Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 10, 2022

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting?

You really can’t expect too much at the first meeting of a new City Council term, especially with two rookies on the team. Of the 80 items awaiting report from the previous term, 44 have been carried over to the new term (including 5 new ones), and 36 were dispatched to oblivion (a good thing, in my humble opinion).City Hall

I often find myself searching for paradigms. Before diving in with comments and analysis I generally need a way to frame things rather than simply react to the proposals, rhetoric, actions and reactions. This is especially true with the coming of a new year or a new City Council term. I don’t even bother trying to make sense of the Cambridge School Committee anymore.

One paradigm I have been considering lately in regard to the City Council as well as other elected bodies is the nature of representation. Who do our elected representatives really represent – especially in a system that is supposed to be proportional representation? Are the geographical areas of the city proportionally represented? What about viewpoints on various issues, especially in a political context where some advocates are working overtime to convince voters and elected officials that just one or two issues are all that matter? Perhaps more significantly, do our elected officials represent the people of the city or primarily the activists? [One of the initial actions of one newly minted councillors was to meet with activists rather than residents in general. The other newly minted councillor held an open community meeting in North Cambridge.] Suffice to say that the overwhelming majority of Cambridge residents would likely not identify as “activists”.

This is important when you consider some of the recent flash points such as the reconfiguration of North Mass. Ave. in a manner that delights many activists and infuriates many residents and business owners (and their customers who may be driving from elsewhere). We have seen and will likely soon be seeing more densification zoning proposals pushed by activists who see themselves as part of a national movement. There are proposals now before the Council and the City administration having to do with alternate models for police and emergency response. Are these really what residents want or what the activists want? Do our city councillors see their main job as responding to the demands of the activists or reflecting the desires of the residents of the city? I shudder to think about what criteria some councillors may be using to decide on the next City Manager.

I really wish we had a better way to gauge public opinion than the biased views of city councillors, various neighborhood and activist listservs, NextDoor, or Twitter. My perhaps shocking point of view is that Cambridge people are actually pretty normal – but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from all the chatter.

As for the current meeting, here are the agenda items I thought worthy of comment as we get this next term underway:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Chief Public Health Officer, the Cambridge Health Alliance, and other relevant City staff to create a “priority line” and/or establish “senior hours” at the City’s Covid-19 testing locations.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

I don’t envy the job of a mayor, city manager, or school superintendent during a pandemic or other crisis. You’re likely to be a hero or a villain in the eyes of many people when you are simply trying to do your job, and the determination of hero vs. villain may be a function of things over which you have little control. The impulse to demand that you “do something” such as imposing restrictions or mandates is strong, and as the person in charge you have to weigh those demands against all the practical aspects of actual vs. perceived safety, union contracts, and economic survival of local businesses.

I follow the Covid numbers pretty closely and make new graphs daily in my “Plague Report” – nothing like a little medieval reference to keep your spirits up. What I don’t track (only because the local numbers are hard to access) are hospitalizations and similar measures of severity. Deaths and positive test results are no longer the most relevant measures of this pandemic now that Omicron has spread like a prairie fire with relatively few people dying or getting severely ill (largely thanks to widespread vaccination here). I am always eager to hear more specifics from our public health officials, and I’m grateful that time is set aside every couple of City Council meetings to delve more deeply into the specifics.

Intuitively, I expect that this Omicron prairie fire will burn itself out within a few weeks, but I really have no facts with which to back that up. Some people have been noting the patterns in South Africa, but we really are not all that comparable, especially in terms of vaccination rates. Meanwhile, even if the severity of illness has been tolerable, local businesses are still struggling and some are still closing for good. Suffice to say that the actions of city councillors have not played much of a role in this. This is not meant as a criticism. It’s just that there’s simply not much that they can do. Let’s just hope for an early spring of Red Sox games and reflection of the pandemic past.


Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs & Public Investments David J. Kale as a member of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees, effective Jan 10, 2022.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval of new appointments and reappointments of members of the Peace Commission for a term of three years. New Appointments: Kaleb Abebe, Annie Brown, Sarah DeMott, Yasmine Hung, Bonnie Talbert; Reappointments: Kazimiera I.H. Fraley, Larry Kim, Elka Kuhlman, David Seeman
Order Adopted 9-0

I suspect that every City Manager appointment this year will be taken as an opportunity to test the waters of the recent ill-advised charter change that gives the City Council veto power over appointments to City boards & commissions. Does this apply to the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees that was established under a Special Act rather than under the traditional management roles under the Plan E Charter? I don’t think we’ll be seeing any vetoes of appointments to entities like the Peace Commission, but I wouldn’t put it past some councillors to make an issue of it anyway. By the way, there is still no established protocol for how the City Council intends to consider appointments and/or exercise its unfortunate new authority.


Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a 20-25 person Cycling Safety Ordinance Implementation Advisory Committee to advise and improve upon the implementation of the citywide bicycle safety infrastructure and to establish recommendations on mitigating any concerns raised in regard to this infrastructure, with the appointments to be announced no later than Jan 31, 2022. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to convene meetings between his office, the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, and with the heads of the Neighborhood Business Associations, with the Neighborhood Associations, and within each of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s senior buildings, to ensure that these stakeholders are given the opportunity to collaborate on devising new plans that will inform the City’s approach going forward in establishing citywide bicycle-safety infrastructure that works for bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians, seniors, those with mobility impediments, the local business community, and all our residents. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0

Communications: There are 13 letters regarding the North Mass. Ave. roadway changes; 2 supporting the HEART proposal; 1 solicitation re: cable TV franchise fees; 1 on Covid testing; and 34 “sundry communications” on the proposal now being floated by CDD to radically alter residential zoning citywide (33 opposed and 1 in favor).
Placed on File 9-0

It was not so long ago that the idea of having stakeholder meetings and advisory committees would be noncontroversial and desirable – even if that meant some delay due to “processing things to death.” In our new “progressive” environment such community feedback is now viewed as counterproductive and obstructionist. After all, it might slow down the juggernaut. In the last meeting of the previous Council term there were actually people who who spoke out emphatically against these proposals for community input and review. Like it or not but being a “progressive” these days seems to be primarily about increasing and endorsing government control without question.


Resolution #3. Thanks to Peter Daly for his tremendous work as Executive Director of Homeowners Rehab, Inc., over the past 33 years, and in wishing him the very best as he looks to pursue his next exciting chapter.   Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui

Resolution #5. Resolution on the death of Janet Axelrod.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui

I especially like what Library Director Maria McCauley had to say about Janet Axelrod: “It is with sorrow that I write today. One of our longstanding Library champions, Janet Axelrod, passed away on December 26. Janet was the chair of the Board of Library Trustees. She was also one of the founders of the Cambridge Public Library Foundation. Janet was the very best board chair. She cared deeply about accessible library services, the freedom to read, and the privacy rights of users. She understood the complexities of a public library. She was committed to social justice, civil rights, and equity and inclusion work, and she greatly appreciated the staff of the Library and its volunteers.

There are many Cambridge residents who volunteer their time and energy on various City boards & commissions completely independent of the politics of the day. They perform an essential function, and Janet Axelrod was an essential part of this tradition.

Resolution #7. Resolution on the death of legal scholar, civil rights champion, and Cambridge resident Lani Guinier on January 7, 2022 at the age of 71.


Order #2. That Article 20.90 – Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3- Temporarily prohibited uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

This is simply a re-filing of this proposed moratorium due to the failure to schedule an Ordinance Committee meeting within the time limits required under state law. That said, I’ll repeat what I said when this was initially introduced: “If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision.”

Suffice to say that the City Council should have established at least interim zoning for this area several years ago and before a significant amount of real estate changed hands. That, of course, presumes that our elected officials actually have some idea of what they want.


Order #3. That the Mayor is requested to schedule a training session within the month of January for the purpose of reviewing Robert’s Rules of Order with the entire City Council.   Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Mayor Siddiqui, announcing the formal 2022-2023 appointments to the City Council Committees.
Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps at some level it doesn’t really matter who is chosen to be Chair of any given committee, but the practical fact is that committee Chairs do use that role not only to facilitate deliberation but also as a vehicle for their personal political agendas. I simply cannot fathom some of Mayor Siddiqui’s appointments for this term, especially Ordinance and Public Safety. On the other hand, Dennis Carlone is a good match for NLTP, as is Marc McGovern with Human Services. The role of the Gov’t Operations Committee during a time when we’ll be selecting a new City Manager as well as a new City Clerk looms large and consequential. I hope they don’t screw it up. – Robert Winters

January 5, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 531-532: January 4, 2022

Episode 531 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Inauguration and Election of Mayor; history of mayoral elections; Plague Report and forecast; committee appointments pending; civility pledge; work vs. inflammatory posturing; prospects for new councillors; failure to produce committee reports; cleaning up old business prior to taking up new business. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 532 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Looking ahead; competing proposals for alternate police response; Chapter 30B and contracting for alternatives for police response; HEART proposal – no experience, no qualifications; no expertise; search for City Manager and City Clerk; housing/zoning alternatives, form-based zoning; ideology/movements vs. good ideas and compromise; role of councillors as eyes, ears, thermometer of resident views and concerns vs. imposing ideology on residents. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 3, 2022

As expected, it’s Mayor Siddiqui again 9-0

As expected, it’s Mayor Siddiqui again 9-0

Jan 3, 2022 – The newly inaugurated 2022-23 Cambridge City Council today unanimously elected Sumbul Siddiqui as Mayor for the 2022-23 City Council term. The vote for Vice Chair (traditionally referred to as Vice Mayor) was 5-2-2 for Mallon-Simmons-Nolan. Alanna Mallon again elected Vice Mayor.

EVENT BA DC AM MM PN SS DS PT QZ RESULT
Ballot #1 for Mayor SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS Siddiqui 9-0
Ballot #1 for Vice Chair AM PN AM DS PN PN DS DS PN Nolan 4, Simmons 3, Mallon 2
Siddiqui switch to Mallon AM PN AM DS PN AM DS DS PN Nolan 3, Simmons 3, Mallon 3
Zondervan switch to Mallon AM PN AM DS PN AM DS DS AM Mallon 4, Simmons 3, Nolan 2
McGovern switch to Mallon AM PN AM AM PN AM DS DS AM Mallon 5, Simmons 2, Nolan 2

BA=Burhan Azeem, DC=Dennis Carlone, AM=Alanna Mallon, MM=Marc McGovern, PN=Patricia Nolan, SS=Sumbul Siddiqui, DS=Denise Simmons, PT=Paul Toner, QZ=Quinton Zondervan

 

The Mayors of Cambridge (1846 to present)

The City Clerks and City Managers of Cambridge

Note: Later in the day, the newly inaugurated School Committee chose Rachel Weinstein (a.k.a. “Member Rachel”) as its Vice Chair who will be responsible for naming members and Chairs to the various subcommittees of the School Committee.

October 26, 2021

Vote NO on all three Ballot Questions

Ballot Question Information (includes arguments for and against)

Cambridge’s ballot questions explained: Here’s what you need to know (Oct 14, 2021, Cambridge Chronicle)

As long as people are opining on the three ballot questions, I just want to say that I will be voting NO on all three questions.

Regarding Question #1, it might have been helpful if the sponsors had actually asked some members of City boards & commissions how they felt about the proposed change. They didn’t.

I think you can make a reasonable case for Council review of appointees in a system where the City Council has no say in the selection of the appointing authority, e.g. in a city with a directly elected mayor. In Cambridge the appointing authority is the City Manager who is hired by the City Council and who serves "at the pleasure of the City Council."

I have serious concerns that members of some boards will now have to toe the party line of a bare majority of city councillors. For example, I would not be at all surprised if an appointee to the Historical Commission is rejected for supporting historic preservation in an environment where five councillors want to clear out historically significant buildings in order to facilitate densification.

I will add that the proponents failed to determine or specify which boards/commissions might be subject to this change. For example, is the License Commission (Police Commissioner, Fire Chief, and Exec. Director) now subject to City Council approval? (I don’t think so.) What about the Election Commission which was established via a 1921 Special Act of the Mass. Legislature? Would the membership of a topic-specific Task Force appointed by the City Manager be viewed as a "Board" that would now be subject to City Council review?

Regarding Question #2, the City Council has always had the ability to require an annual review of their city manager – no charter revision required. So is the real point that there has been intramural fighting among councillors with the Chair of their Government Operations Committee failing to recommend or schedule a review?

Regarding Question #3, I have no problem with there being a periodic review of the City Charter. I do, however, take issue with the proposal that every member of the proposed Charter Review Committee would be appointed by the City Council. Ordinary citizens need not apply. An independent Charter Review Commission – possibly even an elected commission – would be the better way to proceed.

Robert Winters

Ballot Questions

April 20, 2021

City of Cambridge Releases Comprehensive Digital Equity Study

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:03 pm

City of Cambridge Releases Comprehensive Digital Equity Study

Apr 20, 2021 – The City of Cambridge today released Digital Equity in Cambridge: Data and Strategic Recommendations, the final report for the city’s comprehensive digital equity study. The report provides a complete and clear understanding of the problems and gaps preventing Cambridge residents from making the most effective and meaningful use of broadband (high speed internet access) in the city. Additionally, the report suggests a range of solutions for the city to pursue to address the findings that emerged around broadband access, affordability, digital skills, and device ownership.City Seal

Cambridge partnered with CTC Technology (CTC) to conduct the study. CTC is a nationally recognized firm that offers independent strategic, technical, and financial guidance primarily to public sector and nonprofit entities. The report will serve as the foundation for the city’s future digital equity and broadband initiatives. CTC has helped develop digital equity strategies for other cities including Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington.

“We are creating a comprehensive approach to ensure digital equity and 21st century broadband access in our city,” said Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale. "The Digital Equity in Cambridge report will inform our strategy to ensure affordable broadband access, digital skills, and device ownership for all residents.”

The Digital Equity in Cambridge report surfaces and explores key findings based on the robust data collected, including:

  • Comcast remains an effective monopoly in much of Cambridge’s fixed internet market, but NetBlazr has expanded, and a new provider, Starry, recently began competing in the city;
  • Comcast’s $10 Internet Essentials plan appears significantly underused by potentially eligible residents in Cambridge;
  • Speed tests conducted over several weeks in Comcast customer homes demonstrate a need for user education in managing in-home networks;
  • Citywide internet usage survey shows most residents are connected to the internet but point to more problems with affordability, devices, and skills for older and lower-income residents;
  • Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) internet usage survey finds many residents face significant challenges related to affordability, device maintenance, and computer skills;
  • City stakeholders defined a variety of gaps and made programmatic suggestions;
  • Interviews with residents of CHA and subsidized housing units reveal some pay $10 monthly while others pay $264 monthly to Comcast; and
  • Strategies outlined by subject-matter experts and practitioners in other cities that have proven effective elsewhere in the country.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on the critical role that internet access, device ownership, and digital skills play in successful online learning, job searching, remote work, and telemedicine,” said City of Cambridge Director of Communications Lee Gianetti. “This new report provides the city with a framework for expanding existing programs, creating new initiatives, and learning from digital equity efforts in other cities.”

The study provides a range of recommended strategies the city can deploy to address the digital equity challenges within Cambridge, including:

  • Convene a digital equity and inclusion coalition to guide implementation efforts;
  • Expand the city’s $50,000 pilot program into a Digital Equity Fund emphasizing device and skills programs;
  • Consider establishing a community digital equity specialist position or similar public support function;
  • Engage local philanthropic organizations to broaden the reach of broadband equity initiatives;
  • Partner with organizations that provide low-cost devices and training to Cambridge residents and expand loaner programs;
  • Establish a digital skills training corps;
  • Develop a strategy that explores municipal and other options for increasing broadband competition;
  • Facilitate the provision of additional providers of low-cost service in more CHA developments; and
  • Expand public Wi-Fi and charging stations in core areas, such as Porter and Central squares.

“In the 21st century, digital equity spans nearly every dimension of life, from education and work, to social engagement and civic participation,” said Cambridge Chief Information Officer Patrick McCormick. “Like other inequities, the pandemic exacerbated how anyone lacking online tools and connectivity became disadvantaged in their daily lives. Fortunately, the pandemic also created richer data and tangible use cases to spark conversations and inform analysis. The Digital Equity Study provides clear and compelling insights and recommendations to build a more equitable and inclusive digital future for Cambridge residents and businesses.”

In response to some early study findings and challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Cambridge has already taken specific actions to:

  • Launch a $50,000 pilot program to assist up to 415 families in obtaining $10 Internet Essentials subscriptions;
  • Redirect study resources to allow CTC later this year to conduct a preliminary high-level engineering and cost estimation work for high-speed residential broadband service in three CHA developments: Newtowne Court, Washington Elms, and the Manning Apartments;
  • Engage in preliminary discussions with Life Science Cares, a nonprofit organization that funds anti-poverty programs and expressed interest in being part of a public-private partnership to address digital inequities;
  • Accelerate the Cambridge Public Schools laptop and hotspot provision efforts, providing all students with laptops and (where needed) hotspots. The Cambridge Public Library also began its first-ever technology lending programs; and
  • Partner with the Cambridge Public Library, the MetroNorth Regional Employment Board, and Cambridge Community Foundation to provide essential technology, including Chromebooks, hotspots, and webcams, to adult learners participating in Cambridge Community Learning Center programs.

This study, prepared throughout late 2019 and 2020, did not presuppose what the problems were or what the solutions should be. It thoroughly explored access, affordability, digital skills, and device ownership. The study methodology included the following activities:

  • Analyzed consumer and FCC pricing and availability data to understand the local broadband market, the presence of competition, and any market changes since the City of Cambridge commissioned its earlier broadband study;
  • Through a variety of means (surveys, resident interviews, and conversations with local broadband providers) gathered data on the usage of existing low-cost broadband subsidy programs, particularly the $10 Comcast Internet Essentials program;
  • Conducted a statistically valid mail survey of a sample of the entire city population to understand broadband usage patterns, sentiments, and gaps;
  • Conducted a statistically valid mail survey of a sample of residents of the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) and of subsidized housing for a closer look at lower-income residents and any challenges they face;
  • Interviewed a range of stakeholders representing city departments, nonprofits, schools, library, and others (we also have appended the work of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition, which separately conducted a survey of local nonprofit staff);
  • Interviewed a sampling of Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) and subsidized housing residents who volunteered to be interviewed as part of our mail survey, to understand what they pay for services, and what challenges they face;
  • Conducted in-home internet speed tests of Comcast customers to take hourly measurements over a period of weeks to evaluate service quality and assess potential sources of reported problems, albeit at an anecdotal level;
  • Interviewed practitioners and experts who have studied or implemented digital equity plans and programs in other cities to glean lessons and suggest strategies that might assist the city and its stakeholders in implementing solutions; and
  • Developed several strategic and programmatic recommendations based on all of the above research and data, informed as well by the examples of models in other cities.

Creating a digital equity and inclusion coalition to help guide and support implementation of study recommendations will be one of the early action items. While the Digital Equity in Cambridge study lays out strategies to address digital equity challenges within Cambridge, implementation will require engagement from a variety of internal and external stakeholders and the establishment of an implementation timeline. Detailed planning and implementation plans will be managed by staff from the Information Technology Department and the City Manager’s Office.

Download a copy of the report, Digital Equity in Cambridge: Data and Strategic Recommendations. Print copies are available upon request. Please call the Cambridge City Manager’s Office at 617-349-4300 to schedule a pick-up.

March 27, 2021

HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE – Collier’s Magazine, Jan 31, 1948

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,history — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:10 pm

The following article was referenced at the Sept 23, 2020 City Council meeting on possible Charter review.

HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE
[Collier’s Magazine, January 31, 1948]

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
Cambridge’s Board of Directors, which replaced the old City Council after the professors finished their reform wave, has reduced the city debt from twelve to three million, built the highest-paid group of employees in any city of comparable size, reduced taxes and increased and streamlined all the city services

BY JOSEPH F. DINNEEN

The taxpayers of Cambridge, Massachusetts, were paying far too much for far too little until a group of college professors and plain citizens got together and took on the local political machine. It was a tough and glorious scrap, but today Cambridge is one of the best-run cities in the land

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948WE WANT you, Dean Landis, to become the active, working head of a committee to change the charter of the City of Cambridge." The dean of the Harvard Law School was sympathetic, but not interested. He looked at Attorney George McLaughlin and the committee sent to persuade him. "You want me to become a Cambridge city politician," he said, "and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that. Why pick on me?"

"Because we need a big name. And we need somebody with your kind of ability to head up the fight."

Dean Landis shook his head. "Count me out. I have enough to do without trying to reform the City of Cambridge. Harvard and the city have been fighting for years."

"That’s no reason why Harvard and the city should keep on fighting," McLaughlin persisted. "It’s time they got together. If they don’t, the city will go bankrupt and the professors who live here will find that just as tough as the rest of us. We have a plan to save it, but we want you to help us put it across."

"Why me? And what’s the plan?" The plan which McLaughlin outlined on that day in July, 1938, was simple. But putting it into operation started one of the fanciest political slugging matches the old city across the Charles River had ever seen.

The reason McLaughlin had helped organize forty-nine professors, industrialists, merchants, legionnaires, white-collar workers and laborers into a Committee of Fifty to back the plan, was that they well knew the sad state into which the City of Cambridge had fallen: They had seen the firemen in discarded letter carriers’ uniforms answering alarms with equipment so old it often broke down before it reached the fire; they had driven over the rutted and littered streets and had been stopped cold when unremoved snow made them impassable in winter; they had’ smelled the city when garbage and refuse lay for days without being collected. And they had felt it in their pocketbooks as the taxes inched higher and higher.

The Committee of Fifty had been organized after the first move to correct these abuses had been taken by a team of Harvard experts in government and progressive Massachusetts legislators. This step had been to get the state legislature to pass an act allowing any city to adopt Plan E, the city-manager form of charter, if it voted to do so.

Previously this form of government, which had been pioneered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and had been replacing corrupt municipal machines with streamlined, efficient administration in various other cities throughout the country ever since, had been unavailable to Massachusetts cities. Now that Plan E was available, the Committee of Fifty proposed to arouse the citizens of Cambridge to the point where they’d toss out the city administration and charter and vote in a new order. They well knew that they had a fight ahead of them.

"Mayor John W. Lyons doesn’t know yet that Plan E is poison to him and to all other political bosses," McLaughlin told Landis. "But as soon as we start working to get the people to vote for it, he will. His political machine will start rolling to kill it and he’ll fight as he never fought before because Plan E means his finish."

Dean Landis accepted the job of heading the Committee of Fifty.

McLaughlin was right. Mayor Lyons, Paul Mannos, his chief contractor, who was being investigated by the district attorney and the members of the city council woke up screaming.

The first moves of the opposition made them laugh. James McCauley Landis was going around Cambridge, dropping in at taverns and saloons, chatting with truck drivers and bartenders, talking to them about Plan E, explaining it, discussing it, sounding them out. James Michael Landis, they called him, a comparison to James Michael Curley that they knew he would not like.

A Machine of Nonpoliticians

Nevertheless the new kind of machine that was growing in Cambridge bewildered Mayor Lyons. Its leaders were not politicians. None of them had ever been elected to public office; they were a collection of educators and businessmen swelled by an assortment of nobodies from all wards. They sponsored no candidate, but he knew they were out to defeat him. They didn’t say so. They held political rallies, advocating the adoption of a new and fantastic form of city charter. Dean Landis, the three lawyer McLaughlins, George, Walter and Charles, were a flying squadron buzzing around to clubrooms, the Y.M.C.A. and church groups explaining it in detail, while speakers from the League of Women Voters were missionaries among the women.

Mayor Lyons examined the proposed city-charter and was astonished. It deprived a mayor of all power and made him merely the ceremonial head of the city. It would end a system of contract awards and city contractors. It would make the city council a board of directors of the city corporation and pay each one of them an unheard-of $4,000 a year. It did away with the system of marking a cross on a ballot and permitted every voter to vote for every candidate in a system known as proportional representation. The voter simply put a number one after his first choice, number two after the second and so on down the list.

It was election year and the proponents were trying to get the charter on the ballot. That required the signatures of 10 per cent of the voters —5,000 persons. The mayor and the city contractors were determined to keep it off the ballot at any cost.

"This is a bold and barefaced attempt to overturn our form of government," the mayor shouted from platforms and street-corner rostrums. "This is Communism. This system was designed in Moscow and approved by Stalin. This is a pernicious attempt by the Harvard Reds to destroy the American way."

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
The brothers McLaughlin, Charles, George and Walter (left to right), were ringleaders in the fight to organize a group which could oust the political machine. All lawyers, they handled their forces like generals

"There’s nothing Communistic  about it," the McLaughlins, Dean Landis and a growing corps of speakers answered from the same and other platforms. "It was adapted from democratic systems in Ireland and England by Charles P. Taft to cure corruption and mismanagement in Cincinnati 15 years ago. He added American improvements and refinements and it put Cincinnati back on its feet." As Election Day came nearer, the fight became hot and bitter. Public speakers for Plan E making whirlwind campaign tours around the city came out of meeting places to find the air let out of their tires. A paving block was hurled through the window of the home of one of the speakers. But the Civic Association, which had grown out of the Committee of Fifty, kept on growing.

Already there were more than enough signatures to put on the ballot the question: "Shall Cambridge accept Plan E?" The signatures were filed as required with the State Ballot Law Commission, and verified. There was a deadline established by law —Saturday, October 8th, midnight— when all legal election forms must be completed in time to have ballots printed and distributed. Time was running out and suddenly the Committee of Fifty spotted an unintended booby trap in the state law covering referendums. This was a provision that "the city clerk upon the vote of the council" must transmit a petition for a referendum to the Secretary of State.

"How do we lick this one?" George McLaughlin asked the dean of the Law School. "How can we compel a hostile council to vote a proposal to wipe itself out?"

"A writ of mandamus?" the dean suggested.

"A writ of mandamus is an instrument to compel an official to do a purely administrative act, like making a police chief appoint a cop from a civil service list. Has a writ of mandamus ever been issued to compel a legislative body to pass a yes or no vote?" McLaughlin asked. "I doubt it."

"The courts never interfere with the legislative branch of the government, I’ll agree," Landis said, "but in this case it can be argued. Is this particular vote a legislative or administrative act? You’ll have to reason your way through that one."

On the Tuesday before deadline, the city council met and adjourned without taking any action on the petition. Its next regular meeting would not be held until the Tuesday after the deadline had passed; but Boston and Cambridge newspapers were so scornful and there was now such an impressive number of Plan E supporters throughout the city that the council became uneasy. The president of the council announced that he would call a special meeting to act on the petition on Friday, 24 hours before deadline.

On Friday the strategy of the opposition became clear. Groups of citizens appeared at the Ballot Law Commission to question the validity of signatures on the Plan E petition, alleging wholesale forgeries. The commission protested the lateness of the hour and inquired indignantly why the objections had not been made earlier; but the charges had to be investigated. The commission set ID o’clock next morning for a hearing.

That night the council met again and refused to vote to send the petition along to the Secretary of State.

"We couldn’t," members said. "The petition is now in litigation. It may turn out to be invalid."

Writ of Mandamus Sought

There was a council of war in the cellar of George McLaughlin’s house. "What do you suggest now?" McLaughlin asked Dean Landis. "You’re the chairman of this committee."

"We’ll go after the writ of mandamus."

"Good!" McLaughlin agreed. "I’ve been canvassing that possibility all week. I can’t find a single important legal mind in Boston or Cambridge who thinks it can be done. They all say you can’t get a writ of mandamus for that purpose and they all say there isn’t time. The courts move too slow."

Landis nodded. "Let’s speed them up."

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
Harvard Law School’s Dean Landis was a hard man to convince, but finally he got mad

Organization began right away. Judges were consulted and lawyers enlisted that night. At five o’clock the following morning, the three McLaughlins were in their office facing Suffolk County Courthouse in Boston typing out subpoenas for every person who filed an objection to signatures and for all thirteen members of the city council. There were two jurisdictions involved, Suffolk, which is Boston, and Middlesex, Cambridge. Fifteen lawyers with 15 constables attached were deployed in strategic places around the city, at the Statehouse, the two courthouses, in a district attorney’s office, in drugstores by pay stations and in police stations.

It was their job to channel and chart the case through the Ballot Law Commission and all of the courts to the Supreme Court before the stroke of midnight. In the early morning hours, constables and lawyers were combing Cambridge picking up the objectors and city councilors, and by 10 o’clock that morning they had all been herded before the commission—all except those objectors who apparently lived on vacant lots or were unknown at the addresses given. Some who were awakened in their beds or were disturbed at breakfast didn’t know what their objections were nor how to sustain them.

Justice on the Move

Three lawyers had been assigned to the Ballot Law Commission, and as they called witnesses, one by one their objections dissipated. By 11 o’clock in the morning, the petition was cleared and made legal. The wheels of justice had been speeded up as they never had been in local judicial history. While the ballot law hearing was going on, three more lawyers were piloting the petition for a writ of mandamus through to the courts.

According to the timetable, the court orders directing the councilors to appear should have been in Boston in time to serve them upon the city councilors as the Ballot Law Commission hearing broke up; but the orders were late, or the hearing ended too soon, and the councilors got away. Not far, though. The legal squadron knew where to pick them up from hour to hour.

By 1 o’clock the preliminary hearing on the writ of mandamus before a single justice was over, and he agreed to convene the full bench of the Supreme Court by 3 o’clock. Once again the three lawyers opposite the Boston courthouse began typing—this time turning out writs for the other 12 lawyers to serve on the councilors.

Harvard was playing Princeton that afternoon. Each Cambridge city councilor is entitled to two seats for every Harvard stadium game. As each councilor walked over the Larz Anderson Bridge that afternoon, a lawyer spotted him, pointed him out to his constable. The constable stepped up, saluted the councilor with "Greetings!" and slapped the writ in his hand.

At 3 o’clock a disappointed, dejected and bewildered city council was standing before Supreme Court Justice Dolan. The full bench had already reviewed the petition and Justice Dolan had been assigned to hear the arguments and dispose of the case. City Solicitor Richard C. Evarts, a good lawyer, represented the council, but he had had no time to prepare his case. Justice Dolan issued the writ directing the council to meet before midnight.

There was still one loophole. The councilors might refuse to hold a meeting because they had not been served legal notice of the court’s order. Once again the typewriter battery of lawyers went to work, and that evening, while the councilors were home for dinner, notice was served upon each of them.

The council met at 7:30 that night, and although there was nothing the members could do but pass the order, they debated it for two and a half hours. The deadline was then two hours away and the order still had to be written and signed. The city clerk was a trustworthy and efficient official, but the eyes of a company of lawyers were upon him from the moment he received the document until he left the building. When he came out of City Hall to drive to the Statehouse, he found himself boxed on all sides by accompanying cars. The Plan E committee was taking no chances that something untoward might befall him. He arrived to deposit the document with the Secretary of State exactly 15 minutes before deadline.

Early in the morning after election, when the last vote had been counted. Dean Landis was sitting on a table in Plan E campaign headquarters, swinging his legs idly, drinking a cup of stale coffee from a near-by urn, looking down at the floor thoughtfully, surrounded by a group of disconsolate campaign workers. Plan E had lost.

"What do we do now?" one of them asked.

The dean got down from the table. "Now we start working to put this over two years from now. Get out the cards. Organize the mailing list. Announce the next meeting and arrange it. We lost fairly. We weren’t counted out. We didn’t have enough voles. Next time we’ll have enough votes."

Before the next campaign had arrived, District Attorney Robert Bradford had closed in on Mayor Lyons and Contractor Mannos and sent them to jail for soliciting bribes, a conviction that helped make him governor. The Cambridge Civic Association had swelled to overwhelming proportions, and the campaign was even more bitter. On a night in late October, Dean Landis and George McLaughlin were sitting in an automobile on the fringe of an opposition rally, listening to a councilor plead and fight for votes. The councilor espied Landis and pointed him out to the crowd.

“There’s Dean Landis in an automobile over there with Georgie McLaughlin," he said. "James Michael Landis. He came to me the other day and he said to me: ‘If you’ll support Plan E, I’ll deliver to you the support of the Cambridge Civic Association,’ and I said to him, ‘No, Dean. You can’t bribe me.’ "

Accusation Stirs Landis

The dean was reaching for the door and at the same time shucking off his coat. "He can’t get away with that," he said.

McLaughlin pulled him back. "Wait a minute! Cool off."

"He’s a bar," the dean struggled to get loose.

"The people he’s talking to know that. What are you going to do? Mix it up with him? Clip him on the chin? That’ll give you a lot of personal satisfaction tonight, and tomorrow you’ll be all over front pages for having a brawl with a candidate." The dean subsided and McLaughlin drove away.

Plan E won that year, and the following year the Civic Association put the plan into operation. The first board of directors, which took the place of the city council, hired as city manager John B. Atkinson, World War I veteran, Boston College graduate and an experienced executive in the shoe business. He had never been in politics and had never managed a city. The first thing he did was to throw all of the city contractors and hangers-on out of City Hall. Then he called all city employees before him.

"The city," he told them, "is now under new management. No city employee is going to be fired. From now on, you don’t need any political influence to hold your job and political influence won’t get you advancement or more money. What you’re going to be paid depends upon what you do and how you do it. Everybody working for this city is getting a raise in pay right now. The cost of living is going up—and you need it—but you’re going to earn it.

"From now on you’re going to do all the work that has to be done in this city – including the work that has been done in the past by city contractors and subcontractors and their employees. From now on, you’ll get a raise every year until you’re the best-paid city employees in the country. From there on, the size of your salary is up to yourself."

The employees liked that. The local unions did not; but they couldn’t do much about it. Atkinson needed a number of specialists in city administration and picked them among city employees, even sending them to colleges for special training. The new city road builders got their fundamental training in techniques in road building and surfacing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose professors and instructors had a stake in Cambridge city government. He appointed college professors, specialists and instructors to nonpaying advisory posts. The city’s postwar plan, advanced and ambitious, was designed by Professor Frederick J. Adams of MIT, who became the head of the Cambridge Planning Board.

During the past seven years every job done in Cambridge has been done by its own hired hands with this result: Since 1941 the city reduced its debt from $12,000,000 to $3,000,000, and at the same time raised the salaries of all of its city employees $1,300,000, actually making them the best paid in any city of comparable size in the world. It reduced its tax rate from $48 to $35.50 without raising the values of its taxable properties. While cutting the city’s debt 75 per cent and reducing its tax rate—unheard of and considered to be impossible during war and postwar years when all costs were climbing—the city also did this:

Built eleven playgrounds and a new bathing beach; junked all of its obsolete fire-fighting and police equipment, replacing it with the latest and best apparatus obtainable, including the last word in two-way radio transmitters and receivers; modernized, re-equipped and enlarged its City Hospital, including the latest and most elaborate X ray; bought a fleet of sanitation trucks that are washed down daily and repainted white frequently; hired architects for G.I.s and built 1,200 modern housing units for them (not obsolete barracks, jerry-built shacks or Quonset huts); resurfaced more yards of streets in five years than all other cities of comparable size in 15 years.

Cambridge has its own printing plant, manned and operated by city employees. It prints everything for the city from stationery to books. It has its own photostat plant, which turns out copies of documents, plans and blueprints for city departments. The city incinerator was always an expensive loss, as was the garbage-disposal plant. The incinerator now pays the city a profit of $36,000 a year, while the garbage-disposal plant turns in a profit of $8,500. By businesslike methods, it increased the income of its City Hospital from $121,000 to $360,000 a year.

City employees do everything: painting, paper hanging, plumbing, repairing and building. The city furnishes the materials; the employees do the rest. Cambridge employs a staff of buyers who roam and scour the country picking up supplies in competition with contractors and private business. For $200,000 recently these roving purchasing agents picked up from Army and Navy surplus stores supplies that would otherwise cost $2,000,000.

The Cambridge City Corporation is hardboiled and tough with its debtors. Its crack law department collects every penny owed the city by the State of Massachusetts and by surrounding cities and towns in water, electric, transit and other tax adjustments. The law department fights rather than settles all doubtful claims against the city. For example, claims from people tripping over sidewalks have dropped from $48,000 a year to $15,000 a year because the city lawyers will fight the full distance to the Supreme Court if necessary. The city is just as tough with its own delinquent taxpayers and collects 99 per cent of its taxes from them. On last August 1st, it had less than one per cent miscellaneous taxes outstanding, and a phenomenal zero outstanding real-estate and personal taxes.

Speculators and Rent Gougers Hit

Valuations of homes, industrial and business establishments were left severely alone, except when speculators and rent gougers were involved. When a man sold for $12,000 a place that was worth $2,500 on the city’s tax books, they looked into it right away. If it was worth $12,000 to the new buyer it was worth almost that to the tax collector and the speculator was promptly slugged with the new tax bill. If a property owner raised rents, he was treated the same way. New businesses and new industries have been crowding Cambridge so fast that it’s a problem to find quartet’s for them.

The city doesn’t borrow any long-term money. It saves the interest. Its credit is probably better than that of any other city in the country.

Cambridge has become a phenomenal experiment in city government. The resources and laboratories of MIT test all of its building and road materials, equipment and machinery. Problems in physical improvement are for MIT students to solve. The Littauer School of Government, with Professor Morris Lambie as adviser, helps on problems of government and city betterment.

Hand in glove with the Civic Association is the Cambridge Research Association to examine all aspects of city government. Dr. Karl T. Compton, president of MIT, his administrative assistant, Robert Kimball, and Bernice Cronkhite, former dean of Radcliffe College, are members of the board of directors of the Research Association while President James Bryant Conant of Harvard is an ordinary, dues-paying member of the Civic Association.

Meetings of the Civic Association are almost unbelievable. A federal judge sits between a truck driver, and a housemaid, and a professor of archaeology drapes himself over a radiator next to a cop.

The old system dies hard, but in Plan E, according to Professor Lambie, the entrenched politician skilled in yesteryear’s technique can see the curtain falling on the city-boss type of government. "A political machine can’t operate under Plan E," says Lambie. "Good or bad government originates with the people of any community, but the fact that the people of a community want good government doesn’t mean that they’ll get it. They’ll get good government only if there is a charter and an election system in power through which they can function."

THE END

November 17, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 479-480: November 17, 2020

Episode 479 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 17, 2020 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:00pm. Topics: Presidential Election Results and Reflections; coming to terms with those who voted for the other guy; mandates and conflict; Blue vs. Grey or Red vs. Blue; social media and the importance of journalism you can trust – both nationally and locally; The Grifter as Anti-President. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 480 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 17, 2020 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:30pm. Topics: RCV fails; COVID – more than just an “uptick”, causes, COVID fatigue, MIT & Harvard, controversy over Late Order calling for shutdown; City Council Aides discussion – history, suggestions, political patronage, and pushing limits of Plan E. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 15, 2020

Budget Politics – Retail vs. Wholesale: What’s on Sale on the June 15, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Budget Politics – Retail vs. Wholesale: What’s on Sale on the June 15, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda?

Here a few agenda items of note:City Hall

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the Council on how some, or all, of the $4.1 million dollar increase in the Police Department budget between FY20 and FY21 may be redirected towards measures that promote public health and safety in other departments. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER IN COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2020]

Communications #2. A communication was received from Jae Storozum, 16 Whittier Street, regarding a response to Police Commissioner Bard’s statement.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting Amendments to Policy Order 2020 #133 (a.k.a. Order #7 from June 8 / Charter Right #1 on current agenda).

The June 8-10 City Council meeting provided an interesting study in Retail vs. Wholesale Politics. Most local candidates are familiar with retail politics – the kind of person-to person politics that involves lots of questions, conversations, coffee, shoe leather, and door-knocking. In contrast, there’s wholesale politics which many of us still associate with TV commercials, billboards, and mass mailings. The fact is that wholesale politics is now more likely to take the form of social media campaigns, ginormous email lists culled from various sources within your tribe, and devices like the "political action network" or something similar that can engineer a mass email campaign or drive people to a website or (in the pandemic world we now find ourselves) to a public meeting hosted in Zoom. There is a fundamental asymmetry between how activists at either end of the political spectrum democratically participate versus how moderates participate. Suffice to say that it’s unlikely that you’ll ever see a flood of moderates inundating a public meeting or laying down in the middle of a highway – even if theirs is the more common point of view. They do, however, vote.

Whether you believe Cambridge Police are wonderful, are already making needed reforms, are in need of restructuring, or whether they should be outright abolished (a non-starter), it’s interesting to see how different people attempt to make their case. I won’t pretend to know where most people really stand on some of these policing issues – locally or elsewhere, but I do think it’s pretty clear that public opinion has been growing more firm in the belief that police departments everywhere need to be more accountable when it comes to the use of deadly force. The salient question in Cambridge is whether the Cambridge Police Department has been moving in a good direction and whether that should be supported. I believe that Police Commissioner Branville Bard and his department have been clearly moving in a good direction for some time now and that they should be supported. I would love to see a more broad discussion over this coming year on what other steps might be taken, including looking at overtime pay and the costs associated with police details, and not just on which functions might be outsourced. Commissioner Bard’s focus on "procedural justice" should absolutely be supported. I really would rather not see our elected officials carry out a "vote of no confidence" via a symbolic and purely political act of "defunding." If you want to cut budgets, look at the whole FY2021 Budget and don’t just single out the Police Department budget in the spirit of "Give us Barabbas" in order to placate the crowd.

Then there’s the matter of councillors continuing to engage in one-upmanship, but there’s not a hell of a lot we can do about that.


Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19.

Here’s one question that I hope someone will address: Now that the number of new cases of coronavirus per day has dropped considerably, is there any indication of how these new infections are most likely occurring? There recently was a chart circulating indicating relative risk of various activities. That was helpful in demystifying the threat. We could really use more information like that.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to the City Council forwarding the ITD budget with an unfavorable recommendation.

Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 from Free Cash to the Grant Fund Executive Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to support the City’s digital equity efforts to support qualifying families during the COVID19 pandemic who do not have Internet access at home.

This is progress. I’m not convinced either way what the best course of action will be regarding municipal broadband vs. making the best of available resources, but maybe this analysis (and the counter-analysis) will convince me one way or the other.


Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 26, 2020, June 2, 2020 and on June 3, 2020 to discuss the General Fund Budget.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Dennis Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 2, 2020 to discuss the Water Fund.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Councillor Dennis Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 2, 2020 to discuss the Public Investment Fund.

Unfinished Business #5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $6,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of various water pollution abatement projects, including but not limited to Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.

Unfinished Business #6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for various Schools for repairs to electrical service, roof replacement, chiller replacement, floor replacement and replacement of bi-directional amplifier and antenna in various school buildings.

Unfinished Business #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.

Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $16,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan which will support improvements at the Department of Public works Complex including the Ryan Garage, Lafayette Square Firehouse structural repair, and other municipal buildings.

Unfinished Business #9. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $9,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements of the Lexington Avenue and River Street Firehouses.

Unfinished Business #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $237,000,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper School.

I suppose the only real questions re: the FY2021 Budget vote are (1) whether there will be a symbolic "defund the police" rescission; (2) whether the Council will "send a message" on the municipal broadband question; and (3) whether there will be any further gazing into the crystal ball about the continued impact of Covid-19 on residents, property values, rents, sustainability of businesses, tax revenue, and funding priorities. – Robert Winters

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress