Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 15, 2022

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:03 pm

It has been suggested at various times that Cambridge should consider modifications to its current proportional representation election method – especially in regard to its method of distribution of surplus #1 votes using the “Cincinnati Method” which is dependent on the order in which ballots are initially tabulated. An alternate method that is often suggested (but rarely explained) is known as “Fractional Transfer” and various other names. Indeed, the tabulation software currently used by Cambridge (ChoicePlusPro) has Fractional Transfer as its default method, and our own “Cambridge Rules” must be invoked for our local Cambridge elections. The Election Quota is calculated in the same manner, i.e. the total number of valid ballots divided by one more than the number to be elected, rounded up to the nearest integer (or add 1 if a whole number).Vote!

There are several key differences between the Cambridge Rules and Fractional Transfer:
(1) Under the Cambridge Rules, any overvote where the same rank is given to more than one candidate is ignored. Under Fractional Transfer, overvotes may be counted (for example if 4 candidates are given a #1 vote they would each get 0.25 votes) or they may be ignored. This is a choice that would have to be made.

(2) Under the Cambridge Rules, surplus #1 votes are redistributed to the next highest ranked continuing candidates as whole ballots where the whole ballots are chosen via the Cincinnati Method, i.e. every nth ballot where n is the nearest integer to the quotient of the total and the number of surplus ballots. For example, if Quota was 2000 and a candidate had 2600 #1 votes, there would be 600 surplus votes and 2600/600 would be approximately 4.3 and the ballots chosen for redistribution would be (in sequence) #4, #8, #12, etc. Any surplus ballot with no valid next preference would not be transferable and would remain with the #1 choice. Thus there can be no “exhausted” ballots during the surplus distribution. The distribution of surplus ballots continues until the elected candidate’s number of votes is reduced to the Election Quota. If during this surplus distribution another candidate reaches Quota, that candidate would be declared elected and would no longer be eligible to receive additional ballots with any subsequent ballots transferred to the next preference candidate on that ballot still eligible to receive transfers. There are thus two ways in which the initial ballot order can affect the election results – the specific ballots chosen for redistribution and the point at which any other candidate reaches Quota.

Under Fractional Transfer, any elected candidate with surplus votes would have a fraction of ALL ballots transferred to the next preferred continuing candidate with a corresponding weight. For example, if the Quota was 2000 and the candidate had 2500 votes (so the surplus would be 500), then ALL of that candidates ballots would be transferred to the next preferred candidate with a weight of 1/5 or 0.2 with the elected candidate retaining 0.8 of all of all ballots – thus reducing the total to the election quota. In the case where there is no valid next preference, that weight (0.2 in the example) would be exhausted, so there can be ballot exhaustion during the surplus distribution in order for the election to be independent of ballot order. If another candidate reaches Quota during this distribution (or any subsequent surplus distribution), the distribution will continue allowing the newly elected candidate to exceed Quota. A subsequent count will then take place to also reduce that candidates total down to Quota – again transferring a fraction of ALL of that candidate’s ballots in the same manner. Any candidate who has reached Quota at the end of any round is declared elected and becomes ineligible to receive transfers.

(3) Under the Cambridge Rules, after all #1 vote surpluses have been fully distributed, the next Round is the “Under 50” Round where all candidates with fewer than 50 votes at that point are simultaneously defeated and all ballots transferred to next preferred eligible candidates or exhausted if there is no additional valid choice.

Under Fractional Transfer, all candidates who have been “mathematically eliminated” are defeated simultaneously. This means that the sum of all of the votes of those candidates at that point is less than the number of votes for the next lowest candidate. If any continuing candidate reaches Quota during this round, that candidate is declared elected at the end of the round, and any surplus ballots are subsequently redistributed in a subsequent round.

(4) Under the Cambridge Rules, the remainder of the process is a series of runoffs where the candidate with the fewest votes at the end of each round is defeated and all of that candidate’s ballots are transferred to the next highest ranked continuing candidate or exhausted. This continues until the required number of candidates have been elected either by reaching Quota or by having not been defeated at the point where the requisite number of candidates have not been defeated. If any candidate reaches Quota during a round, that candidate is declared elected and is no longer eligible to receive additional ballots. This is another way in which the original ordering of ballots can affect the election outcome. After the initial #1 surplus distributions, no candidate can ever have more than the Election Quota of ballots.

