Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 19, 2009

October 19, 2009 City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: City Council — Robert Winters @ 2:01 pm

Oct 19, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s agenda is relatively light, but there are a few notable items. In the weeks immediately preceding a municipal election, you can usually expect to see some effects of the campaign bleeding their way into the City Council agenda. Often this takes the form of a zoning petition carefully timed to come to a final vote immediately prior to the election, though this is not the case this year. Issues at the core of a challenger’s campaign which become topics at candidate forums can also pop up within City Council orders as the incumbents try to steal some thunder. One such example is Order #15 addressing the Council/Manager balance of power that has been beaten to death at candidate forums. Here are a few items that stood out:

Communication #5. A communication was received from Kathy Podgers, transmitting information on how stress makes allergies worse and last longer.

Though clearly irrelevant to the City Council or the business of the City of Cambridge, this letter highlights the ongoing grudge by Ms. Podgers directed toward Councillor Decker growing out of a City Council meeting a few years ago at which the presence of Ms. Podgers guide dog caused a substantial allergic reaction by Councillor Decker (who was pregnant at the time and unable to take anti-allergy medication) forcing her to leave the meeting early. My only comment is that the civic environment can only be diminished when people resort to lawsuits and personal vendettas instead of acceptable compromise. Besides, if a resident/candidate wants to take issue with an incumbent city councillor, there are better, more adult ways of doing so. This letter stinks of passive aggression.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with a legal opinion on whether or not listing public notices on the City website could fulfill the obligation of the City to publish legal notices.   Councillor Toomey

See comments entitled “Putting the Paper to Bed.”

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council if any residents are in danger of losing their housing due to the fiscal status of affordable housing providers in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Seidel

I periodically wonder about questions such as this. The City has now worked collaboratively on many housing projects with companies like Just-A-Start, Homeowner’s Rehab, and CASCAP. As buildings age and the economic and political landscape shifts, how secure can the City’s “housing policy” be when so much of it is in the hands of agencies that are influenced by the City but not really under the control of any City department? Perhaps it’s better this way – almost a privatization of City housing policy. However, a day may come when some of these agencies will have costs that exceed their revenues. What then? Can they sell off some of their buildings to cover the rest?

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter.   Councillor Reeves

O-15     Oct 19, 2009
COUNCILLOR REEVES
ORDERED: That the Mayor and Cambridge City Council shall seek independent academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter for the purpose of a clear and definitive explanation of the role and power of the City Council and the role and power of the City Manager before mid-December; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation to the City Council Office Budget sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake this consultation on this timetable.

I’ve never seen the matter of the Council/Manager balance of power as particularly complicated or difficult to understand. The City Council passes ordinances, approves budgets, and determines overall policies (Orders) for the Manager to implement. The Manager submits an annual budget and oversees all of the operational details necessary to run the City government and implement City Council policies, including the hiring and management of all City personnel. If a majority of the City Council decides that the Manager is not properly doing his job, they can show him the door.

There is, of course, the reality that the long tenure of a Manager will tend to strengthen the hand of the Manager, but this is primarily due to the willingness of the City Council to go along with the wisdom gained by tenure. The flip side of this is that during the early years of a new Manager, the City Council will have the greater “wisdom” and the stronger hand. Such will be the case in just a few short years at the end of Robert Healy’s current contract, or sooner should he choose to retire earlier. Be careful what you wish for! Will this City Council be up to the challenge when the pendulum swings? To some, including this observer, this is a serious factor in sorting out the challengers as well as the incumbents. I’m not so sure that we now have nine who can choose a new Manager let alone manage their new Manager.

Is Reeves’ Order really asking a question or is he merely trying to shift the balance during an election in which some challengers have chosen to make the City Manager an issue? Is this just another page in the ongoing saga of last year’s Monteiro decision and this year’s Great Gates Case that have made their way into Reeves’ statements at candidate forums? Is it really necessary to obtain a budget for legal and academic consultation on this? My understanding is that Mr. Reeves has a Harvard law degree. Surely he can answer his own question as well as anyone. — Robert Winters

Putting the Paper to Bed

Filed under: Uncategorized — Robert Winters @ 12:40 am

Oct 18 – Putting the Paper to Bed

There seems to be a movement afoot at the state and local level that could have a significant effect on any local newspaper that may still exist in Cambridge. The basics are that a) newspaper circulation is significantly down, b) more people are using Internet resources to get their news, and c) local and state finances are challenged. So, why not change the requirement that legal notices be published in a “paper of general circulation” to a standard more appropriate to the realities of today?

At the state level, the Beacon Hill Roll Call reports:

“ALLOW BIDDING NOTICES TO BE POSTED ON WEBSITES – The State Administration Committee held a hearing on legislation that would allow notices soliciting bids from companies seeking contracts to work on local city, town and county projects to be posted only on the local community’s website or the state website. Current law requires that the notices be published in local newspapers.”

“The Patrick administration says that the change would save the state time and money and ensure that projects move forward faster. Critics say that the change would hurt many newspapers that are already struggling. They argued that this new policy is unfair and decreases openness and transparency because not every business and individual has Internet access.”

To this you can add the following City Council Order for Monday, October 19 from Councillor Toomey:

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with a legal opinion on whether or not listing public notices on the City website could fulfill the obligation of the City to publish legal notices.   Councillor Toomey

O-10     Oct 19, 2009
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The requirement to list legal notices in local newspapers cost the city an estimated $125,000 per year; and
WHEREAS: Newspaper circulation and the industry in general has faltered as a result of increased use of the internet for news and information; and
WHEREAS: Public access to the internet is significantly improving; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge website could be used as an alternative for listing notices in the newspaper; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with a legal opinion on whether or not listing public notices on the City website could fulfill the obligation of the City to publish legal notices.

It’s been reported many times over that Legal Notices are a sizable and dependable source of revenue for “newspapers of general circulation.” The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, appears to average about one and a half pages per issue of Legal Notices – much of it from the City of Cambridge. The City’s Purchasing Department already posts all of its requests for bids on the City website. There are also some City job listings posted. You can also find Proposed Zoning Amendments Currently Under Review with minimal effort. It seems pretty clear that the City could post all of its Legal Notices and other Public Notices in a clear and inviting way at little or no cost to taxpayers. There are also other civic websites (such as this one) that would gladly link to all of the City’s Legal Notices or post them at no cost, especially if City officials made it as effortless as possible.  —  Robert Winters

October 12, 2009

Decker Campaign – September Receipts

Filed under: 2009 Election,campaign finance — Robert Winters @ 2:10 am

AmountNameAddressEmployer1Employer2City
$100.00Bandar, Dany2 Warren Drive Middleton, MA 01949Middleton
$500.00Gilmore, Marvin26 Mount Vernon Street Cambridge, MA 02140Cambridge
$100.00Glodis Committee39 Old Cart Road Auburn, MA 01501Auburn
$500.00Keegan, William197 Old Colony Avenue South Boston, MA 02127Bridge & Structural
Workers Union Local 7		Boston
$500.00McKinnon, Rich1 Leighton Street, Unit 1905 Cambridge, MA 02140Cambridge
$500.00Melonie, Jr., James7 Laborers Way Hopkinton, MA 01748Mass Laborers
District Council		Hopkinton
$100.00Pedi, Richard35 Salem Street Medford, MA 02155Carpenters Local
Union No. 218		Medford
$100.00Bandar, Stephen6 Azalea Road Winchester, MA 01890Winchester
$250.00Barbosa, Valdir2531 N Talman Avenue, Apt. 3W Chicago, IL 60647AttorneyLatham & WatkinsChicago, IL
$100.00Boland, Robert8 Riverview Terrace Dover, MA 02030Dover
$100.00Braccia, Richard21 Mazzeo Drive Randolph, MA 02368Carpenters Local
Union No. 424		Randolph
$400.00Clancy, John295 Devonshire Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110Boston Carmen's
Union Local 589		Boston
$100.00Clancy, John295 Devonshire Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110Boston Carmen's
Union Local 589		Boston
$250.00Coyle, James213 N Street South Boston, MA 02127Secretary TreasurerBuilding & Construction
Trades Council		Boston
$500.00DiGiovanni, Anne19 Hilliard Street Cambridge, MA 02138Real EstateTrinity PropertyCambridge
$500.00DiGiovanni, John19 Hillard Street Cambridge, MA 02138Real EstateTrinity PropertyCambridge
$100.00Entine, Jean259 Upland Road Cambridge, MA 02138Cambridge
$100.00Epstein, Gail43 Linnean Street, Apt. 8 Cambridge, MA 02138Cambridge
$100.00Friedman, Richard20 University Road Cambridge, MA 02138PrincipalCarpenter & Company, Inc.Cambridge
$100.00Jackson, Bud206 N. Washington St, No. 10 Alexandria, VA 22314Business OwnerThe Jackson GroupAlexandria, VA
$200.00Joslin, Alan36 Banks Street Cambridge, MA 02138Information RequestedCambridge
$500.00Keshishian, Vartan17 Morningside Lane Lincoln, MA 01773EngineerSelf-employedLincoln
$500.00Levin, Marc45 Clearwater Road Newton, MA 02462Information RequestedNewton
$200.00Maher, John8 Dunstable Road Cambridge, MA 02138RetiredCambridge
$500.00McGettigan, Kevin50 Park Street Dorchester, MA 02122Elevator Constructors
Local 4		Dorchester
$500.00McLean, Thomas10 Drydock Avenue Boston, MA 02210Carpenters Local
Union No. 33		Boston
$500.00Morat, Catherine159 Red Acre Road Stow, MA 01775Information RequestedStow
$100.00Narinian, Aram316 Mt. Auburn Street Watertown, MA 02472Watertown
$200.00Neer, Jr., Robert100 Morningside Drive , Apt. 3c New York, NY 10027PresidentZaps, Inc.New York, NY
$500.00Poras, Patti121 Park Avenue Newton, MA 02458Information RequestedNewton
$500.00Poras, Peter121 Park Avenue Newton, MA 02458President, Investment DivisionChestnut Hill RealtyNewton
$250.00Rafferty, James187 Concord Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138AttorneyJames J. Rafferty,
Attorney at Law		Cambridge
$300.00Roberts, Gail9 Washington Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140Information RequestedCambridge
$500.00Rodgers III, C.R.P.84 Bigelow Drive Sudbury, MA 01776Information RequestedSudbury
$500.00Rodgers, Danyel84 Bigelow Drive Sudbury, MA 01776Information RequestedSudbury
$100.00Sacco, Louis1 Carson Road Woburn, MA 01801Woburn
$100.00Straus, Robert22 Berkeley Street Cambridge, MA 02140Cambridge
$250.00Tenney, Bradford163 Wright Street Arlington, MA 02474FirefighterCity of CambridgeArlington
$250.00Vigeant, Richard13 Branch Street, Unit 215 Methuen, MA 01844Carpenters Local
Union No. 111		Methuen
$100.00Vrotsos, Lynda57 Summer Street Arlington, MA 02474Arlington
$250.00Wolfman, Toni229 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138LawyerBentley College Institute
of Women in Le		Cambridge
$100.00Wortis, Rochelle106 Berkshire Street Cambridge, MA 02141Cambridge
$100.00Zahr, Nadia21145 Helmsman Drive, Apt. N13 Aventura, FL 33180Aventura, FL
$500.00Zuker, Edward128 Baldpate Hill Road Newton Centre, MAOwner/ceoChestnut Hill RealtyNewton
$500.00Zuker, Judi128 Baldpate Hill Road Newton, MA 02459Information RequestedNewton
$500.00Zuker, Molly22 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA 02446Information RequestedBrookline
$500.00Zuker, Robert22 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA 02446Information RequestedBrookline
$500.00Abuzahra, Jehad29 Mackenzie Lane Wakefield, MA 01880Information RequestedWakefield
$500.00Abuzahra, Sheriff331 Salem Street Lynnfield, MA 01940Information RequestedLynnfield
$200.00Fry, Shanti4 Berkeley Street Cambridge, MA 02138HomemakerCambridge
$500.00Gim, Meehn581 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116Kaya RestaurantOwnerBoston
$500.00Gladstone, Melissa94 Woodbine Circle Needham, MA 02494Information RequestedNeedham
$500.00Gladstone, Stephan94 Woodbine Circle Needham, MA 02494Information RequestedNeedham
$500.00Goodman, Abigail78 Lake View Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138Information RequestedCambridge
$500.00Goodman, Mark78 Lake View Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138Information RequestedCambridge
$500.00Higgins, Kelly133 Claflin Street Belmont, MA 02478HomemakerBelmont
$500.00McHugh, George286 Independence Drive Chestnut Hill, MA 02467Information RequestedNewton
$500.00McHugh, Laurie238 North Street Stoneham, MA 02180Information RequestedStoneham
$500.00Professional Firefighters
of MA People's Cttee (80374)		130 Bowdoin St #710 Boston, MA 02108Boston
$500.00Siff, Eden185 Baldpate Hill Road Newton, MA 02459Information RequestedNewton
$500.00Siff, Lauren185 Baldpate Hill Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467Information RequestedNewton
$500.00Zuker, Matthew39 Glenland Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467Information RequestedNewton
$500.00Andrews, Thomas7 Brickyard Lane Westborough, MA 01581Information RequestedWestborough
$250.00Bachman, Katharine23 Circuit Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467AttorneyWilmer Hale LLPNewton
$100.00Barboza, Robert12 Massasoit Way Mendon, MA 01756Mendon
$100.00Carbonneau, Steve68 Frankland Road Hopkinton, MA 01748Hopkinton
$100.00Gibbons, Bernard65 Shawmut Street Quincy, MA 02169Quincy
$500.00Joseph Powers803 Summer Street South Boston, MA 02127New England Regional
Council of Carpenters		Boston
$500.00Kazlauskas, JosephP.O. Box 88 Bridgewater, MA 02324Information RequestedBridgewater
$250.00Kennedy, Sean29 Sparhawk Street Brighton, MA 02135Grafton Street
Pub & Grill		RestaurantBrighton
$250.00Lee, Patrick141 Arlington Street, Unit 2 Boston, MA 02118Grafton Street
Pub & Grill		RestaurantBoston
$250.00Lee, Peter49 Century Lane Canton, MA 02021Information RequestedCanton
$500.00Maguire, Joseph309 Hall Street Dunstable, MA 01827Information RequestedDunstable
$300.00Mahoney, Robert113 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138Cambridge Firefighters
Federal Credit Union		Cambridge
$500.00Manfredi, David90 Pembroke Street Boston, MA 02118Information RequestedBoston
$500.00Marcus, JoelP.O. Box 2807 Beverly Hills, CA 90213Information RequestedBeverly Hills, CA
$100.00Mello, David1 St. Lawrence Way North Attleborough, MA 02760N. Attleborough
$500.00O'Reilly, Jr., William133 Abbott Road Wellesley, MA 02481Information RequestedWellesley
$100.00Queen, Kerrie5 Abbott Road Natick, MA 01760Natick
$500.00Richardson, James1525 Escondido Way Belmont, CA 94002Information RequestedBelmont
$250.00Sheerin, Gerald49 North Crescent Circle Brighton, MA 02135Information RequestedBrighton
$100.00Southwell, Donna43 Locke Street Cambridge, MA 02140Cambridge
$100.00Wright, Charles39b Park Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138Cambridge

Click to column heading to sort. Click again to sort in reverse order.

Table updated October 19.
Total itemized receipts for September: $27,450
Total unitemized receipts: $765
Total Receipts: $28,215

October 5, 2009

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:08 pm

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s City Manager’s Agenda is dominated by many responses (16) by the City Manager and staff to Council Orders requesting information. The City Council Orders may prove interesting. They run the gamut from violence in the Congo to tree wells, flagpoles, greyhounds, and the Police Review and Advisory Board. Some that drew my attention are:

Order #10. That the City Council hold a special meeting on the status of the Police Review and Advisory Board [PRAB] and all related topics. Councillor Kelley

Perhaps Councillor Kelley could be more nonspecific, but I doubt it. If the intention of this Order is to clean house on the Unfinished Business item that has been languishing on the agenda for half a decade, then this is good housekeeping at its best.

Unfinished Business #3. 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 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.]

However, the vagueness of Kelley’s Order seems to open the door for a free-for-all during which we may be treated to speeches on a) the ongoing legal challenge to the Monteiro v. City of Cambridge verdict; b) the recent PRAB decision to take up the a case filed by a Boston-based advocacy group on the Great Gates Affair; and c) anything under the sun. I hope there’s at least one city councillor who will force a little more specificity on this.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of the Cambridge Police Department’s policy on making available to the public information about crimes and suspects and other information not prohibited from public release. Councillor Kelley

This brings to mind a Council meeting a while back when Councillor Kelley asked that the Police Department publish a list of all the places where they regularly look for speeding violations. I’m all for public disclosure of useful information, but is it sensible for the Cambridge Police Department to announce in advance where they will or will not be looking for speeders? Regarding Councillor Kelley’s latest foray into police work, I would like it if complete descriptions of bad guys were made available after every crime, regardless of concerns about political correctness. Public safety is more important than concern for delicate sensibilities. On the other hand, I definitely don’t need to know about details in an ongoing investigation that might possibly compromise the investigation or subsequent prosecution. In some matters, you just have to trust the cops to do their job.

Order #17. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support House Bill No.3643 which would reduce the prevailing speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph in urban districts on local roads. Councillor Davis

This Order is notable only because of how many times we’ve seen it. It must be a dozen or more times that I’ve read essentially the same Order over the last decade.

Order #18. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support H.853 which would prohibit new buildings that cast new shadow on parks except during the first hour of sunrise or before 7:00 a.m. or during the last hour before sunset. Councillor Davis

It’s important to note that the proposed law would apply only to specific parks. There is already a law affecting the Boston Public Garden, the Boston Common, and the Lynn Common. This would expand that list to include Magazine Beach Park, the Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, the Rose Kennedy Greenway, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park and would not apply to the long shadows of early morning or late afternoon. I suppose the devil is in the details and I would anticipate a few reasonable exceptions that may have to be made.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to provide a status report to the City Council on traffic safety measures in place at the intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Mount Auburn Street. Vice Mayor Seidel

They could start by painting some lanes to guide the traffic on Mt. Auburn as it passes through that intersection. However, all the traffic engineering in the world will likely have minimal effect on those drivers who continue to enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Red light cameras might help a lot. Let’s not forget that vote on March 23: Order #20. The City Council go on record supporting red light camera enforcement. Councillor Kelley and Councillor Toomey. Voting in favor: Davis, Kelley, Maher, Seidel, Toomey; voting against: Decker, Reeves, Simmons, Ward. — Robert Winters

September 21, 2009

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 3:13 pm

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s Big Item is the series of votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2010. As Bob Healy reminds the councillors every year, the City Council does not set the tax rate. They adopt a budget in the spring and then take the required votes on tax classification, allocations from Free Cash and reserves, and on a variety of statutory exemptions. The Mass. Department of Revenue then determines and approves the tax rates based on what was sent by the City, but the end result in usually entirely predicable to the penny. There is a 6:30pm hearing during the meeting to discuss the property tax rate classification.

Every Cambridge resident should read the message submitted by the City Manager for this meeting. There are many lessons contained within. There are other agenda items of note, but everything else pales in comparison. — Robert Winters

September 14, 2009

Sept 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 11:23 am

Sept 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

The big item on tonight’s agenda is the very first item on the City Manager’s Agenda – the vote on the Community Preservation Act allocations. When this item came around last year, there was actual discussion among councillors about the appropriateness of the 80%-10%-10% distribution respectively to subsidized housing, open space acquisition, and historic preservation. Regardless how one may feel about what the percentages should be, there is an important issue that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. When the CPA surcharge was approved by voters in 2001, the councillors at that time asked for and received assurance from the City Manager that his appointments to the CPA Committee would give the maximum allocation to subsidized housing, and this has been the case every year since, including this year’s recommendations. However, there is a general principle in government that an elected body cannot “bind” its successor, and there have been four municipal elections and four new councillors elected (Simmons, Kelley, Seidel, Ward) since that understanding between Manager and Councillors took place. To what degree is that initial understanding still binding? In principle – not at all.

The belief among many who have attended the CPA hearings over the last several years is that they are entirely pro forma and that all decisions have been made prior to the hearings. Typically, the nonprofit housing agencies Just A Start (JAS) and Homeowner’s Rehab (HRI) get the word out to people to pack the meetings in favor of giving 80% for housing, but in each of the last few years there has also been a solid presence from people from East Cambridge and the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood who have advocated for more open space acquisition in that part of the city. The stock answer from the CPA Committee and Rich Rossi, Chair of the committee, has been that the City allocates plenty of money from other sources for open space acquisition and related purposes and that it is not necessary that this money come from CPA funds.

A good argument can be made (and I’ve made this argument myself in public testimony) that as long as the City commits to appropriate allocations for these various competing interests, the decision of how the CPA portion of these funds should be allocated should be based primarily on how much additional money can be leveraged from the matching state funds that come with the CPA. In past years, the money allocated toward subsidized housing did leverage more additional funds than did the other allocations, so the total financial benefit for City-supported projects was optimized by the 80%-10%-10% split. I hope that at least one city councillor will ask the appropriate questions tonight to determine whether the recommended allocations will again be in the best interests of the City or whether the main priority is simply the continued public subsidy of JAS and HRI who, arguably, view CPA funding as an entitlement. The question of how much City-controlled funds should be dedicated toward subsidized housing is another matter, and its answer appears to be slowly evolving. Tonight’s discussion may prove enlightening.

Another item that caught my attention was this:

Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant (Year 2) in the amount of $39,000 to the Grant Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account and will support the purchase of approximately 15 computers which will expand public access to technology throughout the library system.

This translates into $2600 per computer. Has the City visited MicroCenter lately? I’m sitting right now in front of a dandy little PC that cost me $400. With an additional monitor and other goodies, I might have spent as much as $800. Perhaps some thrifty councillor can press the Manager on why it costs three times as much per computer when the money comes from the foundation of the PC Man Himself (Bill Gates). Is this to pay someone’s salary? The message from the City Manager only refers to the purchase of the machines.

There also these items that may see a vote tonight:

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 30, 2009 for the purpose of considering a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow wind turbines to be placed in the City of Cambridge. …. Petition expires Sept 28, 2009.

Committee Report #5. A communication was received from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 30, 2009 for the purpose of considering a proposal to amend Chapter 8.24 of the Cambridge Municipal Code “Refuse and Litter” and to add a new proposed ordinance Chapter 8.25 “Dumpster Licenses.” …. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Aug 10, 2009.

Committee Report #6. Committee Report from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on July 2, 2009 for the purpose of considering a petition filed by Jean Connor et al. to amend the Zoning Map of Cambridge …. The petition was passed to a Second Reading on July 27, 2009. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Aug 10, 2009. Planning Board hearing held July 7, 2009. Petition expires Sept 30, 2009.

Manager’s Agenda #22. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt the Connor, et al Petition to rezone an area on the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge in the vicinity of Garden, Walden, Sherman and Winslow Streets from the current Residence C-1 designation to a Residence B designation.

There are 33 letters protesting the Connor Petition (none supporting it) in the Council materials. The primary point made by the Planning Board in its negative recommendation is that it would render far too many other properties nonconforming.

There are some noteworthy City Council Orders:

Order #2. That the Connor et al. zoning petition to amend the Zoning Map from its current designation as a Residence C-1 to a Residence B District encompassing all or portions of lots on Assessors Plats #205, #206 and #228 including but not limited to those abutting Garden, Winslow, Fenno, Stearns, Esten, Sherman Streets and Upland Road, be re-filed with the City Council upon the expiration of the current petition on Sept 30, 2009, that said re-filed petition be referred to the Planning Board and City Council Ordinance Committee; and that upon adoption of this order, the Ordinance Committee public hearing be advertised and scheduled promptly, with a report back to the City Council as soon as possible.   Councillor Maher and Vice Mayor Seidel

One has to speculate whether the same petition is being re-filed (for what purpose?) or whether an alternative zoning petition is being contemplated for this area. Then again, the filing of Zoning Petitions is standard fare in every municipal election year.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the possibility of initiating curbside pickup of food waste.   Councillor Davis

This is a good idea, but whether or not it’s viable depends on things like cost and the ability to obtain permits for sites for composting of food waste near enough to Cambridge that transportation costs don’t break the bank or have a net detrimental environmental effect. In any case, backyard composting remains a simple and effective option for many residents.

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s plans to help fund the Housing Authorities redevelopment projects, to include any land swaps, loan backing or direct financial assistance.   Councillor Kelley

This item is noteworthy simply for the gargantuan scale of what is proposed.

O-19     Sept 14, 2009
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Housing Authority is embarking on a 10-year, $250 million dollar renovation project that will involve the demolition and rebuilding of various CHA developments; and
WHEREAS: The first of these demolition/renovation projects has tentatively been scheduled to start in late 2009; and
WHEREAS: It is not clear how the Cambridge Housing Authority is involving the public in any planning process for its renovation projects; and
WHEREAS: The City may be financially involved in these various renovation projects; now be it therefore
ORDERED: That the City Council’s Housing Committee is requested to hold a public hearing in the near future to review CHA’s plans and the City’s plans to help finance them; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s plans to help fund the Housing Authorities redevelopment projects, to include any land swaps, loan backing or direct financial assistance.

– Robert Winters

August 24, 2009

Some observations from Cambridge City Council campaign finance reports

Filed under: 2009 Election,campaign finance — Robert Winters @ 11:14 am

Cambridge City Council 2009 Campaign Finance Report Summaries (PDF) – updated Oct 19, 2009

While some people enjoy reading novels, I get my reading pleasure from things like meeting minutes and campaign finance reports. For extra fun, I’ll analyze ballot data and voter history records or maybe write a little piece on proportional representation. I hope someone other than me finds this stuff interesting.

Here are a few items from past and present that get my attention:

  1. Henrietta Davis’ recent reports show three different people paid as campaign staff (though two of them were only for a few hours). This contrasts with, say, Denise Simmons whose reports show no paid campaign staff. Some new candidates have hired campaign managers while others rely entirely on friends and family. [Aug 30 Note: Lest anyone misinterpret the intent of this note, the only point is that some candidates have paid staff and others do not.]
  2. Marjorie Decker’s 2006 Annual Report showed a debt of $13,808.85 to Cambridge Offset Printing left over from her 2005 campaign. It makes you wonder why a business allows such substantial debts to remain unpaid for so long, yet additional unpaid bills for $1833.75 appeared on the 2007 report for a total liability of $15,642.60. This same report showed the illegal in-kind contribution of $2500 from the John Buonomo campaign paid to Cambridge Offset Printing which apparently covered what would have been an even greater debt. [Note: This story has been somewhat covered recently by the Cambridge Chronicle.] The report was later amended to bring the unpaid debt to Cambridge Offset Printing to $17,424.08. The 2008 Annual Report continued to show a $15,642.60 debt to this vendor with no indication yet of this debt being paid. At some point it’s fair to ask whether this is an unpaid debt or a very large in-kind donation of services.
  3. Craig Kelley continues to personally fund a substantial portion of his campaigns, though his periodic reports show very little activity so far this year. So far, the campaigns of new candidates Cheung, Glick, Leavitt, Marquardt, Stohlman, and vanBeuzekom are primarily or entirely self-funded, but this will likely soon change as they attract more voters and supporters.
  4. David Maher pulled in $14,465 in donations last December. Other incumbent city councillors will have similar major fundraising months. This illustrates one of the primary advantages of incumbency.
  5. Gregg Moree’s 2007 Report showed an entirely self-funded $22,390 campaign, yet no details whatsoever appear about his expenditures.
  6. Ken Reeves’ 2005 Report shows $12,170 in liabilities but absolutely no details are provided. In that year, he maintained a headquarters for perhaps four months in a prominent Central Square storefront, yet there is no record of any expenditure for rent or any record of an in-kind donation for what is far in excess of the campaign finance legal limits. Candidates are required to report the fair market value for any such donation of space and the name(s) of those who provide the space. Reeves also maintained a headquarters on Mass. Ave. for several months in the 2007 campaign and this also never appears in any reports. His 2007 reports show an outstanding debt of $14,875.83 primarily for campaign staff but with no mention of the headquarters. A very low estimate for the unreported donation of office space would be at least $6000 – far in excess of anything Mr. Buonomo improperly contributed to Ms. Decker’s campaign.
  7. Two of the biggest funders of political campaigns (primarily in 2007) were Timothy and Amy Rowe (he’s the CEO of the Cambridge Innovation Center in Kendall Square). The recipients were Galluccio ($1250), Kelley ($1000), Davis ($1000), Toomey ($1000), M. Sullivan ($500), Decker ($1000), Maher ($1000), Reeves ($1000), Simmons ($1000), Seidel ($1000), and Murphy ($1000). The other king donors are John DiGiovanni (Trinity Management, Harvard Square) and his family. Since 2007, they gave to Reeves ($1500), M. Sullivan ($1000), Murphy ($2000), Galluccio ($3000), Decker ($1000), Maher ($2000), Simmons ($2000), E. Sullivan ($500), and Toomey ($1000). Surely, all this money flows from the kindness of their very large hearts.
  8. Tim Toomey continues to pay Jason Alves (his City-funded personal aide) every month out of his campaign account as staff for his state representative district office. It’s apparently legal, but it highlights the clearly political nature of these City-funded aides.
  9. As of Oct 19, the campaign treasure chests in decreasing order were (to the nearest dollar):
    Candidate
    Balance
    Candidate
    Balance
    Candidate
    Balance
    Decker, Marjorie$29,547Seidel, Sam$10,402Ward, Larry$1,144
    Simmons, Denise$20,073Glick, Silvia$9,344Reeves, Ken$491
    Maher, David$18,040Cheung, Leland$9,212Adkins, Lawrence$244
    Davis, Henrietta$13,766Sullivan, Edward J.$7,469Flanagan, Mark$100
    Kelley, Craig$13,748vanBeuzekom, Minka$5,348Moree, Gregg J.$0
    Toomey, Tim$13,539Stohlman, Tom$3,920Podgers, Kathy$0
    Marquardt, Charles J.$10,826Leavitt, Neal$1,726Williamson, James$0
  10. [addendum] Marjorie Decker’s campaign receipts for September 2009 are something to behold. It seems like Billy Walsh must be her chief campaign fundraiser. It’s all about the real estate.

One observation worth noting is the trend over the years toward paid campaign managers. There was a day when managing the campaign of an Independent candidate would be entirely the work of friends and family. Paid staff was typically seen only with CCA type candidates. Nowadays, many candidates (other than the usual suspects) will hire campaign staff, though not all. Some incumbents have several paid staff (in addition to the City-funded personal staff who handle all their Council business while they’re out on the campaign trail).

Anyone can search the campaign finance reports at the OCPF website. Knock yourself out. – RW

August 21, 2009

Open Forum – Proportional Representation

Filed under: Cambridge government — Robert Winters @ 6:41 pm

When Cambridge adopted the Plan E Charter in 1940, it included the use of proportional representation as the method of election for City Council and School Committee. This election method is designed to ensure majority rule while at the same time guaranteeing minority representation. At its inception, the concept was the representation of political minorities, but this has naturally extended to include ethnic minorities and other constituencies as defined by the voters.

Proportional representation is much more general than the specific method used in Cambridge. Most democracies throughout the world use some form of proportional representation, primarily in parliamentary systems of government.

The origins of the PR method used in Cambridge, the single transferable vote (STV), date back to 1821, but the method is often associated with Thomas Hare who promoted the method during the mid-19th century. The “Hare System” was popularized by John Stuart Mill and, with some modification after the ideas of Henry Richmond Droop, this system is essentially what is used in Cambridge today. Basically, every 10+% of voters who can galvanize around an issue or other definable quality among candidates will likely elect a representative on the City Council. For the School Committee, it takes slightly more than one-seventh of voters to earn a seat.

The topic of this Open Forum is the concept of proportional representation, not the mechanics of the PR elections. We’ll save the mechanics for the next topic.

Specific questions:
1. How important is proportional representation of a range of viewpoints and backgrounds on the City Council and School Committee today? Is this true in practice as well as in theory? How does representation in Cambridge compare to other cities, the state legislature, or the U.S. Congress?

2. How would things differ if we elected councillors and school committee members by wards using winner-take-all plurality elections (and possibly gerrymandered districts)?

3. Has the use of candidate slates been effective over the years in our PR elections? Have some constituencies benefited more from PR than others?

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress