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