Under Fractional Transfer, the election proceeds in much the same way via a series of runoffs, but whenever a candidate reaches Quota during a round, the count continues until all of the defeated candidate’s ballots have been transferred or exhausted, and any surplus ballots of an elected candidate are transferred in a subsequent surplus distribution round to reduce that elected candidate’s total to Quota. This process continues until the number of candidates is reduced to the number to be elected. In the final round some candidates may go over Quota, but the standard rule is that the election is declared to be complete at that point without any additional surplus distribution.

(5) Under the Cambridge Rules, if a vacancy occurs, the vacancy is filled via a “Vacancy Recount” using only the Quota of ballots that were used to elect that candidate. This is simply a series of runoffs to elect one candidate where all candidates not previously elected are eligible to receive votes (but not including any votes previously received in the original election).

There is no established rule for how a vacancy would be filled under Fractional Transfer. It could be done in the same manner as the Cambridge Rules, but candidates elected in the final round might have a substantial number of surplus ballots compared to any candidates elected during previous rounds all of whom would have exactly a Quota of ballots.

Here is a comparison of three methods for the most recent (2021) Cambridge City Council election: (1) the official results using the Cambridge Rules; (2) Fractional Transfer with overvotes included; and (3) Fractional Transfer with all overvotes ignored. As you can see, the same candidates are elected with the order of election differing slightly and the rounds somewhat different due to differences in the rules – most notably in the introduction of surplus distributions after any candidate reaches Quota during a round.

Official Count:
CouncilFinal2021

Fractional Transfer including overvotes:
Fractional2021

Fractional Transfer – No Overvotes:
Fractional2021NoOvervotes

January 10, 2022

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:44 pm

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting?

You really can’t expect too much at the first meeting of a new City Council term, especially with two rookies on the team. Of the 80 items awaiting report from the previous term, 44 have been carried over to the new term (including 5 new ones), and 36 were dispatched to oblivion (a good thing, in my humble opinion).City Hall

I often find myself searching for paradigms. Before diving in with comments and analysis I generally need a way to frame things rather than simply react to the proposals, rhetoric, actions and reactions. This is especially true with the coming of a new year or a new City Council term. I don’t even bother trying to make sense of the Cambridge School Committee anymore.

One paradigm I have been considering lately in regard to the City Council as well as other elected bodies is the nature of representation. Who do our elected representatives really represent – especially in a system that is supposed to be proportional representation? Are the geographical areas of the city proportionally represented? What about viewpoints on various issues, especially in a political context where some advocates are working overtime to convince voters and elected officials that just one or two issues are all that matter? Perhaps more significantly, do our elected officials represent the people of the city or primarily the activists? [One of the initial actions of one newly minted councillors was to meet with activists rather than residents in general. The other newly minted councillor held an open community meeting in North Cambridge.] Suffice to say that the overwhelming majority of Cambridge residents would likely not identify as “activists”.

This is important when you consider some of the recent flash points such as the reconfiguration of North Mass. Ave. in a manner that delights many activists and infuriates many residents and business owners (and their customers who may be driving from elsewhere). We have seen and will likely soon be seeing more densification zoning proposals pushed by activists who see themselves as part of a national movement. There are proposals now before the Council and the City administration having to do with alternate models for police and emergency response. Are these really what residents want or what the activists want? Do our city councillors see their main job as responding to the demands of the activists or reflecting the desires of the residents of the city? I shudder to think about what criteria some councillors may be using to decide on the next City Manager.

I really wish we had a better way to gauge public opinion than the biased views of city councillors, various neighborhood and activist listservs, NextDoor, or Twitter. My perhaps shocking point of view is that Cambridge people are actually pretty normal – but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from all the chatter.

