Getting to know your job (or not) – Preview of the March 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting
When you have watched the Cambridge City Council for over three decades (as I have) you develop certain expectations. For example, when there are no City Council orders calling for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi, you start to worry if everyone is feeling OK or if they are in need of some intervention. You also come to expect a fair number of poorly-researched "drive-by orders" asking the City Manager and staff to dedicate many hours to explore some barely-formed notion that someone heard about in Santa Monica or elsewhere. I’m reasonably OK with the latter (mainly because I don’t have to follow up on the requests for information), but I have always found the former (foreign intervention) to be just a bit out of the range of the role of the City Council. This week we’ll hear about farmers in India.
Another common situation is the failure of some city councillors to understand what they can and cannot do under our Plan E Charter. In recent months we have seen efforts to micromanage City departments – most notably the License Commission and the Police Department (CPD), but also the Public Health Department. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, in particular, has repeatedly expressed his frustration when five councillors expressing a point of view fails to result in all hands on deck carrying it out. In other words, his notion of a city manager is to not actually be a manager but rather a messenger incapable of making managerial decisions regarding logistics, financing, approving contracts, labor negotiation or much of anything else – as if doing so is somehow a breakdown in “democracy”.
One case in point this week is seen in the responses from the City Solicitor regarding whether the Cambridge City Council can forbid the use of tear gas by CPD (which it hasn’t actually used for nearly half a century). It’s now essentially a moot point thanks to recent state legislation and CPD policies restricting its use, but the Solicitor does take the councillors to school regarding the limits of Council authority in matters such as this. I generally find the expressed dichotomies of some councillors to be willfully ignorant. They may see this as a choice between peaceful negotiation and tear gas, but the significant choice really only comes up in a full-scale riot or insurrection when it’s a choice between lethal and non-lethal force – and it’s good to have non-lethal options in that case.
Some councillors a few weeks ago expressed frustration regarding the role of the License Commission in managing potential conflicts regarding live entertainment and enforcement of the Noise Ordinance in allowing acoustic music without a license. It’s great that the City Council wants to recommend some changes, but they also have the luxury of never having to adjudicate the conflicts. That said, the License Commission seems to have understood the desired goals and they are now proposing ways to realize those goals while still being able to adjudicate conflicts – something that is definitely not the job of a city councillor.
It is entirely proper for a city councillor to second-guess the decisions of the City Manager and his staff. It would also be proper for a councillor or even a majority of councillors to tell the Manager that they think one of his departments is dysfunctional. If the Manager remains unresponsive, a simple majority of the City Council can even exercise its nuclear option and send the Manager packing. On the other hand, if a city councillor chooses to bypass the Manager and directly browbeat a department head or other employee, that might actually cross the line into felony territory. Councillors need to know their limitations. That goes for their aides as well.
Here are the visible highlights this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting COVID-19 Update Questions.
Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0
Order #1. Mobile Vaccines Policy Order. Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #2. Waiving Business Fees. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #3. Honoring the Cambridge Lives Lost to COVID-19. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0
The City’s many responses to the pandemic continue. Vaccinations are increasing and there is light at the end of the tunnel, but the 7-day averages of new cases are no longer decreasing – and this is a cause for some concern. It may be the presence of virus variants, and I’m sure the count will soon be decreasing again. In the meantime, we remain vigilant – and hopeful.
And soon there will be baseball.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0
The Planning Board recommends against adoption of this petition in its present form. While the intentions of the petitioners are to be respected, the petition is highly deficient in terms of definitions, practical considerations regarding maintenance and cost, and how the proposed requirements would interact with code requirements related to safety, accessibility, and building mechanical systems. It’s also unclear how this proposal dovetails with existing zoning regulations and other proposals now under consideration.
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item Number 2 dated Nov 2, 2020, which requested draft ordinance language to prohibit the use of tear gas in Cambridge.
Placed on File 9-0
“I am of the opinion that the authority to dictate what weapons are used by Cambridge police officers when carrying out their official duties, under the City’s Plan E Charter and its Home Rule powers, rests with the City Manager and not the City Council; that future changes in weapons and equipment already in use by the Police Department would likely be subject to collective bargaining as to the impact of such changes; and that an ordinance restricting police officers from carrying assault weapons would thus be invalid as inconsistent with or frustrating the purposes of State law.” — That sums it up pretty well. Both responses from the City Solicitor are worth reading.
Charter Right #2. Task Force Transparency. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #2 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended by Simmons Substitution 9-0
[after QZ amendment to have joint meeting w/Public Safety Committee failed 3-6 (DC,JSW,QZ – YES)]
Regarding the Task Force, I’ll repeat what I said last week: “Apparently Councillor Zondervan and I have the same wish but likely for diametrically opposite reasons. I have been asking to get access to these meetings (or at least the recordings) of the new Task Force on the Future of Public Safety, and apparently now so is he. My concern is that I don’t want to see problematic people dominating the conversation, and I suspect Councillor Zondervan may desire to ensure the exact opposite. Public Safety, in my view, translates into an improved police force sharing specific responsibilities with others as appropriate. Others openly express a desire to abolish police entirely. That’s a non-starter for me and not a plausible outcome of this process, but I would like to at least sample the dialogue.”
Charter Right #3. Shelter Wages. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #4 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended 9-0
Again, repeating what I said last week: “I have no idea what constitutes an appropriate wage for people who work at the 240 Albany Street wet shelter, but it’s not a City-owned facility and it serves the region and not just Cambridge residents. My understanding is that the City’s Living Wage Ordinance applies to people working for the City and to companies bidding on City contracts. Does this describe how the Bay Cove (formerly CASPAR) shelter operates? This is not the only facility they operate. [“Each year, Bay Cove provides services to more than 25,000 individuals and families who face the challenges of developmental and intellectual disabilities, mental illness, substance use disorder, homelessness and/or aging, at more than 170 program sites in Metro Boston and southeastern Massachusetts.”] There are waiver provisions in the ordinance. I’m curious to see how this plays out. After all, there are other shelter facilities in Cambridge that are not funded via City contracts. Would they all then be obliged to raise wages even if their funding sources cannot support it?”
On the Table #7. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. [TABLED IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN]
Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Tabled 9-0 (Zondervan)
Once again, I hope that this City Council will somehow see the wisdom in not overly restricting reasonable choices of homeowners or burdening them with unreasonable costs.
Unfinished Business #9. The City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City of Cambridge Law Department to review the above changes to the language of the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance and report back to the Council. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL JULY 27, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER SEPT 14, 2020]
Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)
Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 20, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0; Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)
It looks like this may be ordained after many months of discussion. I’ll withhold my opinion regarding the need for such detailed revision.
Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council goes on record in support of the farmer protests in India. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
See my remarks above.
Order #5. That the City Manager consult relevant staff to implement universal Pre-K in Cambridge. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
This has been in the works for some time, and I look forward to seeing what the detailed implementation of this goal will actually looks like as we eventually emerge from this Covid nightmare. I suspect there will be plenty of nuance – in part informed by having a pre-K Montessori School on one side of me and a Rock & Roll Daycare on the other side of me and an elementary school building across the street. Any comprehensive plan will have to integrate new options with existing options in a way that parents and taxpayers can afford. – Robert Winters