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