As for the current meeting, here are the agenda items I thought worthy of comment as we get this next term underway:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Chief Public Health Officer, the Cambridge Health Alliance, and other relevant City staff to create a “priority line” and/or establish “senior hours” at the City’s Covid-19 testing locations.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

I don’t envy the job of a mayor, city manager, or school superintendent during a pandemic or other crisis. You’re likely to be a hero or a villain in the eyes of many people when you are simply trying to do your job, and the determination of hero vs. villain may be a function of things over which you have little control. The impulse to demand that you “do something” such as imposing restrictions or mandates is strong, and as the person in charge you have to weigh those demands against all the practical aspects of actual vs. perceived safety, union contracts, and economic survival of local businesses.

I follow the Covid numbers pretty closely and make new graphs daily in my “Plague Report” – nothing like a little medieval reference to keep your spirits up. What I don’t track (only because the local numbers are hard to access) are hospitalizations and similar measures of severity. Deaths and positive test results are no longer the most relevant measures of this pandemic now that Omicron has spread like a prairie fire with relatively few people dying or getting severely ill (largely thanks to widespread vaccination here). I am always eager to hear more specifics from our public health officials, and I’m grateful that time is set aside every couple of City Council meetings to delve more deeply into the specifics.

Intuitively, I expect that this Omicron prairie fire will burn itself out within a few weeks, but I really have no facts with which to back that up. Some people have been noting the patterns in South Africa, but we really are not all that comparable, especially in terms of vaccination rates. Meanwhile, even if the severity of illness has been tolerable, local businesses are still struggling and some are still closing for good. Suffice to say that the actions of city councillors have not played much of a role in this. This is not meant as a criticism. It’s just that there’s simply not much that they can do. Let’s just hope for an early spring of Red Sox games and reflection of the pandemic past.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs & Public Investments David J. Kale as a member of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees, effective Jan 10, 2022.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval of new appointments and reappointments of members of the Peace Commission for a term of three years. New Appointments: Kaleb Abebe, Annie Brown, Sarah DeMott, Yasmine Hung, Bonnie Talbert; Reappointments: Kazimiera I.H. Fraley, Larry Kim, Elka Kuhlman, David Seeman
Order Adopted 9-0

I suspect that every City Manager appointment this year will be taken as an opportunity to test the waters of the recent ill-advised charter change that gives the City Council veto power over appointments to City boards & commissions. Does this apply to the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees that was established under a Special Act rather than under the traditional management roles under the Plan E Charter? I don’t think we’ll be seeing any vetoes of appointments to entities like the Peace Commission, but I wouldn’t put it past some councillors to make an issue of it anyway. By the way, there is still no established protocol for how the City Council intends to consider appointments and/or exercise its unfortunate new authority.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a 20-25 person Cycling Safety Ordinance Implementation Advisory Committee to advise and improve upon the implementation of the citywide bicycle safety infrastructure and to establish recommendations on mitigating any concerns raised in regard to this infrastructure, with the appointments to be announced no later than Jan 31, 2022. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to convene meetings between his office, the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, and with the heads of the Neighborhood Business Associations, with the Neighborhood Associations, and within each of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s senior buildings, to ensure that these stakeholders are given the opportunity to collaborate on devising new plans that will inform the City’s approach going forward in establishing citywide bicycle-safety infrastructure that works for bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians, seniors, those with mobility impediments, the local business community, and all our residents. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0

Communications: There are 13 letters regarding the North Mass. Ave. roadway changes; 2 supporting the HEART proposal; 1 solicitation re: cable TV franchise fees; 1 on Covid testing; and 34 “sundry communications” on the proposal now being floated by CDD to radically alter residential zoning citywide (33 opposed and 1 in favor).
Placed on File 9-0

It was not so long ago that the idea of having stakeholder meetings and advisory committees would be noncontroversial and desirable – even if that meant some delay due to “processing things to death.” In our new “progressive” environment such community feedback is now viewed as counterproductive and obstructionist. After all, it might slow down the juggernaut. In the last meeting of the previous Council term there were actually people who who spoke out emphatically against these proposals for community input and review. Like it or not but being a “progressive” these days seems to be primarily about increasing and endorsing government control without question.

