to continue as Chair.

Government Operations and Rules: This may turn out to be the most important of the committees and perhaps the most politicized. Toward the end of this City Council term, there will almost certainly be discussion of the future possibilities for the position of City Manager. This committee also occasionally initiates discussions about possible Charter reform, though this is usually just a short-term reaction to dissatisfaction with the mayoral selection process. In recent years, the most logical choices were Councillor Maher and former Councillors Sullivan and Murphy. Though there may be no ideal choice this year, Councillors Toomey, Davis, and Seidel seem best-matched to the task.

Housing: Councillors Simmons or Seidel or Decker come to mind.

Neighborhood and Long Term Planning: Councillor Seidel, of course, though Councillor Cheung would be a welcome member of this committee.

Claims: Councillor Toomey always asks for it.

Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations: Perhaps Councillor Reeves or Councillor Davis.

Veterans: The clear choice is Councilor Kelley, a veteran who really cares about the purpose of this committee.

Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Public Utilities: Since energy and climate-related issues are advancing into the spotlight, perhaps this should again be chaired by Councillor Davis. However, it would also be a good choice for Councillor Cheung who has already proposed initiatives relevant to this committee. It would be great if at least some attention was given this term to future Cable TV and related options – an area that is quickly changing and for which structures laid out 25 years ago are trending toward obsolescence.

Public Safety: Councillor Toomey, Councillor Kelley, or Councillor Simmons come to mind.

Economic Development, Training, and  Employment: Councillors Simmons, Seidel, or Cheung are probably best-suited for this committee. Other reasonable choices could be Councillors Davis or Decker. In contrast, the previous Chair (Reeves) met this committee only once in two years and only then in response to complaints from some taxi drivers about being required to accept credit card payments.

University Relations: Councillor Cheung is the sensible (and obvious) choice.

Let’s see what we get, and don’t forget what became of the mouse, the bird and the sausage.

At the last Council meeting, two items were tabled via the Charter Right and will presumably be voted tonight.

Charter Right #1. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Seidel on City Manager Agenda Number Fourteen of Feb 22, 2010 on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the transfer within the Community Policing Grant of $31,360 from Grant Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account to the Grant Fund Police Travel and Training account to cover costs associated with the Cambridge Review Committee.

According to Marc Levy’s account of this in the Cambridge Day, Councillors Seidel, Reeves, and Decker all had things to say about this item, though their reasons for objection varied from lack of transparency and inclusiveness (Seidel) to outright disagreement with the entire purpose of this committee (Reeves). It seems likely that additional debate/speeches will be heard on this matter.

Charter Right #2. Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Davis on Policy Order Number Eight of Feb 22, 2010 that the City Manager is requested to communicate to Oak Tree Development that the City Council requested that the CPA funds used for the preservation of St. James Church be returned to the City.

This one should be filed along with the author’s previous order a few years ago to downzone a stretch of Memorial Drive essentially to pastureland in response to concerns over hotel workers being fired. A City Council Order should be both serious and legally legitimate. In this case, regardless how one may feel about this proposed development, Community Preservation Act funds were used by St. James Church for the restoration of its belfry. It is simply not logical to demand that because this church (or any entity for that matter) received public funds for part of its property that this should allow the City to make demands on other property owned by the church or which may soon be sold by the church. The belfry was preserved and remains preserved regardless what happens nearby.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Assistant City Manager of Community Development to work with community groups and to conduct a feasibility study of a public market at Lechmere Square.   Councillor Toomey and Councillor Cheung

This idea was floated by the East Cambridge Planning Team last year and deserves a good look even if something very different comes out of the discussion. This is an important parcel which will be vacated when the T station moves across the McGrath Highway which hopefully will one day be restored to something less like a highway and more like an urban boulevard.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Chief Information Officer of Information Technology to to evaluate available options and report back to the City Council with the results of that evaluation and a timeframe for transitioning to a modern web video platform.   Councillor Cheung

Once again, our new Councillor injects his ever-so-modern perspective into the workings of the City Council and spares no details.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back on the infrastructure of Central Square, its planned improvements, and whether these improvements are on track to be completed in time for the BIO 2012 conference.   Councillor Reeves

The only point I would make on this one is that any infrastructure and improvements in Central Square should be done first for the betterment of its residents and existing businesses and should not be driven by the needs of a conference, no matter how large, that will last a few days and be gone. A little more detail on exactly what infrastructure is being referenced in this Order would also be appreciated. — Robert Winters

The Mouse, the Bird, and The Sausage - by Brothers Grimm

Once upon a time, a mouse, a bird, and a sausage, entered into partnership and set up house together. For a long time all went well; they lived in great comfort, and prospered so far as to be able to add considerably to their stores. The bird’s duty was to fly daily into the wood and bring in fuel; the mouse fetched the water, and the sausage saw to the cooking.

When people are too well off they always begin to long for something new. And so it came to pass, that the bird, while out one day, met a fellow bird, to whom he boastfully expatiated on the excellence of his household arrangements. But the other bird sneered at him for being a poor simpleton, who did all the hard work, while the other two stayed at home and had a good time of it. For, when the mouse had made the fire and fetched in the water, she could retire into her little room and rest until it was time to set the table. The sausage had only to watch the pot to see that the food was properly cooked, and when it was near dinner-time, he just threw himself into the broth, or rolled in and out among the vegetables three or four times, and there they were, buttered, and salted, and ready to be served. Then, when the bird came home and had laid aside his burden, they sat down to table, and when they had finished their meal, they could sleep their fill till the following morning: and that was really a very delightful life.

Influenced by those remarks, the bird next morning refused to bring in the wood, telling the others that he had been their servant long enough, and had been a fool into the bargain, and that it was now time to make a change, and to try some other way of arranging the work. Beg and pray as the mouse and the sausage might, it was of no use; the bird remained master of the situation, and the venture had to be made. They therefore drew lots, and it fell to the sausage to bring in the wood, to the mouse to cook, and to the bird to fetch the water.

And now what happened? The sausage started in search of wood, the bird made the fire, and the mouse put on the pot, and then these two waited till the sausage returned with the fuel for the following day. But the sausage remained so long away, that they became uneasy, and the bird flew out to meet him. He had not flown far, however, when he came across a dog who, having met the sausage, had regarded him as his legitimate booty, and so seized and swallowed him. The bird complained to the dog of this bare-faced robbery, but nothing he said was of any avail, for the dog answered that he found false credentials on the sausage, and that was the reason his life had been forfeited.

He picked up the wood, and flew sadly home, and told the mouse all he had seen and heard. They were both very unhappy, but agreed to make the best of things and to remain with one another.

So now the bird set the table, and the mouse looked after the food and, wishing to prepare it in the same way as the sausage, by rolling in and out among the vegetables to salt and butter them, she jumped into the pot; but she stopped short long before she reached the bottom, having already parted not only with her skin and hair, but also with life.

Presently the bird came in and wanted to serve up the dinner, but he could nowhere see the cook. In his alarm and flurry, he threw the wood here and there about the floor, called and searched, but no cook was to be found. Then some of the wood that had been carelessly thrown down, caught fire and began to blaze. The bird hastened to fetch some water, but his pail fell into the well, and he after it, and as he was unable to recover himself, he was drowned.

February 28, 2010

February and March Programs at Fresh Pond Reservation

Filed under: Fresh Pond — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:58 pm

February and March Programs at Fresh Pond Reservation
These events are FREE and open to the public. Children are welcome in the company of an adult.

EVERGREENS AT FRESH POND
Date: Sunday, February 28
Time: 1:00 to 3:00pm
Meeting place will be provided to people who register for the program
Come check out the Reservation’s hollies, cedars, rhododendrons, junipers, azaleas, pines, spruces and firs: trees and shrubs that do not lose their leaves or needles in winter. We’ll look at the many ways these plants have adapted to winter conditions such as the lack of water, the presence of wind and the threat of freezing. Participants will learn to use Tree Finder guides by May Theilgaard Watts to help identify the evergreens as we marvel at the ingenuity of their design. You can use our Finder guides, or purchase one from us for $5. Most of the plants will be on or near the perimeter road. Children are welcome with an adult.

LIVING WITH COYOTES IN CAMBRIDGE
Date: Sunday, March 14
Time: 1:00 to 3:00pm
Meeting Place: Maynard Ecology Center, Basement of Neville Place, 650 Concord Ave.
When you and your dog go indoors at night, your invisible neighbors, the coyotes, skunks, raccoons, bats and owls take center stage until dawn. Daytime sightings of nocturnal animals, especially coyotes, may cause concerns about how many there are and what we should do when we encounter them. John Maguranis, a Massachusetts Animal Control Officer, will share his knowledge and experiences with coyotes that frequent the Fresh Pond area. He’ll tell us about coyote behavior and instruct us on pet and human safety. After the formal presentation, we’ll walk in the Lusitania Meadow to look for coyote tracks.

WELCOME SPRING BIRD WALK
Date: Saturday, March 20
Time: 9:00 to 11:00am
Meeting Place: Neville Place Driveway, 650 Concord Ave.
Although we humans are still bundled up in coats and sweaters, our local birds know that it is spring! Newly returned migrants and year-round residents have started building nests and defending territories. We also may see migrating waterfowl on the ponds. Beginners are welcome! We have binoculars to lend and will show you how to use them.

NATURE LIVES!
Date: Saturday, March 27
Time: 2:00 to 5:00pm
Meeting Place: Maynard Ecology Center, Basement of Neville Place, 650 Concord Ave.
Take a walk with naturalists Larry Millman, Tom Murray, Julie Lisk and Elizabeth Wylde as we look in the area around Neville Place for fungi, insects, plants, birds, and anything else that shows signs of life in these very early days of spring. There is a lot happening in, on, and above ground! Dress for the weather, with boots for walking off-path.

SPRING THAW, ICE OUT, THE WORM MOON AND MUD MADNESS
Date: Sunday, March 28
Time: 1:00 to 3:00pm
Meeting Place: Maynard Ecology Center, Basement of Neville Place, 650 Concord Ave.
March in New England is known as Mud Month. You probably know why, but did you know that the properties of this substance play an important role in the transition of soil from winter to spring? This will be a muddy hands-on experience. Aprons and soapy water for washing hands will be provided.

Please register for each event that you plan to attend. You will receive information on parking after you register. E-mail Elizabeth Wylde at friendsoffreshpond@yahoo.com or call (617) 349-6489 and leave your name and phone number.

Offered by Friends of Fresh Pond Reservation

Keep up to date on events at the Pond: visit the Friends group website at http://friendsoffreshpond.org

Fond of the Pond – Mark Feeney, Boston Globe (Jan 11, 2010)

February 25, 2010

Nominating a Cambridge Election Commissioner

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:58 pm

Thursday, Feb 25 – The Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) will meet tonight at 7:00pm at the Central Square YMCA (820 Mass. Ave.) to nominate three people for one of the two Democratic seats on the Cambridge Election Commission. There are five candidates seeking this position (see below). The practice of each of the two major political party committees has been to rank their three nominees, but there is nothing in the law that either requires this or even suggests this practice. It’s only purpose is to pressure the City Manager to abide by the preferred choice of the political committee, and this choice is often dictated by which candidate is able to pack the meeting when the nominations are determined. There is also a history of using an exclusionary strategy to nominate three candidates as a group solely to ensure that one of the other candidates is not among the three nominees. (This is exactly what occurred last year with the Republican City Committee.) The City Manager is under no obligation to pay any attention to the pecking order of these political committees (nor should he). It’s unfortunate that he is restricted to only these three nominees, but this restriction dates back to the establishment of the Cambridge Election Commission in response to claims made about 90 years ago that the Democratic mayor at that time (long before Plan E) was nominating “Republicans in name only” to the Board of Registrars, the predecessor of the Election Commission.

While I have a long-standing practice of never endorsing individual candidates for public office, the choice of an election commissioner is an appointment to a City board and is not a public election (only City Committee members may vote). Because my interest in the Cambridge elections (for both civic and academic reasons) is significant, I will say that the best choice by far for this position is Tom Stohlman. He was a candidate in the recent municipal election and has been actively involved in the campaigns of other candidates over the years. He is not only one of the most likable and agreeable people I’ve met during my 32 years in Cambridge, he also has a lot of expertise in the mechanics of the Cambridge elections. He would also be the perfect choice to move the Election Commission in the direction of improved public information about our local elections. In terms of the interpersonal relations of the 4-person Election Commission and how the Commission will work with its soon-to-be-appointed new Executive Director, there is no doubt that Tom would be the ideal choice. This is not meant as a negative statement about any of the other four candidates, but only as an affirmation of just how good a choice Tom would be for this position.

Unfortunately, though I am a CDCC member, I teach a class every Thursday night and cannot attend this meeting. If you are a voting member and can attend this meeting, please cast a vote tonight for Tom Stohlman – preferably the top choice, but please make sure he’s on the list of three nominees and that the City Manager chooses wisely from these three nominees. — Robert Winters

Update: Not unexpectedly, Linda Pinti, Mushtaque Mirza, and Martha Older collaborated in a partially successful preclusionary strategy to box out the competition. They were able to get Linda Pinti nominated as 1st choice and Mushtaque Mirza as 3rd choice with Poly Cobb getting the 2nd choice. These are the same results as last time and there’s no reason to believe the City Manager’s appointment will be any different this time, so congratulations goes to Poly Cobb for successfully fending off the competition and virtually assuring her reappointment!

Unfortunately, the best candidate of all, Tom Stohlman, was not included among the three nominees to be sent to the City Manager. I once characterized the Cambridge Democratic City Committee as political hospice. I believe the shoe still fits. For those who might actually care, here’s how the vote went:

Round 1: Pinti 59, Cobb 46, Stohlman 5, Mirza 1 (Older withdrew from Round 1). Pinti has majority, so gets #1 nomination.
Round 2A: Cobb 51, Mirza 46, Stohlman 9 (Older withdrew from Round 2). No majority, drop lowest candidate (Stohlman).
Round 2B: Cobb 51, Mirza 51 (tie). After much debate, decide to revote.
Round 2C: Cobb 54, Mirza 47. Cobb gets #2 nomination.
Round 3: Mirza 63, Stohlman 25 (older withdrew from Round 3). Mirza gets #3 nomination.

Had I been able to attend this meeting, I might have told the CDCC, all of its officers, and most of its members what I really think of them. Instead, I taught a great Linear Algebra class at the Harvard Extension School and had a greater impact in one evening than the CDCC has made all year. – RW

Attention Cambridge Democrats! Want to be an Election Commissioner? Fill out the questionnaire and submit it no later than 5:00pm on Monday, February 1. The Cambridge Democratic City Committee will have a public forum with all candidates for the three nominations on Thursday, February 11 at 7:00pm and a vote on Thursday, February 25 at 7:00pm (Central Square YMCA). [A Candidate is Qualified if s/he has completed and submitted a Questionnaire to the City Committee and has been present and responded to questions at a public hearing.]

Candidates who Submitted Questionnaires by the Feb 1 deadline are:
Polyxane S. (Poly) Cobb - Questionnaire & Resume
Mushtaque Alikhan Mirza – Questionnaire & Resume
Martha J. Older – Questionnaire & Resume
Linda Sophia Pinti – Questionnaire & Resume
Thomas J. Stohlman, Jr. – Questionnaire & Resume

February 22, 2010

Feb 22, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights – David Maher Elected Mayor

Filed under: City Council — Robert Winters @ 12:54 pm

Feb 22, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights – David Maher Elected Mayor

Feb 22 update — The Cambridge City Council tonight unanimously elected David Maher as Mayor and Henrietta Davis as Vice-Chair of the City Council.

David Maher taking oath of office

David Maher taking oath of office

The City Council returns tonight and perhaps again this Wednesday (and future Mondays and Wednesdays) until they are able to produce five votes to select their Chair, i.e. the mayor. During a time when two city councillors (Decker, Simmons) are vying for the State Senate seat vacated by Anthony Galluccio, there is no way that these candidates will want to give up two nights per week to City Council business even if the sole agenda item is a series of unproductive votes for mayor. The likelihood is that this thing will be resolved tonight, though I’ll withhold my bets on this thing being immediately resolved or on who will get to wear the crown and get the fatter paycheck. [Scorecard here on mayoral ballots to date.]

Here are some agenda items that jump out:

City Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-10, regarding a report on the status of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project.

The upshot of this is that the Urban Ring project has been shelved for the time being, but efforts will be made to protect the rights-of-way for the day when economic conditions are more favorable to built this new transit route – be it a rail or bus service partially in a dedicated right-of-way.

City Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) for $1,139,400 to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account ($759,600) and the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditures account ($379,800) and will be used as follows: $759,600-Municipal Building Energy Efficiency Program; $250,000-Community Energy Efficiency Campaign; $100,000-Community Energy Efficiency Incentives Program; $29,800-Public Bicycle Parking Program.

This is one of two items involving the use of federal stimulus money. It will be interesting to see how much of this money ultimately flows to Cambridge and if it is used as an advance for projects already planned (as opposed to just wasteful “make work” projects).

City Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the transfer within the Community Policing Grant of $31,360 from Grant Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account to the Grant Fund Police Travel and Training account to cover costs associated with the Cambridge Review Committee.

This is noteworthy primarily because of its roots in the Great Gates Caper of Summer 2009 when a clueless president chose to take sides in a local Cambridge matter and was able to extricate himself politically with some airline tickets and a few beers. Meanwhile, the principals in the initial episode, Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, seem to have resolved their altercation without the need of a multi-hundred thousand dollar study committee. Jim Crowley even gave Skip Gates the handcuffs used in his arrest for donation to the Smithsonian. Nonetheless, we see an additional $31,360 allocation for this study committee. Maybe we should just buy them a few beers.

City Manager’s Agenda #18. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $78,980 from the General Fund Employee Benefits Salary and Wages account (salary adjustment) to the General Fund Election Commission Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support two special elections scheduled for Apr 13, 2010 (primary election) and on May 11, 2010 (general election) for the vacant Senate seat for Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex.

This interim election to fill the Galluccio vacancy should not even be happening. Whoever wins the April primary will face no opposition in the May election and will be seated in time for summer recess and the fall reelection campaign season. This same seat will again be contested in the September primary (most likely featuring many of the same candidates) followed by an uncontested November election. This is a total waste of money with no benefit.

Even more insane is the election method itself. There are 7 Democratic candidates who will be splitting the vote so completely that it will be virtually impossible for any candidate to get anywhere near a majority of the vote in a low-turnout April primary. The election promises to be a textbook example of how elections should not be conducted, but does anyone believe the Massachusetts State Legislature will ever change the method?

Here’s the change they should make: Change the law for the filling of vacancies in State Senate and State Representative seats so that the first election is an open (nonpartisan) preliminary election followed by a top-two runoff. No election system is perfect, but this would at the very least produce a majority winner in a meaningful final election. Until Massachusetts seriously addresses the topic of electoral reform, state government has no business referring to itself as “progressive.”

City Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 09-125 and 10-17, regarding an update on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Middle School Youth.

This item is noted only because the middle school proposal has the potential to be one of the top political hot potatoes this year. Nothing at the City Council has yet emerged as either controversial or especially pivotal, but the year is young. In the meantime, everyone obsesses over the mayoral election which is peripherally related to the middle school proposal.

Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to prepare a response to Google’s RFI which would nominate the City of Cambridge to be a candidate for Google’s plan for the installation of a fiber optic network.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor Toomey

Once again, Councillor Cheung steps forward along with Councillor Toomey with a good initiative. It’s hard to say what a Google fiber network in Cambridge could yield, but it does seem like a natural place to do this. Telecommunications, the Internet, and access to television programming is evolving rapidly, and this at least has the potential to change the landscape in which Comcast now operates in a nearly monopolistic manner.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to determine whether or not the flights to and from Logan Airport have any zone, time, or other restrictions and if the Cambridge community is notified in the event of changes in flight patterns.   Councillor Decker

File this one under wimpiness and entitlement. Cambridge people want to use cell phones, go grocery shopping, and fly out of Logan to destinations of their choosing, yet they protest loudly when trucks have to drive the local streets to deliver groceries, when cell phone transmitters are affixed to buildings, and when planes fly over someplace other than Winthrop, Chelsea, or East Boston.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Information Technology Department and the Community Development Department to work with interested councillors to explore organizing a competition among local technologists, programmers, and CRLS students to develop an iPhone application for the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Cheung

Once again, Councillor Cheung (with Councillor Davis) attempts to drag the City Council kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Whoever ends up being elected Mayor should appoint Leland to chair the Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Public Utilities Committee (as well as the University Relations Committee and perhaps Co-Chair of the Finance Committee). This fellow could really make things interesting. By the way, the author of the Cambridge Civic Journal, though he maintains quite a few websites and has been known to kick around databases and software and plenty of other technical stuff, drives a 30+ year old vehicle, has neither a cell phone nor an iPhone, and has no intention of upgrading any time soon from his current Luddite existence. — Robert Winters

February 14, 2010

The Plot Thickens….. (State Senate Vacancy)

Filed under: 2010 State Senate election — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:00 pm

Jan 22 (updated Feb 14 and Mar 1) – The contest to determine who will fill the State Senate seat formerly occupied by Anthony Galluccio is getting interesting. It exhibits all the worst aspects of a plurality election without runoffs and with vote-splitting, strategic voting, and ulterior motives. Here’s the latest roster of possible declared candidates:

OCPF IDNameAddressOffice SoughtParty
15031DiDomenico, Sal125 Clarence Street, EverettSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
15001Hill, Daniel C.60 Sullivan Street, CharlestownSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
13783Simmons, E. Denise188 Harvard Street #4B, CambridgeSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
13736 Decker, Marjorie C. (withdrew)61 Walden Street, CambridgeSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
13239Flaherty, Timothy5 Concord Avenue, CambridgeSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
15023Albano, Michael J.32 Crest Avenue, ChelseaSenate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
13055Benzan, Dennis48 Townsend Road, Belmont MA 02478Senate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexDemocratic
14594Cesan, John24 Tina Lane Feeding Hills, MA 01030 (Agawam)Senate, Middlesex, Suffolk & EssexUnenrolled

Related – The Committee to Election Anthony Galluccio has filed a Dissolution Report (Feb 16, 2010).

We’ll likely learn on Monday soon whether or not Denise Simmons’ bid is a real one or just a poker move for leverage in the still unsettled mayoral sweepstakes in Cambridge. Marjorie Decker is seen by many as a long-shot candidate whose hope rests in being the only woman candidate in a field where they may be significant vote-splitting. She’ll also have to share the union and real estate money with some of the other candidates, but they all have the advantage of a new calendar year with a blank ledger for campaign finance donation limits. Denise Simmons’s chances are between slim and none for this Senate district, but she would likely harm Decker’s chances among Cambridge voters. Though Decker has not yet officially filed as a candidate for the seat, she made it clear at a Jan 14 meeting of the Cambridge Democratic City Committee that she was running for the seat and had her campaign manager Jeni Wheeler in tow. [She subsequently officially threw her hat in the ring.]

Mar 1 – Marjorie Decker today officially withdrew from the race.

It’s worth noting that about 30% of the district is in Everett and only 20% is in Cambridge with the remainder spread across portions of Allston-Brighton, Somerville, Chelsea, Saugus, and Revere. Anthony Galluccio was able to build substantial support in Everett which was pivotal in his winning the seat in the 2007 Special Election to replace former rival Jarrett Barrios. Much of that Galluccio support will likely transfer to Everett City Council member Sal DiDomenico who also has deep roots in Cambridge. Tim Flaherty also ran for this seat in 2007 and should be able to quickly reassemble some of his campaign apparatus for this relatively short election cycle. He also retains some name recognition as a result of his previous run and his family’s history in Massachusetts politics. The other Cambridge candidates are basically unknown outside the Peoples Republic.

There’s no word yet on any challengers from any other political party, so (as usual) the contest should be decided at a low-turnout party primary on April 13. Then again, maybe Scott Brown has a cousin in Revere who drives a pickup truck.

300 valid nominating signatures due with local city and town officials – March 2, 2010
Primary Election – April 13, 2010
Special Election – May 11, 2010

February 8, 2010

Feb 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:58 pm

Feb 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Cambridge is still without a mayor, i.e. Chair of the City Council, and the consequences are minimal. [Scorecard below or here.] That said, it would be nice if the boys and girls would settle their grudges and pick someone who can appoint members and Chairs of the Council subcommittees and be the 7th voting member of the School Committee. Someone suggested that the councillors should begin getting their salaries only after this matter has been settled. That would bring this impasse to a rapid end. It is unlikely that there will be a mayoral vote tonight since Councillor Toomey is expected to be absent, and next Monday is a holiday, so the next opportunity would be Feb 22 unless a Special Meeting is called for this purpose. There was a Late Order introduced last week by Councillor Cheung calling for such a Special Meeting on Feb 10 (and possibly Feb 17 if necessary), but Councillor Davis exercised her charter right to delay discussion of this proposal until tonight (Charter Right #3).

The Feb 1 meeting also featured another Late Order from Councillor Cheung calling for the members of the City Council to select their Chair using Instant Runoff Voting. Councillor Decker exercised her charter right to end debate on that proposal, though it will come up again tonight (Charter Right #1). Though it’s relatively clear that this idea is inconsistent with the Charter and City Council rules, a more significant problem is that in a small election (only 9 people voting), there could be the unintended consequences of strategic voting in this or any similar alternative. For example, it is very possible that voting councillors could “bury” their 2nd choices in order to increase the possibility that their 1st choice would prevail. This might result in the most favored candidates becoming unelectable with 3rd or 4th preference candidates gaining an advantage. Instant Runoff Voting can work well in a large population, but a top-two runoff may be preferred in this kind of election. In any case, it’s a moot point.

Councillor Cheung (with the support of Councillor Decker) also introduced a Late Order calling for the Council subcommittees and Chairs from last term to be temporarily reappointed with Councillor Cheung assuming positions then held by former Councillor Ward until a new mayor is chosen. One councillor suggested that this might only further delay the vote (possible), and Mr. Reeves objected on procedural grounds. However, with the current configuration of councillors, this might be a very good idea. Councillor Kelley exercised his charter right to delay the proposal until tonight (Charter Right #2).

I suspect that none of these proposals will go anywhere, but you have to like newly-elected Councillor Cheung’s willingness to dive right in with creative proposals for getting things moving. We need more councillors like him.

Other than the mayoral soap opera, there are a few other items of note on this week’s agenda:

Councillor Decker introduced 32 identical resolutions for each student graduating from the YouthBuild Just-A-Start Program. This should have been a single resolution – ample evidence for why councillors should never be judged simply by the number of resolutions they (or their political patronage assistants) introduce.

Councillor Maher’s Order #1 inquires about the circumstances leading to the recent exit of Pearl Art from Central Square. It’s worth noting that there are now many vacant storefronts in Central Square. It would seem that commercial property owners are somewhat unaware of the current economy and are determined to accept high rent or no rent for their properties. Go figure.

Councillor Seidel’s Order #7 asks for publication on the City website of funds received by the City of Cambridge from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Far be it from this writer to comment on national politics, but “stimulus” money should only be expended on projects that would soon have been undertaken anyway, i.e. an advance payment rather than just throwing money around on anything in the hope that jobs and economic activity will follow. This should be only about spending sooner and not about spending significantly more.

That’s enough for now. It will be interesting to see how Council business proceeds over the next two months with two members (Decker, Simmons) competing along with five others for the State Senate seat vacated by Anthony Galluccio. When City Council “research assistants” were first introduced several years ago, it was in the context of several councillors planning to seek other elected offices and wanting taxpayer-funded stand-ins to handle their business while out on the campaign trail. This looks to be more of the same this year. — Robert Winters

February 1, 2010

Feb 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:42 pm

Feb 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Now that the City Council is entering its second month without choosing its Chair or forming subcommittees, it should surprise no one that the agenda is light. The fact that at least one councillor and possibly as many as three are exploring or actually running for the vacant State Senate seat also means that not a hell of a lot of attention is being paid to City Council matters. For those keeping score, here’s the record on the mayoral votes so far:

CouncillorBallot #1
(Jan 4)		Ballot #2
(Jan 11)		Ballot #3
(Jan 25)		Ballot #4
(Feb 1)		Ballot #5
(Feb 1)		Mayor Ballot #6
(Feb 22)		Vice-Mayor Ballot #1
(Feb 22)
CheungDecker (2)Maher (4)Maher (4)Maher (4)Maher (4)MaherCheung --> Davis
DavisDavis (1)Davis (2)Davis (2)Davis (3)Davis (3)Davis --> MaherDavis
DeckerDeckerReeves (3)Reeves (3)Reeves (2)Reeves (2)MaherCheung --> Davis
KelleyReeves (2)ReevesReevesDavisDavisDavis --> MaherDavis
MaherMaher (3)MaherMaherMaherMaherMaherCheung --> Davis
ReevesReevesReevesReevesReevesReevesMaherDavis
SeidelMaherMaherMaherMaherMaherMaherDavis
SimmonsSimmons (1)DavisDavisDavisDavisDavis --> MaherDavis
ToomeyMaherMaherMaherMaherMaherMaherCheung --> Davis

As is often the case, those who argue about who should get to wear the golden tiara of Mayor mention the role of Chair and 7th voting member of the Cambridge School Committee. Here’s a suggestion that requires no charter change and might just earn the undying respect of the other 6 members of the School Committee: Once elected, the Mayor voluntarily takes a seat as an ordinary member of the School Committee and allows the School Committee through its elected Vice-Chair to lead the School Committee and chair all of the meetings unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise. This would be a nice tradition that could start now. It would also permit the Mayor to exercise greater leadership in the more appropriate setting of the City Council.

City Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Marlissa Brigget as the Executive Director of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission and Executive Secretary of the Police Review & Advisory Board effective Jan 19, 2010.

It’s good to see that this appointment has been made and that there will continue to be a joint responsibility of this person to manage both of these City Boards. A City Council Order encouraging the City Manager to further consolidate City Boards, departments, and divisions with overlapping responsibilities would be welcome, but don’t anyone hold your breath waiting for that kind of leadership.

There are a few other minor items on the agenda, but nothing to write home about. — Robert Winters

January 28, 2010

Campaign Finance Activity – School Committee 2009

Filed under: 2009 Election, campaign finance — Robert Winters @ 3:55 pm

Campaign Finance Activity - 2009 School Committee

Candidate
Opening Balance
Receipts
Expenditures
Current Balance
Date
#1 Votes
$ per #1 vote
Notes
Fantini, Fred$4966.00$5780.38$6704.59$4041.7912/31/092040$3.29
Grassi, Joseph$10.00$6205.00$6105.95$109.0512/31/091884$3.24
Harding, Richard$0.00$10710.60$10318.67$391.9312/31/091991$5.18report filed late
McGovern, Marc$1873.00$15501.00$17837.00$1237.0012/31/091953$9.13unpaid $1700

debt added to

expenditures
Nolan, Patty$1385.69$9645.00$10470.06$560.6312/31/091744$6.00
Stead, Charles$0.00$399.87$399.87$0.0012/31/09393$1.02
Steinert, Alan$0.00$23910.54$23910.54$0.0012/31/091445$16.55
Tauber, Nancy$223.82$9775.00$9166.42$832.4012/31/092050$4.47
Turkel, Alice$0.00$22079.69$18142.76$3936.9312/31/091791$10.13

Click on any column heading to sort by that field. Click again to toggle between ascending and descending.

The deadline was January 20, 2009 for filing reports of activity through December 31, 2009.

Richard Harding has not yet filed his year-end report.

Information on all City Council and School Committee candidates may be found at the Cambridge Candidate Pages.

January 25, 2010

Jan 25, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:17 pm

Jan 25, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights (and post-meeting update)

The main item of interest for tonight’s meeting is the still-unresolved election of a mayor. Amazingly, the City of Cambridge has been getting along just fine without a mayor for these last three weeks, but it would be nice if the City Council could choose its Chair so that Council committee appointments can be made. Most of the scuttlebutt suggests that David Maher should pick up the necessary 5th vote to get the nod as gavel-bearer, but there are still a few poker moves being played in this relatively inconsequential game. See below for a scorecard.

There was one ballot for Mayor taken at the meeting. The votes were identical to the previous ballot. See below.

Mayor or no mayor, there is a bit of an agenda for tonight’s meeting. Here are a few notable items:

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Fanning, et al zoning petition as filed.

The affected area is bounded by Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, Binney Street, the Grand Junction railway, and the edge of the Residence C-1 District. The Planning Board acknowledges some of the residents’ concerns that led to this petition, but nonetheless recommends that the petition not be adopted as written. In particular, the Planning Board highlights that the provision to include the floor area of the existing above-ground parking garage in the calculation of the FAR for the One Kendall Square site would result in the disallowance of any additional development and that it would be unreasonable to effect a change of such magnitude on a single site. They also note that the Eastern Cambridge Planning Study (ECPS), which was the basis for zoning in this area, established a goal of encouraging the development of housing on the affected sites and this existing zoning provides incentives to favor the future development of residential uses over commercial or industrial uses. The proposed zoning change would remove such incentives.

Resolution #13. Resolution on the death of Reverend Douglas Whitlow.   Councillor Simmons

I didn’t know Doug Whitlow very well, but it’s worth noting that he was a City Council candidate in 1997 around the time of the big controversy surrounding the Holmes property in Central Square that pitted the anarchists vs. the capitulators (as some would characterize the conflict). Doug and I were cordial but on opposite sides of the issue. It’s interesting how many of the people who were so concerned at the time about “the indigenous population of Central Square” vanished soon afterwards. The whole tempest seems trivial in retrospect.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to address the complaints of the abutters of 220 Putnam Avenue regarding the illegal housing and raising of chickens and ducks at that address.   Councillor Simmons

It would seem that a conflict is arising between pro-poultry Councillor Davis and anti-poultry Councillor Simmons. Perhaps their differences can be ironed out over a nice chicken dinner. Goose would be a tasty and controversial alternative. – RW

Mayoral update (Jan 25): The City Council failed to elect a Mayor on January 11 and again on January 25. Here’s a scorecard of the poker game to date:

Councillor Ballot #1 (Jan 4) Ballot #2 (Jan 11) Ballot #3 (Jan 25)
Cheung Decker (2) Maher (4) Maher (4)
Davis Davis (1) Davis (2) Davis (2)
Decker Decker Reeves (3) Reeves (3)
Kelley Reeves (2) Reeves Reeves
Maher Maher (3) Maher Maher
Reeves Reeves Reeves Reeves
Seidel Maher Maher Maher
Simmons Simmons (1) Davis Davis
Toomey Maher Maher Maher

For those who have asked, here’s a quote from Glenn Koocher’s Political History of Cambridge in the 20th Century: “Battles over the mayoralty went back and forth with partisans occasionally changing sides. One race, in 1948, required four months and 1368 ballots to complete. Other mayoralty votes traded back and forth over issues.” We’ve only had two ballots so far, folks, so stop your wailing. If they’re still at it a month from now, that’s another story. The next opportunity for a vote will be Monday, January 25. There are no big partisan issues at play now, so it really comes down to personalities and, to some degree, payback.

The most ridiculous aspect to the current mayoral impasse is how some councillors are claiming how much consideration they are giving to the School Committee’s preferences in their decision, yet what I hear from the School Committee members contradicts much of this claim. – RW

January 19, 2010

And now… a few words about the U.S. Senate Special Election, i.e. Coakley vs. Brown vs. Kennedy

Filed under: Uncategorized — Robert Winters @ 7:51 pm

What a perfect election storm where controversial national political decisions coincide with the death of Ted Kennedy, a consequential Senate vote, and essentially a referendum on a sitting U.S. president – all in the bluest of blue states where most elections are noncompetitive formalities. For those of us who actually believe in democracy (small “d”), it simply doesn’t get any better than this.

As I type these words, it’s less than an hour until the polls close in Massachusetts. I’ve been robo-called, repetitively and intrusively polled, and subjected to an endless stream of ridiculous and propagandistic TV ads. To believe any of this garbage, you’d have to buy the line that Martha Coakley is a mindless party-line drone who would do little more than bark when Obama gives the signal, and Scott Brown is just a good-lookin’ Karl Rove. Neither picture is even close to accurate.

I like Martha – her understated style, her intelligence, and even her name. The fact that she’s married to a now-retired Cambridge cop also makes her one of us. I also like Scott Brown – his strategic political thinking, his remarkable family, and the promise of competitive Massachusetts elections that he represents. It’s also fun that he posed in the buff for Cosmopolitan Magazine years ago as their “sexiest man in America.” His wife, WCVB reporter Gail Huff, was once featured in the video for the Digney Fignus song “The Girl with the Curious Hand,” and one of his two daughters went all the way to the Sweet Sixteen of that forgettable TV show “American Idol.” This is great stuff!

I really don’t know how the election will turn out. The latest polls suggest a Scott Brown victory, but the Democratic Party regulars have been in panic mode for the last week trying to turn out every last loyalist, so Martha My Dear may yet squeak out a victory. Regardless of the outcome in this Special Election, for those of us who have great misgivings about the government expansion now underway and the unprecedented proposal to mandate U.S. citizens to pay money to private (health insurance) companies, the message has already been sent – and congressmen and congresswomen across the county understand that if this can happen in the bluest of blue states, then they will soon have their own election problems to worry about.

The fact that a Republican candidate might even have a chance in Massachusetts should not really be all that surprising. Massachusetts residents have more than a healthy dose of suspicion about one-party rule even though every one of our Congressmen and an overwhelming majority in both houses of the State Legislature are Democrats. That’s why we elected Republican governors for 16 years until the last go-round. That’s also why most Massachusetts voters choose to remain unenrolled in any party. The truth is that the best thing that could ever happen to Massachusetts Democrats would be a significant Republican victory. The evidence suggests that the Massachusetts Democratic Party doesn’t really believe in elections. They believe that all seats in the state legislature should be filled after private consultation behind closed doors and settled in low-turnout primaries followed by general elections with no significant competition (or no competition at all). I am reminded of the election a few years ago when Marjorie Decker campaigned in the Democratic Primary against party-favored Paul Demakis. Marjorie was criticized broadly for challenging “one of ours”. That offended me so much that I wrote her a check. A few years later when Jarrett Barrios backed out of a District Attorney election against Gerry Leone and chose to seek reelection to his State Senate seat after Anthony Galluccio had announced his candidacy for that seat, the head of the state Democratic Party traveled to Cambridge to broker a negotiated settlement in order to avoid an actual election between two strong candidates. The message was clear – good elections are bad for the party.

So, tonight I’m feeling optimistic – not about the specific outcome of this Special Election, but about the possibility that the moribund Massachusetts Republican Party might get the outrageous idea that they can and should run candidates for every elected office and that Democratic candidates will have to step up and perform better instead of treating their elected jobs as lifetime entitlements. That would be my idea of a victory. — Robert Winters

January 11, 2010

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:10 pm

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the first regular meeting of the 2010-11 City Council term, and the new Council begins with a relatively clean slate as the much of the detritus of Councils past has been allowed to expire. The first order of (unfinished) business is the election of a mayor. The first attempt on January 4 resulted in a highly fractured vote, but it is expected that votes will shift on the second ballot and any subsequent ballots. Multiple factors are at play including (a) the news from the grapevine that Marjorie Decker will be having a State Senate campaign event in Saugus on January 31 – an apparent sign that she intends to pursue the Galluccio seat; (b) the commitments for the first mayoral ballot have now been expended; (c) feedback from political supporters in the wake of the January 4 ballot may cause a councillor or two to think twice about the political fallout; and (d) nobody really wants this to go on very long with the resultant delay in Council business caused by the lack of any appointments to City Council subcommittees by the new mayor. Most of the speculation centers on either Henrietta Davis or David Maher being best positioned to pick up the necessary 5th vote, but the continued meetings and wheeling and dealing and political hardball yields no certainty in the outcome.

As far as the rest of the meeting agenda goes, here are a few items of interest:

RECONSIDERATION. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration on the vote taken on Dec 21, 2009 confirming the appointments transmitted on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as Commissioners of the Cambridge Housing Authority: Anthony Pini (term expires 4/1/2014) and Gerald Clark (term expires 1/11/2015) [Dec 21, 2009 motion of Councillor Kelley to Table failed 4-5-0. Appointments confirmed 8-1-0. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration.]

Though I don’t pretend to understand all the intense passion expressed about these appointments and the behind-the-scenes push to change the vote late in the December 21 meeting to approve these appointments, it is worth noting that this is precisely the reason why state law and Robert’s Rules of Order allow for reconsideration of votes. Many outspoken public housing advocates had gone home on December 21 after this matter had been tabled and were shocked to learn that this changed late in the meeting. Expect some spirited public comment on this matter regardless how the final vote goes.

Order # 1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City department heads and personnel in order to determine alternatives to laying off the five employees from the Lead Safe Cambridge program.   Councillor Simmons

This Order is noteworthy primarily in that it seems to direct the City Manager what to do in a personnel matter. It would be one thing if the Order focused on the importance of preserving the Lead-Safe program, but this Order instead is all about retaining five employees. Presumably, all of these employees have the opportunity to respond to any internal or public postings for City jobs. The City Council Order seems to say that the Manager should retain these employees in their current jobs regardless of need or budgetary concerns. Does this not seem like micromanagement from a city councillor?

Order #4. City Council concerns regarding House Bill 4410 which would give new powers to state and local school officials to turn around under-performing schools and increase the number of charter schools.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Maher

The sponsors of the Order seem to agree with the Legislature on (1) reducing the financial impact of charter schools on regular public schools; (2) better processes for evaluating and approving charter schools; and (3) amendments that would help turn around underperforming schools. However, the sponsors express opposition to amendments that would (1) weaken proposed management powers or enhance the ability of unions to block action by school districts; (b) require municipalities and school districts to sell or lease surplus school facilities to charter schools; (3) new spending mandates on cities, towns and school districts; and (4) lifting the cap on charter schools. Councillor and State Representative Toomey may have something to say in response to this Order. H4410 passed by a 119-35 vote. The Senate approved a different version and a 6-member House-Senate conference committee is now working on a compromise of the two versions.
According to my reading of the City Council materials, the only holdover items from the previous Council are these:
(1) Council Kelley’s Reconsideration of the Cambridge Housing Authority appointments.
(2) The Fanning Petition to rezone an area in East Cambridge.
(3) A December Order regarding increasing the amount of public information about elections while the municipal election is in progress.
(4) A December Order and a committee report regarding the City Council’s policy on naming street corners.
(5) A request to the City Manager for information regarding what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.

Also in the pipeline – a scattered set of recommendations from December’s “Climate Congress” which will have a follow-up City Hall meeting on January 23. Unlike an actual legislative process where most proposals require majority support, the current draft of these citizen recommendations reads like a laundry list of every imaginable idea in environmental regulation and social engineering. Many of the ideas presented will be dead on arrival such as the proposal to increase the cost of a residential parking sticker every year for the next 20 years – even though most participants seemed to agree that the local impact of automobiles on climate was far less than things like poorly insulated and inefficient commercial, residential, and institutional buildings. A strong theme at this gathering was the need to better quantify the primary contributors to climate change before setting priorities or determining policies and initiatives. Nonetheless, the draft recommendations are dominated by proposals made without any such prioritization. It’s worth looking at for a few good ideas, but this document leaves a lot to be desired as either a legislative agenda or a blueprint for change. – Robert Winters

January 7, 2010

Follow the Money

Filed under: 2009 Election, City Council, campaign finance — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:07 am

Jan 6 – Follow The Money – What percentage of the 2009 campaign contributions for each of the elected city councillors came from people with a Cambridge address? Here are the percentages:

Henrietta Davis – 90%    
Craig Kelley – 88%
Leland Cheung – 74%		 Sam Seidel – 56%
David Maher – 54%
Denise Simmons – 51%    		 Tim Toomey – 45%
Ken Reeves – 28%
Marjorie Decker – 24%
Information based on data from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF)

Addendum: The OCPF data reveals some other interesting things such as which candidates received campaign donations in excess of the individual annual limit of $500. Here are the apparent excesses:

Candidate Donor Annual Amount
Marjorie Decker Asbestos Workers Local 6 $750
Marjorie Decker Carpenters Local Union No. 33 $800
Marjorie Decker Anne DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker John DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker IUPAT District Council #35 $1250
Marjorie Decker New England Regional Council of Carpenters $1000
Marjorie Decker Sheet Metal Workers Local #17 $2750
David Maher National Association of Government Employees $750
Kenneth E. Reeves     Muirann Glenmullen $750
Kenneth E. Reeves Kelly Higgins $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Joyce Naggar $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Stuart Rothman $600
Kenneth E. Reeves Fred Swanson $600
Kenneth E. Reeves John Toulopoulos $600
Sam Seidel Phyllis Seidel $1000

Perhaps a refund or two may be in order, or maybe there’s some explanation for some of these. Here’s the data (zipped Excel file) for anyone who wants to go fishing: 2009contributions.zip. Corrections, explanations, or interesting discoveries are enthusiastically welcome. There may still be a few more 2009 donations to be recorded, but it’s all courtesy of the OCPF. — Robert Winters

January 3, 2010

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

Filed under: 2009 Election, Cambridge government, City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 6:51 pm

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

On Monday, January 4, 2010 at 10:00am the newly elected Cambridge City Council will be sworn in at City Hall. Once City Clerk Margaret Drury takes care of all the swearing-in, the new Council will take up their first order of business – the election of a Mayor. If a majority is able to elect a Mayor, they will then proceed to the election of the Vice-Chair of the City Council (commonly known as Vice-Mayor).

The elected councillors have been meeting in pairs and threesomes and foursomes ever since the election results were known in November as the various mayoral contenders have been trying to convince and bargain their way into the Mayor’s Office. Much of the convincing is based on things like philosophy, committee appointments, and who might be well-suited to chair the School Committee. On the other hand, there is a history of some not-so-above-board deal-making that also takes place in this process, e.g. the introduction of personal aides for all city councillors that grew out of the January 2006 deal-making.

As most voting Cantabrigians know, the Mayor of Cambridge is not popularly elected. It’s really more like the election of a City Council President as in Boston and many other places. There is a certain logic in allowing an elected body to choose its own Chair, especially in a city governed by the Plan E Charter in which the City Council chooses a city manager as chief executive officer of the City. However, there is also a point of view that city councillors should act as representatives of the electorate and that they have some duty to act on behalf of those who elected them. If this is the case, what criteria should guide the election?

Criterion #1 – Showing Up for Work

Based on who has attended City Council committee meetings during the 2008-2009 term, the nod might go to Sam Seidel or Henrietta Davis (see chart at http://rwinters.com), though a strong case could be made for David Maher who chaired more meetings than any of his colleagues. Of course, outgoing Mayor Denise Simmons would also have to be included among the contenders for all the City Council and School Committee meetings she chaired during her term.

Criterion #2 – Let the People Decide – Instant Runoff

We could use the ballot data from the November election to see who would be elected if a series of runoffs were to be held using the ballots that elected the city councillors. Based of this, the nod would go to Henrietta Davis (with Denise Simmons as the last eliminated and Tim Toomey before her). However, the notion that voter preferences should factor into the mayoral election exposes a paradox. After the 2005 and 2007 elections, the person elected Mayor was the least preferred by the voters among the nine elected and would have been the first eliminated in an Instant Runoff election. Specifically, in 2005 and 2007 the Instant Runoff winner was Henrietta Davis, but Kenneth E. Reeves was chosen in January 2006 and Denise Simmons in January 2008 as Mayor. The likely reason for this reversal of fortune is that Council colleagues often do not wish to strengthen the hand of a popular colleague. If the pattern of 2005 and 2007 is repeated this year, we’ll be greeting Mayor Leland Cheung on Monday morning.

I made a chart of these Instant Runoff Simulations for the 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, and 1991 elections (the ones for which ballot data is available). It’s worth noting that the last times the Instant Runoff winners were actually elected Mayor were in 1997 (Frank Duehay) and 1999 (Anthony Galluccio).

Criterion #3 – Let the People Decide – Look at the Rankings

There are quite a few ways of measuring popularity based on ballot rankings. One rather simplistic approach is to look only at the #1 rankings – a criterion often promoted in years past. The “#1 vote-getter” would make the case that this is what the people demand. Of course, this ignores the phenomenon of vote-splitting – the very thing that preferential ballots are designed to mitigate. Perhaps a more fair way to measure popularity based on ballot rankings would be to count the number of ballots on which each candidate appears with a high ranking, e.g. somewhere in the top 3 or top 5 or top 9 rankings. Henrietta Davis wins according to this criteria in all scenarios except the “Top 3″ criterion in which she is eclipsed by 1 vote by Denise Simmons, 5015 to 5014. It’s worth noting that according to these criteria, some elected councillors fare worse than some candidates who were not even elected. For example, using a “Top 3″ criterion, Marjorie Decker and Leland Cheung are eclipsed by Eddie Sullivan and Larry Ward. In all criteria using 5 or more rankings, Marjorie Decker actually finishes 12th, though one can certainly argue that this may be a by-product of being a write-in candidate.

Criterion #4 – School Committee Experience

There are four councillors who have been previously elected to the Cambridge School Committee – Tim Toomey, Henrietta Davis, David Maher, and Denise Simmons. Of course, all those who have previously served as Mayor have also served in this capacity.

Criterion #5 – The Rotation Principle

There is something of a tradition of passing the torch among City Council colleagues so that various mayoral styles and priorities can be sampled. Based on this, the nod would go to Tim Toomey and Henrietta Davis for having waited their turn the longest. Needless to say, this criterion is most often quoted in order to dissuade councillors from reelecting a Mayor to a 2nd consecutive term. The Rotation Principle generally goes hand-in-hand with the Exclusion Principle, i.e. the fact that there are some elected councillors whose behavior has been such that they couldn’t get majority support under virtually any circumstance. In short, some measure of acceptability is a prerequisite for consideration under the Rotation Principle. Though there is a temptation to name the Excluded here, I shall resist. In any case, every councillor’s vote weighs as much as any other.

We’ll see what Monday brings. Perhaps a deck of cards or some dice will prove handy in determining the outcome. – Robert Winters

Jan 4, 4:00pm update: The newly inaugurated Cambridge City Council failed to elect Mayor at its opening meeting. Their next opportunity will be at their regular January 11 meeting next Monday. Here’s how the vote went:

Leland Cheung voted for Marjorie Decker
Henrietta Davis voted for Henrietta Davis
Marjorie Decker voted for Marjorie Decker
Craig Kelley voted for Ken Reeves
David Maher voted for David Maher
Ken Reeves voted for Ken Reeves
Sam Seidel voted for David Maher
Denise Simmons voted for Denise Simmons
Tim Toomey voted for David Maher

It takes 5 votes to elect a Mayor, so there’s a way to go. The School Committee will be inaugurated at 6:00pm tonight with Councillor Reeves standing in as Chair in the absence of an elected Mayor. It is not clear whether they will vote to elect their Vice-Chair at this meeting or if they will wait until the election of a Mayor and 7th voting member of the School Committee.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress