Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 8, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

There not a whole lot on the agenda this week. Perhaps the meatiest item is the pending ordination of the zoning amendment for the Lesley Porter Overlay District. All 15 of the Communications are from residents expressing their points of view both for and against the proposed zoning change. The City Council has until the end of the month to vote on this (the last meeting before the summer break is June 29), and though there are few outstanding issues, the Ordinance Committee report on the matter indicates that the vote on ordination will likely take place at the June 22 City Council meeting. There’s also a new zoning petition received from Jean Connor, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Map from its current designation as a Residence C-1 to a Residence B District in the area of Garden, Winslow, Fenno, Stearns, Esten, Sherman Streets and Upland Road. This was the subject of much public comment last week.

Of the Council Orders, the only one that jumps out is Order #8 from Councillor Decker that proposes a smoking ban in all Cambridge public parks. The complete text of the order is:

O-8 June 8, 2009
COUNCILLOR DECKER
WHEREAS: We are aware of the negative health effects of second hand smoke; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge was one of the first cities to ban smoking in restaurants and public buildings; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to implement the immediate ban of smoking in all Cambridge public parks; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone more anti-smoking than me, so I’m not so alarmed by this Order. However, there is a certain irony in how this City Council raises red flags about the perceived infringement of civil liberties with surveillance cameras and red light enforcement cameras, yet they may embrace a ban on this relatively benign activity in public parks which are, dare I suggest, rather well ventilated. I think it’s fair to characterize the second hand smoke argument offered here as “just blowing smoke.” – Robert Winters

June 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

The 800 pound gorilla in the room this week is the unresolved matter of the Council’s challenge of the City Manager over continuing legal action after the recent jury decision in the case of Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. When the FY2010 Budget was voted at the May 18 City Council meeting, Councillor Kelley moved that the portion of the Law Department budget that covers the cost for outside legal counsel not be approved. After the City Manager pointed out that this Budget is used for a range of activities having nothing to do with this specific case, the motion was defeated on a 4-4-1 vote with Councillors Kelley, Reeves, Seidel, and Simmons voting YES; Councillors Davis, Maher, Toomey, and Ward voting NO; and Councillor Decker voting to ABSTAIN. While the ultimate intentions of Councillor Decker are unknown, she is to be congratulated for preventing this reckless action.

The matter didn’t stop there. There was still Order #2 by Councillors Kelley, Simmons, and Reeves (such good friends) which stated: “That the City Manager is requested to make available adequate funds to the City Council so that the City Council can hire its own legal expert to review relevant issues in pending litigation.” Anyone familiar with the Plan E Charter knows that the City Council is prohibited from directly engaging in personnel matters, so this Order is highly problematic. Unstated in the Order was how a Council not known for its mutuality might actually decide on legal counsel. There is also the question of what would happen if the Council’s counsel (sorry, couldn’t resist) radically disagreed with the opinion of the City’s Law Department.

It is the proper role for the City Council to establish general policies not particular to any specific case, and that includes legal and employment matters. They can do this by an Order (really a formal request) or by Ordinance (such as when they establish a commission with staff – arguably the reason we find ourselves in this mess in the first place). Councillor Toomey, to his credit, understands the Charter and the potential hazards of publicly discussing pending litigation. He introduced a Substitute Order which referred the matter to the City Solicitor for a legal opinion. After an extended Executive Session, the Council unanimously voted to table both the original Order and Toomey’s substitute. That matter could be taken up this week and more Executive Sessions will surely follow. Meanwhile the City has filed an appeal of the most recent court ruling now that post-trial motions appear to have run their course.

This is probably not the place to go into the whole history of the Monteiro v. City of Cambridge case, but since the newspaper reports have been so thoroughly lacking, there are a few things that should be stated. Malvina Monteiro was the Executive Director of the Cambridge Police Review & Advisory Board (PRAB) which was established by a 1984 ordinance. The job of the executive director was established as a full-time job with duties that were part-time at best. At some point, perhaps out of boredom or a desire to move up, Monteiro enrolled as a full-time student at Tufts while still working “full-time” at the PRAB. She also sought a City scholarship. When she did not receive the scholarship, she filed a joint (racial) discrimination complaint (1998) along with Marian Hampton (Library Dept.) and Mary Wong (Kid’s Council). At the time of the discrimination complaint, the City Manager stated that the City must on occasion “take corrective action when performance and expectations are not met. In those cases we attempt, whenever possible, to work with the employee to improve performance. . . . If that is not successful, disciplinary action may be required.”

By early 1999, Linda Stamper of the City’s Law Dept. joined the complaint. Eventually, several others joined the complaint that was being pursued by lawyer Ellen Zucker, formerly the president of the Boston Chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW). [As a side note, Zucker’s spouse is Ellen Clegg who was until recently the deputy managing editor for news operations for the Boston Globe and previously served as the editor of the Globe’s City Weekly.] Florencia LaChance who briefly worked for the City as Manager of Employment Services also joined the complaint.

The City filed for Summary Judgment and in February 2003 a Justice of the Superior Court ruled that the LaChance and Hampton complaints should be dismissed. However the Wong, Monteiro, and Stamper cases were allowed to proceed through the legal system. By this time, the Monteiro complaint also included a charge of retaliation (she was fired) for having filed the original complaint. Consequently a jury failed to reach a verdict in the Monteiro case, but a subsequent jury trial led to a May 23, 2008 award of $962,400 in back and front pay and damages, $100,000 for emotional distress, and (ch-ching!) $3,500,000 in punitive damages. The City, of course, filed motions challenging this jury award. Nonetheless, in April 2009 a different Superior Court judge denied the City’s motion. This only sets the stage for an appeal to a higher court. The question that is now being tossed about and politicized is whether the City should pay the judgment even if it is believed to be excessive and improper and avoid any future legal costs. The Stamper complaint and the Wong complaint (Wong is still Exec. Director of the Kid’s Council) are still pending. [By the way, I’m a mathematician and not a lawyer, so please forgive (or correct) any misinterpretations of all the legal mumbo-jumbo.]

There are other policy aspects to this matter that should be discussed by the City Council but will almost certainly not be discussed. The administrative functions of the Police Review & Advisory Board were merged with the Human Rights Commission several years ago. Both commissions were established by ordinance in 1984 and always had overlapping functions. This administrative consolidation should have happened long ago, and it can be argued that such a consolidation may have prevented the conditions that led to the Monteiro case in the first place. It is, after all, not so easy to attend a full-time college program when you have actual work responsibilities. At the recent Budget hearings, Councillor Seidel indirectly asked about consolidation of some of the City boards and commissions but them quickly retreated when the City administration expressed interest in the concept. It is a fact that some City commissions (such as the Peace Commission) have become sacred cows whose purpose is rarely questioned by elected officials even though their functions are often vague and could easily be absorbed into other City departments.

Enough said about the 800 pound gorilla. Back to the rest of the agenda:

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-53, regarding a report on the status of the Malik Academy lease.

Order #13. That the City Council go on record asking Winn Management and Homeowners Rehab, Inc. to respond immediately to the City Council on their decision to provide Malik Academy, at the very least, a short-term resolution allowing for the continued operation of the pre-school and the child-care facilities for the next school year.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Reeves

Normally, an item like this wouldn’t even attract my attention. However, at the previous Council meeting there was much public comment on this topic and most of it suggested some kind of unfair treatment of this religious school. It was especially interesting to note that in spite of suggestions by councillors and during public comment that the loss of Malik Academy would be a blow to Cambridge pre-school facilities, the new tenant will be another pre-school. According to the response from Homeowner’s Rehab (HRI), Malik Academy was given a temporary sweet deal at $15/sq. ft. and were asked to pay $16/sq. ft., something that should have been no surprise since they were aware at the original signing that they should expect a small increase. When the time came to sign a new lease, they insisted on a decrease. None of this was mentioned at the previous Council meeting. In the end, HRI rented the space to another pre-school at $22/sq. ft.

City Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-51, regarding a report on the status of the Harvard Senior Picnic. [The Harvard Senior Picnic, which is hosted by the Mayor’s Office in conjunction with Harvard University, is scheduled to go forward as planned on Wed, July 29, 2009.]

Again, this item should barely warrant being noticed, but the ALARM expressed at the previous Council meeting was noteworthy. Skeptics other than me have suggested that the real purpose of this event is for local political candidates to work the captive crowd in their relentless quest for votes from a population (senior citizens) who can generally be counted on to vote in local elections. If you’ve even witnessed this event, you will understand the skepticism.

Tabled Item #2. That the City Manager is requested to make available adequate funds to the City Council so that the City Council can hire its own legal expert to review relevant issues in pending litigation. [Tabled on motion of Councillor Davis Order Number Two of May 18, 2009 together with motion to amend by substitution submitted by Councillor Toomey.]

See above.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to explore the possibility of banning the use of cell phones and text messaging while driving in Cambridge.   Councillor Decker

Excellent idea, but unfortunately superseded by state law that permits cell phone use while driving. Fortunately, recent events have motivated the glacial state legislature to ban text messaging while driving. Why anyone would vote to permit this dangerous practice at all is beyond comprehension. Then again, you can’t legislative stupidity away.

Order #5. Urge Governor Deval Patrick to issue an executive order requiring all new homes and businesses to be zero net energy buildings by 2030.   Councillor Davis

This is part of a group of three Orders from Council Davis in this same spirit. A definition of “zero net energy buildings” would be helpful.

Order #9. Urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation and Governor Patrick to support and vote in favor of updating the Massachusetts Container Beverage Law. Councillor Davis

This is also a good intention and probably a net positive idea, but there is an inefficiency in asking residents to schlep additional containers to supermarkets and redemption centers when they can just put them out in their recycling bins. Many will do just that, so the great beneficiaries of this proposal will be the scavengers raiding residential set-outs for deposit bottles. We can only hope that the survival and expansion and redemption centers are factored into this proposed law. For those of us who already recycle to the maximum extent, this change is actually a net inconvenience. – Robert Winters

May 18, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

The central item of business is the vote on the FY2010 Budget. Even though this was supposed to be “a tough budget year,” this year’s Budget sailed through the Finance Committee’s budget hearings like green corn goes through the new May. The Council will likely take up the Budget vote (Committee Reports #1-3) early in the meeting before taking up the rest of the agenda. There are a few other items of interest, such as:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to make available adequate funds to the City Council so that the City Council can hire its own legal expert to review relevant issues in pending litigation.   Councillor Kelley, Mayor Simmons and Councillor Reeves

This is a serious Order with potentially serious consequences. The City is dealing with the consequences of a jury decision to award an absurd amount of money to a former City employee (Malvina Monteiro) who went fishing for cash and reeled in a big one. The City appealed the jury decision, but the latest appeal was denied. Other lawsuits against the City filed by the same lawyer (Ellen Zucker) are waiting in the wings and the City is continuing to spend cash for outside legal counsel in the Monteiro case. Some city councillors have suggested that the City should just pay out this ridiculous jury award, cut its losses, and not pursue any further appeals. The City Manager has stated that he has no intention of paying a dime toward a legal decision he and others in his administration feel is without merit.

One has to wonder how this City Council would go about deciding who its “legal expert” would be if this Order were to pass. Would Councillors Kelley, Simmons, and Reeves make the call? Could there be five votes for someone they could all agree on? The truth is that we have a City Solicitor who is a good lawyer who is very well-versed in the Monteiro case as well as the other pending cases, and it’s likely that the city councillors heard an earful at last week’s Executive Session on this matter. Could it be that the 3 sponsors of this Order simply didn’t like what they heard in Executive Session? It will be VERY interesting to see if this Order gets 5 votes in its current form.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to disseminate information to bicyclists through various methods of communication reminding them of the “rules of the road” pertaining to bicycles and that their adherence is important to the safety of motorists, pedestrians and fellow cyclists.   Vice Mayor Seidel

Been there, done that.

Order #9. That the City Manager and the Mayor are requested to report to the Council on the status of the Harvard Senior Picnic.   Councillor Decker

It should be pointed out that the Harvard Senior Picnic has always been a prime campaign spot for City Council and School Committee candidates. Heaven forbid that the rumor turns out to be true and the picnic is not held this year. Perhaps Harvard could lay off a janitor or two to cover the costs of the picnic. – RW

May 11, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Lesley University zoning petition to extend the boundaries of the Business C zoning district in Porter Square and create a new Lesley Porter Overlay District.

This item is noteworthy only because the Planning Board “enthusiastically” favors the petition. You don’t usually get such an emphatic statement from the Planning Board. The Porter Square Neighbors Association (PSNA) has been generally supportive of most of the proposed changes, at least from what I’ve seen on their listserv messages. What seems to be driving this enthusiasm is the relocation of the Art Institute of Boston (part of Lesley University) to the Porter Square area with the hope that this will positively change the character of the area. The option of restoring the stockyards was not discussed. Art is the new beef.

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative the Final Landmark Designation Study Report for the Shell Spectacular Sign at 187 Magazine Street at the corner of Memorial Drive.

I’m a local history buff – as anyone who’s seen my bookshelves will attest. That said, I’m not quite to the point of viewing a gas station sign as an historic landmark. The Cambridge Historical Commission has a 24 page report on the landmarking of the sign. The irony is that if some commercial enterprise (particularly a multinational corporation) were to today propose erecting such a sign in Cambridge, it would likely be fiercely opposed.

City Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-38, regarding a report on methods and policies that are in place to guarantee that all residents have equal access to city information and services.

Order #19. Urge the Massachusetts Legislative Delegation to be aware of the need for universal broadband access for all members of the public and the elimination of the digital divide.   Councillor Davis

These items are noteworthy primarily because of their partial nonresponse to the Order of the previous meeting. That order primarily addressed the fact that some people choose to obtain information via methods other than Internet access either because of disability or personal preference. The Manager’s response essentially says that you can read Legal Notices in the Cambridge Chronicle, go to a computer at a public library or other City facility, or read the semiannual CityView newsletter. This is all well and good, but I believe the real point of the original Order was to ensure that residents can get a verbal or mailed response to any reasonable information request made to any City department. Regarding Councillor Davis’ Order, it would be interesting to see what the latest figures are on the “digital divide” in Cambridge. I suspect that many of those whom Davis wants to reach are already twittering away on their cellphones and texting their way down the streets and sidewalks of Cambridge. It’s no longer a matter of who can open a browser and surf the web.

City Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-17, regarding a report on the possibility of creating a publicly accessible, appropriately confidential database of broad average or median neighborhood rents for retail space.

Though I was skeptical about Councillor Seidel’s original Order on this, the information that came back from Director of Assessment Robert Reardon is actually quite interesting. Here it is:

One has to wonder who’s paying $140/sq. ft. in Harvard Square and who’s paying $9/sq. ft. in Cambridgeport and North Cambridge. Other information I would love to have is the differential in rents between premium street frontage and the side streets and back streets in places like Central Square. I’ve always felt that all commercial districts in Cambridge would fare better if the back streets and side streets were better developed for businesses that cannot afford top dollar rents on the main drag. There really is room for everyone.

Charter Right #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, Awaiting Report Item Number 08-141, regarding a report on the possibility of awarding points to affordable housing applicants based on the number of times an applicant has applied for housing. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Maher on City Manager Agenda Number Four of Apr 27, 2009.]

There is something perverse about this. In an ideal world, access to publicly-subsidized affordable housing should be based on need and suitability of the tenant for a given housing situation. Why should “the number of times an applicant has applied” be a criteria at all? It seems that this only creates an incentive for people to apply early and often in order to get a better position in the pecking order. It seems that affordable housing programs (and other initiatives) are already subject to abuse by those who are less than perfectly honest about their income and need. This will not improve things to create other ways to game the system.

Resolution #26. Congratulations to Laura Nichols on the occasion of being appointed to the position of Executive Director of the Cambridge Consumers’ Council. Councillor Davis

I note this Resolution only to again say what a great guy former Executive Director (and now gentleman farmer) Paul Schlaver is and that his successor Laura Nichols is cut from the same cloth as Paul. I have often heard tales from residents of how helpful the Cambridge Consumer’s Council has been.

Resolution #28. Thanks to the Central Square Restaurant Association participants for their successful Central Square Clean Up on May 3, 2009.   Councillor Davis

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Commissioner of Public Works to increase the cleaning efforts in Carl Barron Plaza, as well as other benches and areas in Central Square where liquor bottles, cigarette butts and other forms of trash are routinely discarded and render benches unclean and unusable.   Mayor Simmons

Order #10. That the City council urge the License Commission to consider requiring all licensed establishments to be responsible for cleaning the cigarette butts and packaging in front of their business or risk being fined.   Mayor Simmons

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Commissioner of Public Works to direct DPW crews collecting trash to clean out the trash and debris that collects and rots in the metal trash cage the supports the barrel.   Mayor Simmons

These Resolutions and Orders all seem to have grown out of the recent First Annual Clean Cambridge Spring Cleanup. It’s worth noting that this wasn’t really the “first” such cleanup. I participated in a very significant Central Square cleanup with City Year volunteers about ten years ago in which we did a lot of graffiti removal in addition to a general cleanup. After this year’s efforts there was a noticeable improvement in Central Square, but it took no time before the slovenly smokers clogged up everything with their detritus. Would it be so difficult for the bars and restaurants to hire or assign someone to clean up after their patrons?

On a related note, our dear friends at the Department of Public Works really should methodically move up and down Mass. Ave. in Central Square restoring or removing the steel grates at the base of all the trees. They are a trip hazard now and really serve no useful function. While there, this would be a good time to systematically repair the brick sidewalks and replace the hundreds of missing bricks.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation to determine whether metered parking spaces in the East Cambridge residential streets can be converted to residential parking due to the decrease in courthouse traffic and increase in residential units.   Councillor Toomey

This Order will likely be filed in the same wastebasket that Traffic Director Susan Clippinger uses to file all of Councillor Toomey’s Orders. It’s a shame, really, because there are many simple fixes that could be made to make everyone’s life easier. Parking meters were installed in front of the old Longfellow School building across from my house when the Main Library moved there. The Library’s now gone, but the meters remain. Virtually all of the businesses on my side of Broadway are now residences or vacant, yet the meters remain. In Somerville, they have many metered areas where residents with stickers can park for free – an excellent compromise, especially for those who wish to use metered spaces just for overnight parking without having to move their cars at 8am. It sure would be nice if Cambridge could be as smart as Somerville. While we’re on the subject, whatever happened to Councillor Toomey’s request that the state-mandated Cambridge Traffic Board be appointed that would be empowered to review regulations made by the Traffic Director? Inconvenience is no excuse for ignoring the law, even for department heads.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to create a position for a Green Streets Coordinator to continue the coordination of the program currently performed by Janie Katz-Christy in recent years which has created a sustainable initiative that is being replicated around the world. Mayor Simmons

I’m all for Green Streets and sustainability ‘n stuff, but isn’t this the wrong time to be creating new positions in a bad economy?

Order #14. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consider a cost benefit analysis for refurbishing the former bath-house at Corporal Burns Park so that it might draw income for the city and simultaneously provide valuable service to residents and visitors to the park.   Mayor Simmons

As long as Mayor Simmons is talking only about a park-related use, this is a lot better proposal than what former City Councillor Ed Cyr and others proposed in the early 90’s. Back then their bright idea was to create a “Land Bank” of properties on which, you guessed it, affordable housing could be built. Included in the proposal was the building in Corporal Burns Park as well as all sorts of other small parcels around the city. Those were the great days of the CCA’s penchant for “solutions in search of a problem.” Thankfully, that trial balloon crashed. Unfortunately, a decade later the City sponsors the development of housing on any postage-stamp parcel it can deliver to its nonprofit partners. Would it it be so dreadful just to leave a few undeveloped square feet of land here and there around the city? Must everything be built over?

Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City’s responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city’s own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond.   Councillor Decker, Councillor Toomey and Councillor Davis

Rumor has it that quite a few people intend to speak on this Order. At the risk of infuriating my environmentally conscious comrades, the vagueness of this Order worries me. It highlights the rise in greenhouse gases and calls for a “response proportionate to the emergency.” This could be interpreted to mean that the ability to own and operate an automobile in Cambridge should be made dramatically more expensive (even if you only occasionally drive), and that every little change made to your home should go through an onerous and expensive regulatory review. Everyone who lived through Cambridge’s rent control decades remembers how the claim of a housing emergency was twisted into a justification for oppressive and often idiotic regulations that were, in fact, politically motivated. I want very much to see good environmental initiatives in Cambridge, but I remain extremely wary of any effort to use a perceived “emergency” as an excuse for carrying out an agenda that will likely have very political overtones. The efforts of the Cambridge Energy Alliance seem the far more appropriate way to proceed, i.e. provide financial incentives and technical assistance for people “to do the right thing.” – Robert Winters

April 27, 2009 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Without question, the most significant item on tonight’s agenda is the submission of the FY2010 Budget (City Manager’s Agenda #1). The annual Budget Hearings of the City Council’s Finance Committee will commence this Thursday, April 30 at 9:30am. Here is a list of the items I found interesting, important, or ridiculous:

Reconsideration #1. Reconsideration filed by Councillor Reeves on the adoption of Order Number Thirteen of Apr 13, 2009 requesting the City Council convey its wishes for the continuing publication of The Boston Globe to the publishers of The Boston Globe.

Apparently, Councillor Reeves wants the Boston Globe to die a painful death along with the Cambridge Chronicle and any other media outlet who has failed to meet his high standards of professional ethics. This Order passed at the Council’s April 13 meeting, but Councillor Reeves would like another bite at the apple. The political cynics among us might observe that it has been Mr. Reeves’ political modus operandi to always identify someone or something as his biannual evil entity around which he can rally his campaign. This is really the game of Al Vellucci who would rail endlessly against Harvard University while at the same time have dinner with then Harvard President Derek Bok. In 2007, Reeves’ game focused on the Cambridge Chronicle (and others) as persecutors of his noble reign as mayor. We’ll have to wait and see who he designates as this year’s political bad guy. The Boston Globe? Cambridge Chronicle? Cambridge Health Alliance? Harvard University?

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the FY2010 submitted budget and appropriation orders.

The FY10 Budget Book will be available after all the city councillors get their copies. It will also be available online, and it’s always worth the read. Comparison with previous years’ budgets is a good exercise, especially now that things are tighter in the current economic climate.

City Manager’s Agenda #15. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $14,290,000 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Agassiz, and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.

Perhaps not so interesting to everyone, but this is the stuff that keeps a city running and, say what you will about the City Manager, one legacy of Robert Healy will be a dramatically improved infrastructure in Cambridge.

City Manager’s Agenda #18. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-25, regarding a report on the installation of black fire hydrants in West Cambridge.

This grew out of an Order from Councillor Decker which apparently sought to find fault in the City’s infrastructure in the wake of a serious house fire on Lexington Avenue. See note above. In any case, it’s interesting information.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on what efforts can be done to increase the number of Cambridge businesses and institutions that compost.   Vice Mayor Seidel

I’m not so sure that this City Council Order will accomplish anything other than to distract Recycling Director Randy Mail from the great job she’s been doing to promote organics recycling in Cambridge. For your information, the possibility of residential curbside organics recycling is on the table for future contracts for recycling collection and processing. Whether or not it happens anytime soon is a matter of relative cost.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on methods and policies that are in place to guarantee that all residents have equal access to city information and services.   Vice Mayor Seidel

The rationale behind this Order is to ensure that City officials do not simply say “it’s on the web” as the final word in response to requests for information by Cambridge residents. This is a valid point – not everyone has web access, and many simply prefer to get information verbally or in print. It’s abundantly clear that widespread access to web-based resources has dramatically increased the ability to deliver detailed information to residents, but there’s the risk (and the reality) that some officials will use this in order to avoid assisting those with reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) requests. I would liken this to the development of paved roads that made transportation much faster but which has often made things more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists. The information superhighway should not eclipse other avenues of communication.

Order #8. That the City Council request that the City Manager consider the possibility of establishing multi-sector (public, private, and university) partnership that funds a 24 Hour Drop-In Center to provide a variety of essential services to individuals on the street.   Mayor Simmons

….. which will, of course, be located in Central Square and further secure its future as the City’s favorite dumping ground.

Order #12. That the City Council go on record as urging the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to work to enact a municipal relief bill that allows local option taxes and closes the telecommunications property tax loopholes that give the telephone company a $50 million tax break.   Councillor Davis

Translation: Councillor Davis would like to raise your taxes. This Order will likely pass on a unanimous vote. – Robert Winters

April 13 – There’s not much to be said about the April 13 City Council Agenda. They’ll have to do something with the Decker-Reeves farcical Order (Charter Right #1) to provide a City “stimulus package” to Harvard and MIT, but my guess is that they’ll just let it fade away or refer it to the University Relations Committee to be properly buried. There’s a more adult Order #12 from Councillors Davis and Ward on this week’s agenda that speaks to the same issue:

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to urge Harvard, MIT and other businesses to use the progressive practice of asking for concessions from all employees at all levels before resorting to layoffs of the lowest paid workers. Councillor Davis and Councillor Ward

The Order also calls for referring this to the University Relations Committee, the only Council committee which has yet to meet even one time this Council term. It would seem that this City Council would prefer to lob grenades at Harvard and MIT rather than actually have any meaningful discussions with university representatives.

I’d love to see the Council do something in response to Councillor Kelley’s Order #4:

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council prior to the final June meeting on the City’s plans to enforce relevant laws about noise from motorcycles and loud cars. Councillor Kelley

Of course we’ve been down this road before – and it always leads nowhere. Expect at least one councillor to suggest that cracking down on ear-splitting car sound systems would be an infringement on cultural rights and civil liberties. – Robert Winters

March 30 and April 6 City Council Agenda

The March 30 City Council meeting was recessed at the start in order that members could attend the School Superintendent dog and pony show at CRLS, i.e. the first of two School Committee meetings on consecutive days which should lead to the selection of a Superintendent of Schools. The agenda of the April 6 City Council meeting includes all of the March 30 items plus a number of new items. The three Superintendent finalists are Dr. Mary C. Nash, currently the Academic Superintendent for the Boston Public Schools; Dr. Carolyn L. Turk, currently Deputy Superintendent of the Cambridge Public Schools; and Dr. Jeffrey M. Young, currently Superintendent of the Newton Public Schools. [Update: Mayor Simmons announced at the beginning of the April 6 City Council meeting that the choice is now down to two candidates – Carolyn Turk and Jeffrey Young. The School Committee will go into Executive Session at its meeting on April 7 at 6:00pm at CRLS in order to deliberate. They are then expected to emerge at some point and vote in open session to choose the next Superintendent of Schools.]

I have not followed the current Superintendent drama as it has developed over the last several months, primarily because watching this School Committee is like listening to the sound of fingernails scratching a chalkboard (OK, maybe just some of the School Committee members have this effect). There’s also the “process junkie” problem common to all too many decisions in Cambridge. Elected officials strive for the appearance of public input – whether or not they’re actually listening. Then there’s the “consensus” goal common to Green Party aficionados like Luc Schuster. Add to one School Committee member’s need to come across as technically proficient as she cherry-picks data to serve her agenda and you have all the ingredients of a very bad movie. Sometimes I think we’d be better off if the School Committee just disappeared into a back room with a box of cigars and came out with an announcement of who they’re hiring. As a taxpayer, my greatest concern is that the School Committee may have voted to piss away $100,000 for a search process that was just political cover for a decision they had already made before the search began. We may learn the answer on Tuesday (April 7).

I attended the first of the two Superintendent candidate forums, and I’m sure we’ll do just fine with any of the three candidates. However, it was abundantly clear at the Monday night forum that an effort to pack the hall with supporters of Carolyn Turk had been undertaken. In a time when the race of the person to be hired should be less of a factor, it is quite clear that there are some who would make it a primary criterion. For example, former CRLS teacher Larry Aaronson had an Op-Ed in the Cambridge Chronicle titled, “Cambridge School Committee vote is classic affirmative action in the best sense“. Comments on the Chronicle website (11 as of this writing) are all signed by anonymous pseudonyms, and all of them are shilling for their preferred candidate. There’s also a copy of an e-mail message from School Committee member Marc McGovern on the Chronicle blog that hints at the overwhelming pressure being directed at those who will vote on this. This “classic affirmative action in the best sense” to which Aaronson refers may well lead to accusations of either tokenism or racism by the time the vote is taken, and one thing I would say about Cambridge is that elected officials always tend to run for political cover whenever anything with potential racial overtones comes up.

Here are a few noteworthy items from tonight’s combined agenda:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining the rare distinction of being one of approximately twenty-four municipalities in the United States with three Triple A ratings from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies.

Resolution #19. Congratulations to the City Manager and his fiscal staff for achieving a Triple A bond rating for the City of Cambridge for the tenth consecutive year.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Maher

It’s the same story every year, but it’s still worth noting that the City’s good fiscal health makes many things possible that other cities cannot afford.

City Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Peter Sheinfeld as a Cambridge Election Commission for a 4-year term to expire Mar 31, 2013.

Congratulations, Peter!

City Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a $50,000 Grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s (MTC) Clean Energy Choice program to the Public Investment Grant Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account. This grant will provide funding to install two 2 kilowatt PV systems on the roof of the DPW Frazier Administration building and the Frisoli Youth Center.

I find this noteworthy primarily as an indication of a slow but sure trend in the City toward environmentally smart initiatives. There was a day when even establishing a recycling program was seen as a radical change in the City. Now we’re talking about photovoltaics on DPW buildings, LEEDS-certified buildings, citywide energy conservation programs, and even the possibility of organics recycling (for composting).

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the process that will allow additional cable and internet providers to do business in the City, and to clarify if there are any obstacles in place that may need to be re-evaluated in order to provide competitive options to residents. Councillor Toomey and Councillor Davis

This Order is similar to other Orders that have come before and gone nowhere. One thing that’s different now is that a wider range of TV programming need no longer come into homes via coaxial cable, and Internet access is now becoming available in other ways. One thing not mentioned in this Order is the fact that with the switch to digital broadcasting, there is the capacity to have MANY more programming options available “over the air” with quality reception. For example, there is no reason whatsoever why C-SPAN could not be made available for free to every home via digital broadcast. Same goes for all of the cable news channels that derive most of their revenue from advertising. The City Council, as well as state legislatures and Congress should be taking a much broader look at the possibilities, especially in regard to news and information programming.

Order #12. Urge all residents to join with the volunteers of the Clean Cambridge Campaign who will on May 2nd and 3rd, 2009, in an effort to clean Cambridge sidewalks and neighborhoods. Councillor Maher

I once proposed that we should have an annual “Cambridge Day” where all property owners would be encouraged to remove all graffiti and generally clean up leading up to the Big Day. Some neighboring towns have long held special days, e.g. Allston-Brighton Day which has a parade.

Order #13. That the City Council formally request that the Beal Companies consider immediately withdrawing the zoning petition for modifications of the One Kendall Square Cinema site and engage in further dialogue with neighborhood leaders and affected neighbors such that a full discussion can be had prior to any re-filing. Councillor Maher and Councillor Toomey

The cynic in me wonders if the real motivation for this Order is to make sure that any deadlines for City Council action on such a zoning petition would occur after Election Day this November. [Update: Beal Companies has apparently agreed to withdraw their petition for now.]

Order #14. Economic stimulus package for Harvard and MIT. Councillor Decker and Councillor Reeves

This is classic comedy from this comic duo. For example, “Payment In Lieu of Taxes” (acronym PILOT) has now mutated into “pilot” in this Order. This should be be added to the Council comic dictionary along with the verbs “charter right”, “charter wrote”, and “charter written”. Regarding the substance of the Order, this one reads like an Abbott & Costello routine (only less funny). Apparently the genesis of this Order is the fact that Harvard and MIT have laid off a handful of cleaning staff as part of their general economizing during the current economic downturn. The comedy duo of Decker & Reeves (not to be confused with Nichols & May, or Stiller & Meara, or Burns & Allen) offer the following routine:

RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council will introduce its own economic stimulus package for Harvard and MIT; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council will give the university a one-time pass on partial payment of its pilot to the City of Cambridge in order to help save these jobs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City will forgive $398,372.00 of Harvard University’s pilot, which would cover the cost of the nineteen cleaners who would lose their jobs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City will forgive $70,688.00 of MIT’s pilot in order for then to retain the two laid off cleaners.

This Order is plainly illegal (hey, doesn’t one half of this duo have a Harvard law degree) in its flouting of the state’s Anti-Aid Amendment to direct City money towards an institution not under its exclusive control. It’s also hysterical that the City of Cambridge should be directing Harvard & MIT on their employment practices. I insist that this comic duo file an Order for next week’s meeting granting me a tenure-track job at Harvard or MIT. Hey, isn’t that what constituent service is all about?

We save the best for last:

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David Maher and Councillor Henrietta Davis, Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a hearing held on Mar 19, 2009 to formalize job descriptions and administrative oversight for assistants to city councillors.

When the matter of “research assistants” first came up several years ago, I stated that these were de facto political appointments and that they should not, as such, be paid out of taxpayer money. Reorganization or additional staff in the City Council Office may be necessary and useful, but I never bought into the notion that every councillor should get their own personal staff. The term “research assistant” was and is a nonsense term invented to obscure the reality of the job. This Committee Report implicitly acknowledges this in proposing to change the name to “Aide to City Councillor”. Let me be clear that with but one exception, I have no objections to these aides as individuals. Here’s what we have right now:

Councillor Davis’ aide used to be her campaign treasurer;

Councillor Decker’s former aides have been campaign managers and campaign workers, and her current aide is a relative;

Councillor Kelley has no “research assistant”;

Councillor Maher’s aide is a long-time political supporter;

Councillor Reeves’ aide is a long-time political supporter;

Vice-Mayor Seidel has not had an aide but is now considering it;

Mayor Simmons has staff in her role as Mayor;

Councillor Toomey’s aide is simultaneously being paid out of his political campaign account.

Councillor Ward does not yet (as far as I know) have an aide.

Are you detecting a pattern here? The main comment I made at this hearing was that the job description for these aides is really the job description of a city councillor, and that’s who should be doing the “research” and answering the letters and phone calls. Being a city councillor was never meant to be anything other than a part-time job, and judging from the other jobs held by most councillors this remains the case. Councillors are nonetheless paid a generous full-time salary. If you’re paid full-time, you should be able to handle all the responsibilities of the job, and if there’s an excess of work, pass it along to the office staff – just as was done for many decades. If a constituent asks for something that should properly be done by City department staff, forward the call or e-mail to the appropriate department. If a City Council subcommittee needs additional research, ask the City Clerk to make the arrangements or hire the appropriate people.

It’s tough enough for challengers to go up against incumbents in a municipal election without using taxpayer money to hire political staff and supporters. – RW

March 23, 2009 City Council Agenda highlights
Here are the items I found interesting, important, or ridiculous:

Mgr #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2009 and ending Mar 31, 2010.

Here’s the lowdown:

All rates are per CcF (100 cu. ft., approx. 750 gallons). The water rates are proposed to increase an average of 2.7% (compared to 0% and 2.1% the previous two years). The sewer rates are proposed to increase an average of 7.9% (compared to 0% and 4.8% the previous two years). The combined rates are proposed to increase an average of 6.3% (compared to 0% and 4.0% the previous two years). The City Manager also reports that the annual combined water/sewer rate is projected to increase by an average of approximately 5.7% each year for FY10-14.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to require appropriate City departments and staff to begin collecting data based on gender and to make available to the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women and all other departments the gender based data while securing anonymity and confidentiality as appropriate.  Mayor Simmons

Though I’m sure to get some nasty e-mail messages for saying so, this is ridiculous. What’s next, requiring weight, height, and tattoo information in the annual City census?

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to obtain from the Fire Department how many black hydrants are in the West Cambridge area, and whether or not the number of black hydrants in West Cambridge is relatively high in comparison with the rest of the city.   Councillor Decker

It would appear that Decker is feeling the sting from the Mar 2 response to her Dec 15 Order about fire hydrant pressure during the Lexington Avenue fire several months ago. Will there be an upcoming Council Order establishing a Fire Hydrant Equity Commission? I’m sure she’ll want it to be fully staffed with health and dental benefits.

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to report to the City Council with a proposal to label trees at appropriate locations to educate Cambridge residents.   Councillor Davis

Great idea, really – and simple and inexpensive. Just like at the arboretum or the Mt. Auburn Cemetery. – RW