Resolution #3. Thanks to Peter Daly for his tremendous work as Executive Director of Homeowners Rehab, Inc., over the past 33 years, and in wishing him the very best as he looks to pursue his next exciting chapter.   Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui

Resolution #5. Resolution on the death of Janet Axelrod.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui

I especially like what Library Director Maria McCauley had to say about Janet Axelrod: “It is with sorrow that I write today. One of our longstanding Library champions, Janet Axelrod, passed away on December 26. Janet was the chair of the Board of Library Trustees. She was also one of the founders of the Cambridge Public Library Foundation. Janet was the very best board chair. She cared deeply about accessible library services, the freedom to read, and the privacy rights of users. She understood the complexities of a public library. She was committed to social justice, civil rights, and equity and inclusion work, and she greatly appreciated the staff of the Library and its volunteers.”

There are many Cambridge residents who volunteer their time and energy on various City boards & commissions completely independent of the politics of the day. They perform an essential function, and Janet Axelrod was an essential part of this tradition.

Resolution #7. Resolution on the death of legal scholar, civil rights champion, and Cambridge resident Lani Guinier on January 7, 2022 at the age of 71.

Order #2. That Article 20.90 – Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3- Temporarily prohibited uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

This is simply a re-filing of this proposed moratorium due to the failure to schedule an Ordinance Committee meeting within the time limits required under state law. That said, I’ll repeat what I said when this was initially introduced: “If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision.”

Suffice to say that the City Council should have established at least interim zoning for this area several years ago and before a significant amount of real estate changed hands. That, of course, presumes that our elected officials actually have some idea of what they want.

Order #3. That the Mayor is requested to schedule a training session within the month of January for the purpose of reviewing Robert’s Rules of Order with the entire City Council.   Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Mayor Siddiqui, announcing the formal 2022-2023 appointments to the City Council Committees.
Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps at some level it doesn’t really matter who is chosen to be Chair of any given committee, but the practical fact is that committee Chairs do use that role not only to facilitate deliberation but also as a vehicle for their personal political agendas. I simply cannot fathom some of Mayor Siddiqui’s appointments for this term, especially Ordinance and Public Safety. On the other hand, Dennis Carlone is a good match for NLTP, as is Marc McGovern with Human Services. The role of the Gov’t Operations Committee during a time when we’ll be selecting a new City Manager as well as a new City Clerk looms large and consequential. I hope they don’t screw it up. – Robert Winters

January 5, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 531-532: January 4, 2022

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 4:32 pm

Episode 531 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Inauguration and Election of Mayor; history of mayoral elections; Plague Report and forecast; committee appointments pending; civility pledge; work vs. inflammatory posturing; prospects for new councillors; failure to produce committee reports; cleaning up old business prior to taking up new business. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 532 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Looking ahead; competing proposals for alternate police response; Chapter 30B and contracting for alternatives for police response; HEART proposal – no experience, no qualifications; no expertise; search for City Manager and City Clerk; housing/zoning alternatives, form-based zoning; ideology/movements vs. good ideas and compromise; role of councillors as eyes, ears, thermometer of resident views and concerns vs. imposing ideology on residents. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 3, 2022

As expected, it’s Mayor Siddiqui again 9-0

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:24 am

As expected, it’s Mayor Siddiqui again 9-0

Jan 3, 2022 – The newly inaugurated 2022-23 Cambridge City Council today unanimously elected Sumbul Siddiqui as Mayor for the 2022-23 City Council term. The vote for Vice Chair (traditionally referred to as Vice Mayor) was 5-2-2 for Mallon-Simmons-Nolan. Alanna Mallon again elected Vice Mayor.

