Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 19, 2010

And now… a few words about the U.S. Senate Special Election, i.e. Coakley vs. Brown vs. Kennedy

Filed under: Uncategorized — Robert Winters @ 7:51 pm

What a perfect election storm where controversial national political decisions coincide with the death of Ted Kennedy, a consequential Senate vote, and essentially a referendum on a sitting U.S. president – all in the bluest of blue states where most elections are noncompetitive formalities. For those of us who actually believe in democracy (small “d”), it simply doesn’t get any better than this.

As I type these words, it’s less than an hour until the polls close in Massachusetts. I’ve been robo-called, repetitively and intrusively polled, and subjected to an endless stream of ridiculous and propagandistic TV ads. To believe any of this garbage, you’d have to buy the line that Martha Coakley is a mindless party-line drone who would do little more than bark when Obama gives the signal, and Scott Brown is just a good-lookin’ Karl Rove. Neither picture is even close to accurate.

I like Martha – her understated style, her intelligence, and even her name. The fact that she’s married to a now-retired Cambridge cop also makes her one of us. I also like Scott Brown – his strategic political thinking, his remarkable family, and the promise of competitive Massachusetts elections that he represents. It’s also fun that he posed in the buff for Cosmopolitan Magazine years ago as their “sexiest man in America.” His wife, WCVB reporter Gail Huff, was once featured in the video for the Digney Fignus song “The Girl with the Curious Hand,” and one of his two daughters went all the way to the Sweet Sixteen of that forgettable TV show “American Idol.” This is great stuff!

I really don’t know how the election will turn out. The latest polls suggest a Scott Brown victory, but the Democratic Party regulars have been in panic mode for the last week trying to turn out every last loyalist, so Martha My Dear may yet squeak out a victory. Regardless of the outcome in this Special Election, for those of us who have great misgivings about the government expansion now underway and the unprecedented proposal to mandate U.S. citizens to pay money to private (health insurance) companies, the message has already been sent – and congressmen and congresswomen across the county understand that if this can happen in the bluest of blue states, then they will soon have their own election problems to worry about.

The fact that a Republican candidate might even have a chance in Massachusetts should not really be all that surprising. Massachusetts residents have more than a healthy dose of suspicion about one-party rule even though every one of our Congressmen and an overwhelming majority in both houses of the State Legislature are Democrats. That’s why we elected Republican governors for 16 years until the last go-round. That’s also why most Massachusetts voters choose to remain unenrolled in any party. The truth is that the best thing that could ever happen to Massachusetts Democrats would be a significant Republican victory. The evidence suggests that the Massachusetts Democratic Party doesn’t really believe in elections. They believe that all seats in the state legislature should be filled after private consultation behind closed doors and settled in low-turnout primaries followed by general elections with no significant competition (or no competition at all). I am reminded of the election a few years ago when Marjorie Decker campaigned in the Democratic Primary against party-favored Paul Demakis. Marjorie was criticized broadly for challenging “one of ours”. That offended me so much that I wrote her a check. A few years later when Jarrett Barrios backed out of a District Attorney election against Gerry Leone and chose to seek reelection to his State Senate seat after Anthony Galluccio had announced his candidacy for that seat, the head of the state Democratic Party traveled to Cambridge to broker a negotiated settlement in order to avoid an actual election between two strong candidates. The message was clear – good elections are bad for the party.

So, tonight I’m feeling optimistic – not about the specific outcome of this Special Election, but about the possibility that the moribund Massachusetts Republican Party might get the outrageous idea that they can and should run candidates for every elected office and that Democratic candidates will have to step up and perform better instead of treating their elected jobs as lifetime entitlements. That would be my idea of a victory. — Robert Winters

January 11, 2010

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:10 pm

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the first regular meeting of the 2010-11 City Council term, and the new Council begins with a relatively clean slate as the much of the detritus of Councils past has been allowed to expire. The first order of (unfinished) business is the election of a mayor. The first attempt on January 4 resulted in a highly fractured vote, but it is expected that votes will shift on the second ballot and any subsequent ballots. Multiple factors are at play including (a) the news from the grapevine that Marjorie Decker will be having a State Senate campaign event in Saugus on January 31 – an apparent sign that she intends to pursue the Galluccio seat; (b) the commitments for the first mayoral ballot have now been expended; (c) feedback from political supporters in the wake of the January 4 ballot may cause a councillor or two to think twice about the political fallout; and (d) nobody really wants this to go on very long with the resultant delay in Council business caused by the lack of any appointments to City Council subcommittees by the new mayor. Most of the speculation centers on either Henrietta Davis or David Maher being best positioned to pick up the necessary 5th vote, but the continued meetings and wheeling and dealing and political hardball yields no certainty in the outcome.

As far as the rest of the meeting agenda goes, here are a few items of interest:

RECONSIDERATION. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration on the vote taken on Dec 21, 2009 confirming the appointments transmitted on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as Commissioners of the Cambridge Housing Authority: Anthony Pini (term expires 4/1/2014) and Gerald Clark (term expires 1/11/2015) [Dec 21, 2009 motion of Councillor Kelley to Table failed 4-5-0. Appointments confirmed 8-1-0. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration.]

Though I don’t pretend to understand all the intense passion expressed about these appointments and the behind-the-scenes push to change the vote late in the December 21 meeting to approve these appointments, it is worth noting that this is precisely the reason why state law and Robert’s Rules of Order allow for reconsideration of votes. Many outspoken public housing advocates had gone home on December 21 after this matter had been tabled and were shocked to learn that this changed late in the meeting. Expect some spirited public comment on this matter regardless how the final vote goes.

Order # 1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City department heads and personnel in order to determine alternatives to laying off the five employees from the Lead Safe Cambridge program.   Councillor Simmons

This Order is noteworthy primarily in that it seems to direct the City Manager what to do in a personnel matter. It would be one thing if the Order focused on the importance of preserving the Lead-Safe program, but this Order instead is all about retaining five employees. Presumably, all of these employees have the opportunity to respond to any internal or public postings for City jobs. The City Council Order seems to say that the Manager should retain these employees in their current jobs regardless of need or budgetary concerns. Does this not seem like micromanagement from a city councillor?

Order #4. City Council concerns regarding House Bill 4410 which would give new powers to state and local school officials to turn around under-performing schools and increase the number of charter schools.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Maher

The sponsors of the Order seem to agree with the Legislature on (1) reducing the financial impact of charter schools on regular public schools; (2) better processes for evaluating and approving charter schools; and (3) amendments that would help turn around underperforming schools. However, the sponsors express opposition to amendments that would (1) weaken proposed management powers or enhance the ability of unions to block action by school districts; (b) require municipalities and school districts to sell or lease surplus school facilities to charter schools; (3) new spending mandates on cities, towns and school districts; and (4) lifting the cap on charter schools. Councillor and State Representative Toomey may have something to say in response to this Order. H4410 passed by a 119-35 vote. The Senate approved a different version and a 6-member House-Senate conference committee is now working on a compromise of the two versions.
According to my reading of the City Council materials, the only holdover items from the previous Council are these:
(1) Council Kelley’s Reconsideration of the Cambridge Housing Authority appointments.
(2) The Fanning Petition to rezone an area in East Cambridge.
(3) A December Order regarding increasing the amount of public information about elections while the municipal election is in progress.
(4) A December Order and a committee report regarding the City Council’s policy on naming street corners.
(5) A request to the City Manager for information regarding what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.

Also in the pipeline – a scattered set of recommendations from December’s “Climate Congress” which will have a follow-up City Hall meeting on January 23. Unlike an actual legislative process where most proposals require majority support, the current draft of these citizen recommendations reads like a laundry list of every imaginable idea in environmental regulation and social engineering. Many of the ideas presented will be dead on arrival such as the proposal to increase the cost of a residential parking sticker every year for the next 20 years – even though most participants seemed to agree that the local impact of automobiles on climate was far less than things like poorly insulated and inefficient commercial, residential, and institutional buildings. A strong theme at this gathering was the need to better quantify the primary contributors to climate change before setting priorities or determining policies and initiatives. Nonetheless, the draft recommendations are dominated by proposals made without any such prioritization. It’s worth looking at for a few good ideas, but this document leaves a lot to be desired as either a legislative agenda or a blueprint for change. – Robert Winters

January 7, 2010

Follow the Money

Filed under: 2009 Election,campaign finance,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:07 am

Jan 6 – Follow The Money – What percentage of the 2009 campaign contributions for each of the elected city councillors came from people with a Cambridge address? Here are the percentages:

Henrietta Davis – 90%    
Craig Kelley – 88%
Leland Cheung – 74%		 Sam Seidel – 56%
David Maher – 54%
Denise Simmons – 51%    		 Tim Toomey – 45%
Ken Reeves – 28%
Marjorie Decker – 24%
Information based on data from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF)

Addendum: The OCPF data reveals some other interesting things such as which candidates received campaign donations in excess of the individual annual limit of $500. Here are the apparent excesses:

Candidate Donor Annual Amount
Marjorie Decker Asbestos Workers Local 6 $750
Marjorie Decker Carpenters Local Union No. 33 $800
Marjorie Decker Anne DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker John DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker IUPAT District Council #35 $1250
Marjorie Decker New England Regional Council of Carpenters $1000
Marjorie Decker Sheet Metal Workers Local #17 $2750
David Maher National Association of Government Employees $750
Kenneth E. Reeves     Muirann Glenmullen $750
Kenneth E. Reeves Kelly Higgins $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Joyce Naggar $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Stuart Rothman $600
Kenneth E. Reeves Fred Swanson $600
Kenneth E. Reeves John Toulopoulos $600
Sam Seidel Phyllis Seidel $1000

Perhaps a refund or two may be in order, or maybe there’s some explanation for some of these. Here’s the data (zipped Excel file) for anyone who wants to go fishing: 2009contributions.zip. Corrections, explanations, or interesting discoveries are enthusiastically welcome. There may still be a few more 2009 donations to be recorded, but it’s all courtesy of the OCPF. — Robert Winters

January 3, 2010

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

Filed under: 2009 Election,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 6:51 pm

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

On Monday, January 4, 2010 at 10:00am the newly elected Cambridge City Council will be sworn in at City Hall. Once City Clerk Margaret Drury takes care of all the swearing-in, the new Council will take up their first order of business – the election of a Mayor. If a majority is able to elect a Mayor, they will then proceed to the election of the Vice-Chair of the City Council (commonly known as Vice-Mayor).

The elected councillors have been meeting in pairs and threesomes and foursomes ever since the election results were known in November as the various mayoral contenders have been trying to convince and bargain their way into the Mayor’s Office. Much of the convincing is based on things like philosophy, committee appointments, and who might be well-suited to chair the School Committee. On the other hand, there is a history of some not-so-above-board deal-making that also takes place in this process, e.g. the introduction of personal aides for all city councillors that grew out of the January 2006 deal-making.

As most voting Cantabrigians know, the Mayor of Cambridge is not popularly elected. It’s really more like the election of a City Council President as in Boston and many other places. There is a certain logic in allowing an elected body to choose its own Chair, especially in a city governed by the Plan E Charter in which the City Council chooses a city manager as chief executive officer of the City. However, there is also a point of view that city councillors should act as representatives of the electorate and that they have some duty to act on behalf of those who elected them. If this is the case, what criteria should guide the election?

Criterion #1 – Showing Up for Work

Based on who has attended City Council committee meetings during the 2008-2009 term, the nod might go to Sam Seidel or Henrietta Davis (see chart at http://rwinters.com), though a strong case could be made for David Maher who chaired more meetings than any of his colleagues. Of course, outgoing Mayor Denise Simmons would also have to be included among the contenders for all the City Council and School Committee meetings she chaired during her term.

Criterion #2 – Let the People Decide – Instant Runoff

We could use the ballot data from the November election to see who would be elected if a series of runoffs were to be held using the ballots that elected the city councillors. Based of this, the nod would go to Henrietta Davis (with Denise Simmons as the last eliminated and Tim Toomey before her). However, the notion that voter preferences should factor into the mayoral election exposes a paradox. After the 2005 and 2007 elections, the person elected Mayor was the least preferred by the voters among the nine elected and would have been the first eliminated in an Instant Runoff election. Specifically, in 2005 and 2007 the Instant Runoff winner was Henrietta Davis, but Kenneth E. Reeves was chosen in January 2006 and Denise Simmons in January 2008 as Mayor. The likely reason for this reversal of fortune is that Council colleagues often do not wish to strengthen the hand of a popular colleague. If the pattern of 2005 and 2007 is repeated this year, we’ll be greeting Mayor Leland Cheung on Monday morning.

I made a chart of these Instant Runoff Simulations for the 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, and 1991 elections (the ones for which ballot data is available). It’s worth noting that the last times the Instant Runoff winners were actually elected Mayor were in 1997 (Frank Duehay) and 1999 (Anthony Galluccio).

Criterion #3 – Let the People Decide – Look at the Rankings

There are quite a few ways of measuring popularity based on ballot rankings. One rather simplistic approach is to look only at the #1 rankings – a criterion often promoted in years past. The “#1 vote-getter” would make the case that this is what the people demand. Of course, this ignores the phenomenon of vote-splitting – the very thing that preferential ballots are designed to mitigate. Perhaps a more fair way to measure popularity based on ballot rankings would be to count the number of ballots on which each candidate appears with a high ranking, e.g. somewhere in the top 3 or top 5 or top 9 rankings. Henrietta Davis wins according to this criteria in all scenarios except the “Top 3” criterion in which she is eclipsed by 1 vote by Denise Simmons, 5015 to 5014. It’s worth noting that according to these criteria, some elected councillors fare worse than some candidates who were not even elected. For example, using a “Top 3” criterion, Marjorie Decker and Leland Cheung are eclipsed by Eddie Sullivan and Larry Ward. In all criteria using 5 or more rankings, Marjorie Decker actually finishes 12th, though one can certainly argue that this may be a by-product of being a write-in candidate.

Criterion #4 – School Committee Experience

There are four councillors who have been previously elected to the Cambridge School Committee – Tim Toomey, Henrietta Davis, David Maher, and Denise Simmons. Of course, all those who have previously served as Mayor have also served in this capacity.

Criterion #5 – The Rotation Principle

There is something of a tradition of passing the torch among City Council colleagues so that various mayoral styles and priorities can be sampled. Based on this, the nod would go to Tim Toomey and Henrietta Davis for having waited their turn the longest. Needless to say, this criterion is most often quoted in order to dissuade councillors from reelecting a Mayor to a 2nd consecutive term. The Rotation Principle generally goes hand-in-hand with the Exclusion Principle, i.e. the fact that there are some elected councillors whose behavior has been such that they couldn’t get majority support under virtually any circumstance. In short, some measure of acceptability is a prerequisite for consideration under the Rotation Principle. Though there is a temptation to name the Excluded here, I shall resist. In any case, every councillor’s vote weighs as much as any other.

We’ll see what Monday brings. Perhaps a deck of cards or some dice will prove handy in determining the outcome. – Robert Winters

Jan 4, 4:00pm update: The newly inaugurated Cambridge City Council failed to elect Mayor at its opening meeting. Their next opportunity will be at their regular January 11 meeting next Monday. Here’s how the vote went:

Leland Cheung voted for Marjorie Decker
Henrietta Davis voted for Henrietta Davis
Marjorie Decker voted for Marjorie Decker
Craig Kelley voted for Ken Reeves
David Maher voted for David Maher
Ken Reeves voted for Ken Reeves
Sam Seidel voted for David Maher
Denise Simmons voted for Denise Simmons
Tim Toomey voted for David Maher

It takes 5 votes to elect a Mayor, so there’s a way to go. The School Committee will be inaugurated at 6:00pm tonight with Councillor Reeves standing in as Chair in the absence of an elected Mayor. It is not clear whether they will vote to elect their Vice-Chair at this meeting or if they will wait until the election of a Mayor and 7th voting member of the School Committee.

December 22, 2009

Talking with the Evil Empire

Filed under: Comcast — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:06 pm

Talking with the Evil Empire
On Dec 14, I commented on a City Council Order regarding a poll being conducted by Comcast. Here’s what I said:
I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?

My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.

In response, Comcast’s Marc Goodman had this to say several days later:

I hope you would consider adding my comment to your recent blog post.

Hi, this is Marc from Comcast’s Boston office. Comcast and the City of Cambridge are negotiating a cable license renewal. Part of any cable license renewal is a process called ascertainment where the cable operator works with a third party to assess the interest of local residents in paying for access television and other cable-related needs that are outlined in an actual license. Comcast strongly supports access and CCTV. We look forward to coming to a mutually beneficial agreement for our customers, the city and the company in the months ahead.

And, just to be clear, the only channels that recently moved were from our Standard Cable package as part of our digital network enhancement. This digital upgrade allowed us to double the number of HD channels in Cambridge and introduce even faster Internet speeds of up to 50 Mbps. All current Standard Cable customers are eligible to obtain up to three pieces of complimentary digital equipment as part of this enhancement. And unlike our competitors, Comcast still chooses to provide an analog basic cable option.

As always, feel free to stop by our Cambridge service center at 88 Sherman Street or call us at 1-800-COMCAST or chat with us online at www.comcast.com.

After taking a few days to digest this, here’s my reply (Dec 22):
Marc,
I don’t know why I’m even wasting my time responding to you. Comcast is a predatory company, plain and simple. How else can one describe the practice of restricting access to all stations other than broadcast stations unless one is forced to pay upwards of $70 per month? Comcast chooses to not even offer an affordable package to someone who wants only to add a few basic additions to the most basic lineup. It is now rarely possible to see an old movie on TV because they are only made available on channels in the higher-priced packages. Doesn’t it seem strange that the price jumps from $6.50 per month to about ten times that amount to go from Basic Cable to the next available option?

The truth is that the only reason the City of Cambridge negotiates with you is because they must – there is no competitor willing and able to build a parallel infrastructure. City officials were very eager to talk to RCN or another company the last time the license renewal came up, but the up-front costs kept all potential competitors out – to the eternal detriment of Cambridge residents.

And “just to be clear”, the channels that disappeared recently from Basic Cable customers were most of the stations we used to get. Comcast’s analog basic cable option provides essentially the same thing that anyone can pick up with an antenna, i.e. what you can otherwise get for free. If you want to do me a favor and possibly salvage the Comcast name to at least one customer who is on the verge of quitting you, here’s a request: Give me a package that includes just the broadcast stations and public access stations plus a few Cable news stations and Turner Classic Movies, AMC, and perhaps Comedy Central and a few others at a total cost of around $25-30 per month (and not just a bogus introductory rate that will soon double). Then give me a quote for an a la carte addition of Red Sox games during the baseball season.

If you have an offer like that, we’ll talk. Until then, you are just another employee of the Evil Empire.

Robert Winters
Cambridge Civic Journal
http://rwinters.com

Campaign Finance Activity – City Council 2009 (Jan 1 to Dec 31)

Filed under: 2009 Election,campaign finance,Uncategorized — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 10:55 am

Campaign Finance Activity - 2009 City Council (as of Dec 31)

Candidate
Opening
Balance
Receipts
Expenditures
Balance
Date
#1
votes
$/#1 vote
$ from
Cambridge
donors
Notes
Adkins, Lawrence$34.93$495.00$92.40$437.5312/31/2009103$0.90100%
Cheung, Leland$0.00$7706.85$6445.46$1261.3912/31/2009756$8.5374%$5000 repaid loan
Davis, Henrietta$11185.16$51854.20$62517.68$521.6812/31/20091858$33.6590%
Decker, Marjorie$1867.27$73067.87$72705.44$2229.7012/31/20091285$56.5824%
Flanagan, Mark$0.00$140.35$140.35$0.0012/31/2009112$1.25100%
Glick, Silvia$0.00$10466.22$10184.13$282.0912/31/2009256$39.7895%$2000 repaid loan
Kelley, Craig$6465.86$11635.72$9006.41$9095.1712/31/20091250$7.2188%
Leavitt, Neal$0.00$2906.17$2570.26$335.9112/31/2009136$18.9079%
Maher, David$12827.62$38271.50$37381.60$13717.5212/31/20091286$29.0754%
Marquardt, Charles$0.00$34409.40$31449.90$2959.5012/31/2009385$81.6992%
Moree, Gregg J.$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0012/31/200947$0.00
Podgers, Kathy$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0012/31/200978$0.00
Reeves, Ken$6401.11$54826.34$58743.04$2484.4112/31/20091166$50.3828%
Seidel, Sam$775.16$24990.25$22988.73$2776.6812/31/2009900$25.5456%
Simmons, Denise$8689.90$34475.78$42062.94$1102.7412/31/20091785$23.5651%
Stohlman, Tom$0.00$5525.00$2646.76$2878.2412/31/2009378$7.00100%
Sullivan, Edward J.$3950.24$25100.00$28313.15$737.0912/31/2009885$31.9937%
Toomey, Tim$34043.27$37974.15$52680.13$9337.2912/31/20091748$33.0045%$5000 repaid loan
vanBeuzekom, Minka$0.00$18576.81$15561.56$3015.2512/31/2009682$22.8276%
Ward, Larry$132.86$16933.34$16595.78$470.4212/31/2009736$22.5578%
Williamson, James$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0012/31/200990$0.00

Click on a column title to sort by that field. Click again to toggle between ascending and descending order.

A detailed current summary is available at http://rwinters.com/elections/campaignfinance2009.pdf

All information derived from the campaign finance reports at the OCPF website.

Information on all City Council and School Committee candidates may be found at the Cambridge Candidate Pages.

December 21, 2009

Dec 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 11:20 am

Dec 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the last meeting of the 2008-09 City Council term and the last one for Councillor Larry Ward who was not reelected in the November election. As much as I look forward to the arrival of newly-elected Leland Cheung to the City Council, I would have preferred to see someone other than my neighbor and friend Larry Ward vacate the seat to make room for the new guy. Life goes on and Larry will continue to be a bigger-than-life presence in the neighborhood as he has always been. I know that his Council colleagues and the City administration appreciated his time on the City Council.

There are 10 responses by the City Manager to Council requests for information on tonight’s agenda. This leaves only 22 out of 305 such requests from this Council term – not a bad response rate. The remaining requests cover truck traffic, traffic at two major intersections, tenant representation on the Housing Authority Board and stimulus money for CHA projects, the Walden Street cattle pass, hoarding, security cameras, library hours of operation, a Women’s Commission report, smoking in parks and outdoor seating areas, noisy rooftop mechanicals, dark sky zoning amendments, a 311 alert system, middle schools, damaged overhead wires, videos for Mac users, playgroups, Lakeview Avenue construction, rodents, and raising chickens.

One notable item on the City Manager’s Agenda is this:

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the acceptance of M.G.L. Chapter 32B, Section 20, which will establish an Other Post Employment Liability Trust Fund. This irrevocable trust fund will provide the City a vehicle to make contributions to meet the unfunded liability; and the transfer of $2.0 million from the City’s Health Insurance Claims Trust Fund, which has a balance of $17.7 million to the Other Post Employment Liability Trust Fund. This initial allocation will begin the process of providing future allocations from this and/or other funding sources to the OPEB Trust Fund based on an annual review.

This initiative is part of a long-term change in the way states and cities handle the accounting of these obligations. As reported by the Manager, these recommendations have been in the works since 2007 and “the City has positioned itself to address the OPEB liability in an orderly and planned manner in the future, which has been recognized by the rating agencies as part of its positive credit rating.”

There’s also this procedural Order regarding the forwarding of items not yet acted on to the 2010-2011 City Council.

Order #1. That all items pending before the City Council and not acted upon by the end of the 2009 Legislative Session be placed in the files of the City Clerk without prejudice provided that those proposed ordinances which have been passed to a second reading, advertised and listed under “Unfinished Business” during the 2008-2009 City Council term shall be forwarded to the next City Council and further provided that any items pending in committee may, at the discretion of the committee, be forwarded to the next City Council.   Mayor Simmons

Not that it matters all that much to anyone, but I really wish the City Council would dispose of the following item one way or another:

Unfinished Business #5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Nov 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on Unfinished Business.]

It’s embarrassing to have items over five years old lingering on the agenda week after week and year after year. There is an ongoing review of police and PRAB matters. If the Council cannot resolve this now, they should refer it to the ongoing review and start fresh in the new Council term. Even proposed amendments to ordinances have a shelf life.

Meanwhile, the speculation continues as to who will be chosen as Chair of the City Council and School Committee in two weeks, i.e. the new mayor. It matters little to most residents, but these two higher salary years can make a big difference in the pension of a city councillor. The selection is something of a strategic contradiction – councillors who do well in the November election are often disadvantaged by the fact that their colleagues don’t want to strengthen their hand by giving them the increased visibility of being mayor. Some people get all worked up about this short period of conflict among councillors, but this usually (and hopefully) passes quickly. It is, after all, not really that big a deal. – RW

December 14, 2009

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:53 pm

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting will be the next to last of the 2008-09 City Council term with one more to go next Monday. It’s notable how the number of Council Orders and Resolutions drops precipitously after Election Day. The City Manager has 7 responses to City Council requests on his agenda (dealing with parking, police details, the Red Line, tree wells, railroad tracks, trash pickup, and scabies), but we are blessed with just 3 new City Council Orders. Fortunately, Councillor Davis submitted the following Order before flying the coop on her way to Copenhagen:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments including the Inspectional Services Department and the City Solicitor to report back to the 2010 City Council in January on what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.   Councillor Davis

I have met these chickens and I hope we can provide them legal, affordable housing in Cambridge. This reminds me of the rooster that used to live behind a house on Columbia street diagonally behind the Squirrel Brand Community Garden (before the City sacrificed half the garden to build an underutilized mini-park in the name of community access – but I digress). I don’t know whether the rooster died or was evicted, but it was once a marvelous thing to hear the cock crow while visiting that garden. I’m sure the “new people” moving into the neighborhood did not appreciate that bird as I did.

So, let’s change the ordinances to allow the chickens to come home to roost. Maybe we should get some cows to graze on the Common while we’re at it.

There’s also this:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cable Television Department to determine the reason for Comcast to be conducting a poll regarding the City’s Cable Channels and CCTV channels.   Councillor Toomey

I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?

My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.

Other business on tonight’s agenda includes 6 City Council committee reports as our elected officials scurry to close out the books for this term. There’s also the official word from the Election Commission that the School Committee Recount returned the same winners (after considerable cost even though there was essentially no chance that the results would change). — RW

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress