FaTeague – Dec 9, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda
There are basically two noteworthy items on this week’s agenda and both of them relate to Kendall Square. The first is the Ames Street Land Disposition. There’s a public hearing at 6:30pm on the proposal by the City of Cambridge to sell a 20-foot wide strip of public land along the eastern edge of Ames Street between Main Street and Broadway in Kendall Square. The land would be sold to a private owner with the condition that it would be combined with adjacent land to enable the construction of a residential building with ground floor retail. The public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, regarding Disposition of City Property. [text from the call of the meeting]
The Cambridge Revelopment Authority (CRA) supports the plan as does the Planning Board as indicated in:
City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation supporting the proposed Ames Street Land Disposition.
Date: Dec 3, 2013
Subject: Ames Street Land Disposition
Recommendation: The Planning Board supports the proposed disposition.To the Honorable, the City Council,
The Planning Board recommends that the land disposition proceed in accordance with the terms outlined in the City Manager’s Nov 18, 2013 report, the attached Request for Proposals and the winning proposal submitted by Boston Properties Limited Partnership.
The Board finds that the report adequately and correctly summarizes all of the considerations with regard to the land disposition. The proposal has many significant benefits to the City, including the addition of new housing to Kendall Square and the activation of the streetscape with ground-floor retail and small open spaces on Ames Street. The financial arrangements will also benefit the City, as the report indicates that the price offered for the Property is within the range of the City’s independent appraisals, that the buyer will also assume responsibility for public roadway improvements associated with the project, and that the project will generate ongoing tax revenue for the City. The report also indicates some potential drawbacks of the proposed project, such as shadow impacts, which will be assessed by the Planning Board as part of its project review requirements.
Taking into account all considerations with regard to this disposition, the Planning Board finds that it is an appropriate action to be taken by the City.
Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Hugh Russell, Chair
Most reasonable people, including most or all of the city councillors, will likely agree with the assessment of the Planning Board. Nonetheless, the hearing is likely to bring out those who continue to object to last year’s approval of the downsizing of a rooftop garden in exchange for a greatly extended time during which it will be maintained for public access (an additional 28 years). Some will likely testify that this is some kind of scandalous giveaway to big, bad corporations. Others will argue that the City should somehow try to leverage the delivery of All That Is Good in exchange for this unimportant strip of the public way. This is nothing but bad political theater.
Communication #3. A communication was received from Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street transmitting his reply to Cambridge City Council response on Open Meeting Law Complaint dated Nov 5, 2013.
Speaking of bad political theater, the meaningless saga continues of the unhappy activist filing Open Meeting Law complaints when votes don’t go his way. This week’s agenda brings a tedious 76 page communication from Charles Teague, the new right-hand-man of Councillor-Elect Dennis "Pearl Harbor" Carlone. The thought that this kind of pointless harassment may become the norm for the new City Council is enough to drive away even long-term Council-watchers like me. Is this what civic activism has degenerated into? Will every significant City Council vote now be subject to complaints filed with state agencies?
In baseball, when the 3rd out is registered in the bottom of the 9th, you accept your loss and head for the locker room. You don’t file a protest with the Baseball Commissioner. The antics of Teague and company are the civic equivalent of bad sportsmanship, and this may soon become the norm.
You can never predict how an idiotic complaint like this will ultimately turn out, but the incident that was the subject of the complaint is simple to describe:
(a) MIT filed several iterations of a zoning petition for an area in and around Kendall Square where MIT owns a significant amount of property. The petition went through many public hearings before finally coming to a vote on Apr 8, 2013.
(b) During the weeks and months leading up to ordination, MIT representatives met with all of the city councillors and developed a memorandum of understanding that included substantial commitments.
(c) Prior to final ordination on the night of the vote, a series of amendments were proposed by several councillors. Councillor Kelley objected strenuously to the late arrival of the proposed amendments. There were so many opportunities to propose amendments during the months, weeks, and days leading to this vote, that there was no excuse for trying to rush these amendments through.
One such proposed amendment by Councillor vanBeuzekom would have required "net zero" energy standards on any new buildings. This enjoyed a temporary victory on a 5-3-1 vote with Councillors Cheung, Decker, Simmons, vanBeuzekom, and Mayor Davis voting YES; Councillors Kelley, Maher, and Toomey voting NO; and Councillor Reeves voting PRESENT. This led to very clear expressions from MIT representatives that such a requirement would invalidate the commitments to which they had previously agreed. This was communicated to Councillor Maher and through him to Mayor Davis. When informed that this burden could threaten MIT’s other commitments, Mayor Davis reluctantly asked to change her vote from YES to PRESENT which defeated the amendment 4-3-2. This was a vote change that Mayor Davis clearly did not relish, but she did it for the greater goal of passing the entire package. All of this took place in full view of the public.
(d) The MIT/Kendall zoning petition was then ordained on a 7-1-1 vote with Councillor vanBeuzekom voting NO (as expected) and Vice Mayor Simmons voting PRESENT. The revised Letter of Commitment from MIT was approved unanimously.
There was NOTHING unusual in what transpired that evening. However, a photograph of MIT representatives explaining their position to Councillor Maher was used to claim that some sort of shenanigans had taken place. This led to a complaint being filed long after the period for such complaints had expired. The City Clerk and City Solicitor drafted a response that was approved by the City Council, and we now get this 76 page followup from the disgruntled political activist.
Many people have noted that the current City Council has at times engaged in pointless interpersonal bickering, and this is fair criticism. However, unless some of the newly elected councillors and the incumbent councillors take some affirmative action early in the 2014-15 term to set a good tone, we may find ourselves looking back longingly toward the relative peace and harmony of the 2012-13 City Council. – Robert Winters
As long as you’re making baseball analogies…
In a time & place where parents’ groups sue umpires because a kid got called out at home plate in a Little League game, I can’t be surprised at anything, so in fact this sort of sore loser mentality is perhaps even late getting to Cambridge. Nowadays, if you lose one, someone else has to pay; so whip out the lawyers.
Comment by FRED BAKER — December 9, 2013 @ 2:13 pm
I just lost IQ points reading that…why did I read that?! If the city can’t beat this then I know a great attorney they can hire in October. Chuck is the result of apathy on the part of the council. If they hadn’t been so mushy Teague would never have been spurned on. People like this need to be quashed with direct and infallible logic, then dismissed. Its interesting how even in a progressive haven such as Cambridge a Tea-Party-like opposition could arise and even supplant a council seat, and a Coldwell Banker real estate agent at that. Has councilor Cheung explained why he voted yes? I find that one disconcerting. Its like they all spent months deciding what kind of model airplane to build, and when they finally settled on a messerschmitt bf 109 Minka turned around and said she wanted a space shuttle, and 3 people agreed. How could anyone in that room know what they were really voting for?
Comment by Patrick Barrett — December 9, 2013 @ 10:01 pm
Mayor Davis broke Council rules when she used her position to change her vote, ten minutes after first making it, without asking for unanimous consent. It is likely that consent would not have been given, without at least a thorough discussion of the MIT objections. This fact was missing in your commentary.
Comment by Gerald Bergman — December 10, 2013 @ 11:34 pm
Gerald,
What rule did she break?
Comment by Patrick Barrett — December 11, 2013 @ 9:16 pm
Unanimous consent must be asked and granted……neither happened.
Comment by Gerald Bergman — December 12, 2013 @ 12:34 am
Can you tell me which rule youre citing and where I can look it up? I’m not trying to be snarky I’m geniunely curious. Thank you.
Comment by Patrick Barrett — December 12, 2013 @ 10:14 am
Mayor Davis is the Chair of the City Council. She is the arbiter in determining whether there is unanimous consent to change a vote (a roll call is not necessary). She correctly assessed that there would be no objection to her changing her vote on this amendment (which was not the main motion). NOBODY OBJECTED. This means that there was unanimous consent. She was totally clear in what she was doing and why she was doing it. All of her colleagues understood and did not object.
Honestly, this may be the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard regarding how business is conducted in the Sullivan Chamber. If you don’t like the outcome, try arguing on the merits. I have yet to hear any city councillor who was involved in that vote suggest that there was anything improper. If I did, I would likely lose all respect for that councillor.
One more thing – Perhaps we should create a new Cambridge sect called “The Church of Latter Day Environmentalists” for all the people who want no new construction in Cambridge and who only “got religion” when it was politically expedient for stopping new development. This includes most of the people who have used the “Net Zero” tactic as their latest device for blocking all change in the city – including the construction of new housing.
Comment by Robert Winters — December 12, 2013 @ 10:28 am
Patrick,
You need to get two documents, the City Council Rules and Robert’s (not the Winters Robert) Rules. You should also find video recordings from the meeting: The Council has one and there are citizen recordings out there.
Here are the City Council Rules:
http://rwinters.com/council/rules2012-2013.htm
Alas, there is no really good online copy of Robert’s (but if you search, you will find plenty of discussion of them).
Opinions may differ on just what happened with the “Net-Zero” amendment vote, but here are the facts:
City Council Rules
Rule 5. The Mayor shall declare all votes. If any member doubts the vote, the chair without further debate upon the question, shall require the members voting in the affirmative and negative, respectively, to be counted; the Mayor shall declare the results, but no such declaration shall be made unless a quorum of the City Council has voted.
Rule 16. A question having been taken, it shall not be in order for any member to move a reconsideration thereof at the same meeting…(more verbiage in actual rule).
Rule 35A. Any of the foregoing rules with the exception of Rule 19 may be suspended at any meeting by a two-thirds yea and nay vote of the entire membership of the City Council…(more verbiage in actual rule).
Rule 36. The City Council shall be governed by “Roberts’ Rules of Order (SIC)” in all questions of parliamentary practice not provided for by special rules of order.
Robert’s Rules of Order
Section 4: The Handling of a Motion
In voting, a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is finally announced. After that, he can make the change only by unanimous permission of the assembly.
Here’s what I saw in the videos:
The City Clerk declared the results in favor of the net-zero amendment at the Mayor’s request. This is done all the time in lieu of the Mayor actually declaring the results.
After all the other amendments had been discussed and voted, all that was left was to vote on the main motion. At this point, some Councillors began to, well, just talk.
The Mayor then declared her intention to change her vote.
Van Beuzekom, clearly stunned, asked her to explain why. The Mayor said it was no longer up for debate and changed her vote. The amendment failed and the Mayor then decided to explain why she changed her vote. The main motion then passed.
Here’s the problem, the Mayor did not ask unanimous consent to change her vote after the results had been declared. Robert’s (Winters) rules assume no objection if no one objects to an un-asked question. Robert’s (Henry) rules do not.
And in my opinion, Minka did object to the un-asked question.
Robert’s Rules are designed to encourage discussion and certainty once a vote is taken, this is what should have happened that night:
The Mayor should have asked for unanimous consent to change her vote.
Van Beuzekom would have objected.
The Mayor would then have asked the Council to suspend the rules in order to reconsideration of the vote on the amendment (suspension of Rule 16). This would have passed.
On reconsideration of the vote, a full discussion of the “new” information regarding MIT’s objection could have taken place in public view.
The vote would be retaken, with the same results (the amendment would have failed).
Well, actually the results would be different. The Council would have respected its own member’s rights to a full and fair discussion and voted in a more open and transparent way.
Comment by Tom Stohlman — December 13, 2013 @ 8:31 am
Tom,
Thank you, but I was hoping for more because I’ve already discovered the council rules and Robert’s Rules online and had a hard time concluding as you have. Saying that Minka “would have objected” is conjecture and since we must assume that Minka, at the very least, understands how the council operates would have made a clear objection when the Mayor changed her vote. We also must remember that there are seven other council memebers who could have also objected but did not. I am also not convinced that the discussion of “new” information between MIT and council didn’t take place within “plain view.” However that is much more debatable, in my opinion, than whether Minka objected or not. She didn’t. I understand why people are upset and once this entanglement is undone I look forward to pushing through and getting to more substantive items. These person vendettas are painful to watch and had left me to consider that maybe everyone involved here needs to take a timeout and let the next generation of activists and citizens start fresh. The really offensive item to me is that any amendments were offered at time when they were. They were all ill conceived, and smacked of a kind of brinkmanship I’d like to see eradicated from city hall. Craig Kelly, again, was spot on that day. Watching you guys throw blind liberal sentiment into the wind and then complaining when it smacks you in the face is no longer funny to me, it has become tedious. I’d love to chat more but I’ve two exams today and need to get zen. I’d love to chat more though…as always I’m at Tosci between 8-8:30 everyday. Peace Love & Soul
Comment by Patrick Barrett — December 13, 2013 @ 9:57 am
Patrick,
Ah conjecture, I did state that my scenario is what should have happened. Pure conjecture on how it would have played out, but no conjecture on how it should have played out according to Robert’s Rules.
I have a feeling you didn’t look at the Council’s tape of the meeting. The Mayor did not call for unanimous consent to change her vote, she just proceeded to change her vote, at first to “no” and then to “present”. Minka did object to what was happening, at least three times, and asked the Mayor about MIT’s objections to the vote and was told “it’s not in order at this time”.
I’m lost as to what “blind liberal sentiment” has to do with it. There’s a reason for the rules. They protect our rights and the Councillor’s rights to a full and fair discussion in public view.
Tom
Comment by Tom Stohlman — December 15, 2013 @ 8:27 am
Tom,
The “blind liberal sentiment” jab was mostly aimed at the underlying reason for the Teague protest and that is: Net Zero. Another reason why I can’t vote for anyone who supports this initiative. Not one of the people who stumps for this agenda has even the slightest clue about how to implement it. Did Minka outwardly say, “I object” ? I am assuming this is the paragraph we are working with:
“A member has the right to change his vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, he can make the change only by permission of the assembly, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member’s objecting when the chair inquires if any one objects. If objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which motion is undebatable.”
So I guess if Minka’s questions constitute an objection then maybe you have a point. It seems to me that if, after the Mayor told Minka it wasn’t up for discussion (a point which seems to be mistaken.)Minka, knowing the rules, should have stated “I object” and “This is up for discussion now.” … did that happen?
What is the end game here? Do we tar and feather Henrietta? Does the net zero amendment now pass making the MIT commitment void? My corporations professor has a great saying, “A difference that makes no difference makes no difference.” Henrietta maybe gets a slap on the wrist and time served and the motion is still defeated. I agree Tom that the council has played fast and loose for way too long, but constantly attacking them like the self appointed hall monitor you seem to have become isn’t very productive. Think also on who actually undermined your candidates campaign, and how by aligning yourself with Dennis Carlone you not eroded any chance Janeke had of winning, but hurt her chances at a future run. Part of being effective is knowing when to fight the good fight. This is not one of those times. However, procedurally you may have a point… now what?
Comment by Patrick Barrett — December 15, 2013 @ 10:22 am
Patrick,
You asked a question. I answered it.
Hall monitor, hah! I’m attacking the Council? Sounds as silly as the Pearl Harbor analogy during the campaign. Oh, and Janneke spells her name with two n’s. And for the record, I “aligned” myself with one candidate (other campaign managers will attest to this) during the campaign and it was not Dennis Carlone.
I’ll state my point one more time (although it sound like you agree with me). Rules are important, especially rules which encourage governmental bodies to have their discussions and make their decisions in a fair and open way.
Now what? I’m hoping the new Cambridge City Council term starts with a lesson in the Open Meeting Law and the rules and procedures of the body. And I hope a Chair (Mayor is an anachronism from a different time) is elected who not only knows the rules, but helps the members navigate them when they need help. I think that will make a positive difference.
Tom
Comment by Tom Stohlman — December 15, 2013 @ 7:52 pm