EVENT BA DC AM MM PN SS DS PT QZ RESULT
Ballot #1 for Mayor SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS Siddiqui 9-0
Ballot #1 for Vice Chair AM PN AM DS PN PN DS DS PN Nolan 4, Simmons 3, Mallon 2
Siddiqui switch to Mallon AM PN AM DS PN AM DS DS PN Nolan 3, Simmons 3, Mallon 3
Zondervan switch to Mallon AM PN AM DS PN AM DS DS AM Mallon 4, Simmons 3, Nolan 2
McGovern switch to Mallon AM PN AM AM PN AM DS DS AM Mallon 5, Simmons 2, Nolan 2

BA=Burhan Azeem, DC=Dennis Carlone, AM=Alanna Mallon, MM=Marc McGovern, PN=Patricia Nolan, SS=Sumbul Siddiqui, DS=Denise Simmons, PT=Paul Toner, QZ=Quinton Zondervan

 

The Mayors of Cambridge (1846 to present)

The City Clerks and City Managers of Cambridge

Note: Later in the day, the newly inaugurated School Committee chose Rachel Weinstein (a.k.a. “Member Rachel”) as its Vice Chair who will be responsible for naming members and Chairs to the various subcommittees of the School Committee.

December 22, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 529-530: December 21, 2021

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:03 pm

Episode 529 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 21, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Dec 21, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Obscurity of Zoom; parting resolutions (esp. Tim Toomey); alarming increase in Covid positive tests and potential new restrictions; City Manager search status with City Clerk search coming; hazardous political environment; clearing out the dead wood at the end of a City Council term. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 530 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 21, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Dec 21, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Mayoral prospects and the coming inaugurations; transition and some truth about election results; need for cooperation and de-poisoning of the political waters; the consequences of initiatives passed under the cover of darkness (Zoom); the “OK, Boomer” dynamic of playing to one lobby over all other concerns; “processing to death” vs. “running over all opposing views”; campaign finance limits ordained, changing traditions, and running on purity. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 13, 2021

The End Is Near – December 13, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus One Meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 4:04 pm

The End Is Near – December 13, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus One Meeting

End of the World - Cambridge Chronicle, 1848This will be the next-to-last meeting of the 2020-2021 City Council which may best be remembered (at least by me) as The Nine who operated under the Shadow of Zoom to carry out agendas that likely would never have flown had there been actual public meetings. I fully expect that any partially hidden agendas of this term will be on full display in the upcoming term.

Here are the things that appeared this week in my personal palantír:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Kimberly Massenburg, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House as a member of the Community Benefits Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective Dec 13, 2021, as recommended by the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Police Department Deputy Superintendent Frederick Cabral as a member of the Human Services Commission for a term of three years, effective Dec 13, 2021.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointments of the following persons as members of the Cambridge Immigrant Rights & Citizenship for a term of three years, effective Dec 13, 2021 – New Appointments: Eva Gottschalk, Abhishek Raman and Joe Manok. Reappointments: Karim El Razzaz and Jennifer Sparks.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointments of the following persons as a members of the Human Rights Commission for a term of three years, effective Dec 13, 2021 – New Appointments: Stephen Curran and Judith Laguerre and Reappointments: Yasmin Padamsee Forbes.
Placed on File 9-0

…and the councillors collectively sighed in anguish for being denied their opportunity to grill the appointees on their worthiness…

Charter Right #1. That the City Clerk is requested to forward the Home Rule Petition establishing a Net Zero emissions requirement for building construction in Cambridge in accordance with its Net Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2015, to the entire state legislative delegation for immediate adoption. [Charter Right Exercised By Councillor Zondervan In Council Dec 6, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting proposed amendments to Calendar #1.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. Fossil Fuel Special Permit Policy Order.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. Reaffirming Commitment to the Goal of 100% Renewable by 2035.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Though I may agree with many of the goals, there is still something unsettling to me about rigid mandates that take rational economic decisions out of the equation. Energy efficiency saves money in the long term and most people will make good economic choices accordingly. Cars are much more environmentally friendly than in years past. Heating systems are also getting more efficient and home insulation programs are available. I do not agree with outright bans on natural gas options. Some people, including me, prefer to cook on a gas stove and I have no intention of changing my heating and hot water systems over to electric any time soon. Fortunately, most of the mandates apply only to new buildings (for now), so I suppose I won’t be hounded just yet.

Communications #6. A communication was received from Lori DiLiddo, regarding To Human Services Veterans Meeting Re: Carl Barron Plaza.
Placed on File 9-0

This is a breath of fresh air.

Order #3. COVID19 Expert Advisory Panel.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation and Divco West regarding the spending plan and possible reallocation for the anticipated GLX refunds, and to report to the City Council on the use of GLX Project Participation Agreement funding in a timely manner.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee met on Sept 9, 2021 to discuss the possibility of amending the ordinance to extend the preference period, and to explore what additional financial assistance the City may be able to help Economic Empowerment applicants obtain during that extended period, and to provide an opportunity to hear from stakeholders on this.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Two Orders Adopted

Suffice to say that I really don’t think local legislatures should be leaping through flaming hoops to pick the winners in the cannabis contest. Incentives and competitive advantages are one thing, but there are limits beyond which it becomes a matter of government dictating who is permitted to be successful.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Simmons, transmitting an update to the members of the City Council and to the public on the process around the search for the City’s next city manager.
Placed on File 9-0

I heard that the City’s Request for Proposals for a search firm drew just one bidder. If that’s not correct, please let me know. As for the process yet to come, I do not have great expectations. On the other hand, perhaps the ideal candidate is already near at hand. – Robert Winters

December 8, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 527-528: Dec 7, 2021

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,City Council,covid,elections — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:00 am

Episode 527 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 7, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Dec 7, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Covid-19 updates; Bike Lane Battles, confirmation bias of studies, and some history of bicycle advocacy; campaign finance limitations and City Council contorted rhetoric. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 528 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 7, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Dec 7, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Zoom reflections; campaign finance facts & fallacies; Battles of Righteousness – virtue signalling and hypocrisy; policy orders as policies and not mandates; strong mayor vs. city manager systems; Awaiting Report Forever; tribunals for board appointments coming soon. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 5, 2021

Preview of December 6, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus Two Meetings

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:35 pm

Preview of December 6, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus Two Meetings

The Pandemic Council Term is winding down even as the Omicron Variant is winding up for the next term. I fully expect another two years of coronagendas pushed through under the Shadow of Zoom.Running Down the Clock

Here are a few items of possible interest for this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (Nolan – ABSENT)

Suffice to say that the latest rates of positive tests have been quite alarming – even though fatalities have become quite rare (as he searches for wood on which to vigorously knock). I would very much appreciate more information about where the increased positive tests are rooted. It appears as though the university populations and younger people are the chief contributors, but many of us would like more clarity.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as new members of the Family Policy Council effective Dec 1, 2021: Wendy Georgan, Tabithlee Howard, Sophie Goldman, Elijah Lee-Robinson, Elaine Wen
Placed on File 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate ordinance amendments for the City Council to review following the recent charter amendments.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons – ABSENT)

<sarcasm>I believe we need to see a report detailing the status of each of these appointees in terms of ethnic representativeness, rental status, and philosophy regarding housing density. After all, Family Policy is Housing Policy. Please wait until after January 1 to refer these appointments to the Civic Unity Committee.</sarcasm>

I am looking forward to seeing how the tribunals will be structured for the evaluation of the worthiness of citizen volunteers by a panel of clueless and politically motivated councillors. Meanwhile, all I have heard regarding the rather important matter of choosing the next City Manager is a throng of crickets.

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-88, regarding amendments to the draft Ordinance to limit and monitor campaign donations by individuals seeking financial benefit from the City of Cambridge. [Solicitor’s response]
Referred to Proposed Ordinance 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

On the Table #1. That the City Council adopt a municipal ordinance to reduce or limit campaign donations from donors seeking to enter into a contract, seeking approval for a special permit or up-zoning, seeking to acquire real estate from the city, or seeking financial assistance from the city; Ordinance #2020-27. [Tabled – Nov 8, 2021]
Taken from Table 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 7-2 (Simmons, Toomey – NO)

On the Table #2. That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption. [Tabled – Nov 8, 2021]
Taken from Table 9-0; Placed Back on Table 8-0-0-1 (Simmons – PRESENT)

For what it’s worth, I don’t actually support these restrictions. I’m all for disclosure, and I do my best to help illuminate campaign donations, but the forced imposition of restrictions like those in the proposed ordinance is a slippery slope that serves no useful purpose and is based on the loosiest and goosiest of interpretations and carve-outs for politically acceptable influence-purchasing. Every candidate is free to refuse donations from any source or to highlight the acceptance of those donations by their competitors.

And just to piss off anyone who continues to lose sleep over the Citizens United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, I actually agree that the right to raise and spend money falls under the category of “free speech”. That said, I think everyone should cast a suspicious eye toward Super-PACs, Independent Expenditure PACs (which, lets face it, often aren’t all that independent of the candidates they support), and any other vehicle used to purchase election victories. Perhaps a more relevant pursuit would be to ensure that all credible candidates are guaranteed widely accessible free platforms via which voters can get to know them.

Some of the most lavishly-funded campaigns derive their treasures not from “individuals seeking financial reward from the City of Cambridge” but from highly-paid professionals who enjoy great access and influence with the councillors they support. I will add that I find it endlessly entertaining to listen to the rhetorical contortions of councillors arguing both sides of this issue. Everyone is always looking for an edge.

Communications #1-6 all address concerns about the recent N. Mass. Ave. bus and bike lane installation and its impacts on traffic and commercial viability.Traffic - North Mass Ave - photo from Save Mass Ave site

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with appropriate departments on what the standard public process will be prior to implementing new sections of bike lanes, and what general evaluation process will take place post-installation.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

The problem, of course, is that the City Council passed amendments to the Bike Safety Ordinance that essentially limits public process to little more than a discussion over the color of the flex posts. Considerations of such things as the viability of businesses, traffic congestion, and even actual bike safety must take a back seat to everything except perceived safety and the comfort of cyclists.

Order #3. That the Cambridge City Council condemns, in the strongest possible terms, any actions that may result in the physical injury of any individual, regardless of their support or non-support, of the bike/bus lane implementation on Massachusetts Avenue.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

To any idiot who thinks that you can advance your cause by spreading tacks or bricks or broken glass in bike lanes: Violence is a poor substitute for reason, persistence, or even mockery. Try winning your argument with wit and wisdom instead. Even if you don’t prevail you can still live with your conscience (assuming you have one).

Order #2. City Council opposition to the MBTA’s plans to introduce new diesel infrastructure at the North Cambridge Garage and buses with diesel heaters.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Placed on File (motion of Mallon) 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)

Order #6. That the City Clerk is requested to forward the Home Rule Petition establishing a Net Zero emissions requirement for building construction in Cambridge in accordance with its Net Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2015, to the entire state legislative delegation for immediate adoption.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
Charter Right – Zondervan

I will soon be getting insulation pumped into all the outer walls of my building, and I think most Cambridge property owners are receptive to greater energy efficiency in their buildings. That said, I am always suspicious of actions by the City Council that may potentially lead to dramatic increases in the cost of home renovations.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft home rule language to establish a Cambridge Jobs Creation Trust for City Council review by the Dec 20, 2021 regular City Council meeting.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

It sure seems as though this City Council is poised to jack up the linkage fee on new commercial developments as high as legally possible regardless of the intended or unintended consequences. Any reasonable person likely supports job creation for residents, but the proposed Cambridge Jobs Creation Trust seems more like a justification for an increase in the linkage fee than anything else.

Order #9. That a special meeting of the City Council, School Committee, Cambridge Health Department and other appropriate city and school staff be scheduled to discuss the findings of the 2021 Cambridge Teen Health Survey for Middle and High School students and what immediate interventions are going to be implemented in response to concerns.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)

Suffice to say that the statements “46% of high school students and 31% of middle school students reported feeling tense, nervous, or worried every day for two or more weeks in a row” and “35% of high school students and 27% of middle school students reported feeling so sad or hopeless almost every day for 2 weeks or more that they stopped doing usual activities” may well apply to a lot of people at various times during the pandemic. – Robert Winters

Comments?

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress