Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

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

3 Comments

  1. Thanks for your comments, Robert. I too like to see Councilor Cheung jumping right into the council with a fresh perspective. For tonight’s meeting I think he held his own very well and seems to be getting the lingo down quite well.

    What I would have loved to hear tonight was not discussion on instant runoff vs runoff voting and how to ask the city solicitor but a meaningful discussion of why they are voting for mayor as they are. Councilor Decker said that many evenings and weekends are devoted to discussing this vote. I for one can’t tell that. Why can’t these discussions be on the record?

    Councilor Davis said the long process allows the councilors to get to know each other better! I would hope they’d get to know each other as they worked on issues for the city – throughout the year and not just on one issue.

    I think there is committee work to be done and discussions that should be happening now. The process is stopped because there is no Mayor to appoint committee positions and that’s a shame.

    Comment by Minka — February 8, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

  2. While I’m mildly interested in the battle for mayor– OK, not really; it doesn’t bother me at all– the most newsworthy item on the agenda was the departure of Pearl Art and the woeful state of economic development along Massachusetts Avenue now. We can’t find another retailer to replace the Gap? Or someone to fill that space right in the middle of Harvard Square? I won’t even start on the string of empty storefronts between Central and Harvard squares, which is abysmal. This is a priority problem for the city. Our economic vitality cannot solely depend on the biotech and software whiz kids filling office space down near Kendall Square.

    Comment by Matt — February 9, 2010 @ 6:43 am

  3. Matt –

    That item about Pearl Arts leaving on the council’s agenda was just pushed into the City Manager’s hands. If the Council Committees were functioning, some discussion with the public could happen there.

    I think the Central Square Business Association needs to be active as well. As a body they should be able to petition for support services in Central Square: more trash pickup, tree maintenance, policing, enforcing anti-loitering laws, better lighting, art in the empty storefront windows, etc. I can’t imagine a tenant looking for space would be encouraged by the nips bottles, butts and trash most everywhere. When a realtor has to guide the prospective tenant over sleeping bodies to show the space, it doesn’t set a good tone.

    Another bank is coming into part of the Gap space. Floating Rock (Thai?) Restaurant is coming in by Douglass Street. That’s all I know about new tenants in Central Square. Any other information would be appreciated.

    Comment by Minka — February 9, 2010 @ 10:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress