The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
My taxes are almost done (yeah, I never get an early start), and the City Council meets on the eve of Tax Day. Here are the agenda items that distracted me this week:
Money Talks
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Nolan; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang re: Harvard President Alan Garber’s announcement to not cooperate w/threats from Trump Administration, courage of students and others in standing up to administration; cancellation of federal grants, breach of order by federal government, positions terminated, programs cut or eliminated (such as LIHEAP), danger of the coming years, confronting the federal government; comments by Nolan, Siddiqui (asks about Volpe, no word yet); Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Claire Spinner (Finance), Joseph McCann (Auditor), Robert Mahoney (independent audit consultant), Zusy, Simmons; Placed on File 9-0
Talking about Transportation
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-67 regarding Cambridge Bicycle Plan Update and Consideration of Network Connections. (CM25#82) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Stephanie Groll (Transportation Planning – now part of Transportation Department), Toner (on how CSO might be modified), Owen O’Riordan (looking at all modes of traffic, achieving a high degree of consensus), Zusy, Wilson (wants more details in spelling out the “network”, EW routes vs. NS routes; McKenna talks about the 2015 process and “vision”, calls NS routes “low speed, low volume” vs. EW routes “requiring” separation; Wilson asks how Broadway became included in current plan, McKenna says it was added in the 2020 plan; Nick Schmidt (new pedestrian and bicycle program manager) introduced; McKenna says development of the Network Vision independent of the Cycling Safety Ordinance, claims there was a public process [Is that really true? – I don’t recall there be any such process.]; Wilson addresses broader concerns re: CSO and needs of actual people; McGovern says Main Street was not part of the Ordinance, McKenna says the Ordinance calls for 25 miles, some streets (the “special four”) specified, says Brattle Street and Main Street “essential” to be added to network; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-23 regarding a Citywide Shuttle Bus Pilot program. (CM25#84) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy, Siddiqui, Brooke McKenna; Referred to both Neighborhood & Long-Range Planning Committee and Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Mar 17, 2025 with MIT transportation experts and City staff to brainstorm ways to better accommodate mobility for all users as we continue to promote the use of sustainable modes. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)
This and That
Order #1. City Council opposition to Federal efforts to defund or censor museums. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Nolan; comments by Simmons, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #2. That the City Council go on record declaring Earth Day, April 22 in the year 2025 “Sustainable Cambridge Day” and that the City Manager is requested to communicate to all City departments the City’s commitment to our climate goals and the need to support the efforts of the Sustainable Cambridge initiative. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan for comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Charter Right #1. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. [Charter Right – Toner, Apr 7, 2025]
McGovern proposed amendment Adopted 7-0-0-2 (Azeem, Zusy – Present); Toner notes Human Services Committee meeting on this topic, Manager was clear about lack of funding for continued operation; City Manager Huang comments on Cambridge many investments for unhoused communities, fact that this proposed expenditure would add considerable expense and City is already opening permanent supporting housing; Toner, Zusy to vote No while acknowledging good services provided by the TWC; McGovern challenges Zusy unnecessarily, gets agitated suggesting he’ll just bring this up again, suggests false choices between this and trees and other matters, calls his colleagues statements “shameful”; Sobrinho-Wheeler supports the Order and suggests lack of prioritization process, wants the City Council to take more control of the Budget process (bad idea); Nolan notes that there is a lot of desire to fund everything, but it’s unfair to shame each other on financial and other decisions, does not agree with referring this to Finance Committee; Simmons expresses concerns about promoting a program that is not well run; Wilson will vote Yes on the proposal; McGovern comments; Yi-An Huang notes that if we had no resources there would be no hard choices, and some (limited) funding creates environment where priorities must be set and choices must be made, and further notes that federal cuts can affect local choices, each year’s budget feeds into the next year’s budget; McGovern again suggests that this should be a priority in addition to other pet projects like municipal broadband; Siddiqui suggests rethinking the Wednesday’s Finance Committee meeting agenda, continues to promote her own “Rise Up” local welfare program; Azeem notes simultaneous expiration of ARPA funding and losses in federal funding, asks when any decisions re: Spaulding program must be made; Ellen Semonoff says a date is difficult to determine – there are 22 people still at TWC, and the longer people stay based on possibility of extension the more likely they may find themselves with no next step, notes that if TWC does not close now it will be more difficult to do so in the future; City Manager notes that funding TWC will make it more difficult to fund a successor program to the “Rise Up” local welfare program; Nolan additional comments re: many proposed projects; McGovern objects to suggestion of vouchers vs. TWC; Order Adopted as Amended 5-4; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
[My own personal opinion is that this entire conversation is proof positive why it would be a terrible idea to have legislators wrest more control over city management with the goal of promoting specific (often politically motivated) projects – the essential definition of political patronage – which can sometimes produce good benefits, but often not. I will add that if some of the current councillors could have their way, property taxes would soar, especially in light of recent news regarding Kendall Square commercial property challenges and their tax levy implications.]
Only 279 Communications this week. One, in particular, stood out above all the others:
Communication #208. Patrick W Barrett III, re: PO25#49. [text of communication]
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 5, 2025 to receive an update on the state of the arts in Cambridge and discuss how the City is currently supporting artists and art organizations through grant programs and funding, with a focus on the Central Square Cultural district. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)
The Cambridge Charter
Committee Report #3. The Cambridge City Council’s Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review was held on Fri, Mar 28, 2025 to review the communication from the City Solicitor with updates in the Charter review process that was referred from the Mar 17, 2025 City Council meeting. [text of report]
Rules Suspended to take up early along with Comm & Reports #2 and #3; Siddiqui thanks all involved; Toner comments; March 28, 2025 revisions voted Adopted 9-0; Committee Report Placed on File 9-0; Comm. & Reports #2 Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by ; City Solicitor Megan Bayer walks through changes in latest Draft; Siddiqui motion to accept latest changes Adopted 9-0; comments by Nolan re: Charter Review Committee; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses removal procedures, McKenna notes state law regarding conviction of felony and removal upon sentencing (as was the case with former Councillor William Walsh in 1994); Zusy on review of ordinances every decade, Mayer responds [Note: They used to be not only reviewed but frequently published as a bound volume], McKenna notes that existing ordinances would be a 6 inch wide bound volume; Simmons speaks on half of School Committee member Caroline Hunter re: role of the Mayor on the School Committee; McGovern remarks on review of ordinances suggesting that the period of review be baked into the ordinance language itself; Wilson expresses gratitude to Law Department and Charter Review Committee, how to put into practice the review of ordinances, Bayer notes this would be a significant undertaking; Megan Bayer notes that many City departments are affected by ordinances and that they should be involved in their review; Siddiqui acknowledges Clerk’s Office, notes many CRC recommendation that have been referred to Government Operations for future consideration; McGovern says Gov’t Operations meetings will be scheduled; Toner asks if charter review must be done every 10 years or does clock start w/adoption of any revision, Bayer notes that it would be every 10 years (in a year ending in a ”2”); Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0
Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting an update regarding Revised Charter Draft including Home Rule Draft.
Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by late communication below)
Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting – Updated City Charter Revised Charter Draft.
Placed on File 9-0; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0
Late Order #3. That the City Council approve the motions that passed favorably in the Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review on March 28, 2025. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#55)
Order Adopted 9-0
Late Order #4. That the Council accept the new additional changes as detailed that the Law Department has made that the Special Committee did not vote on. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#56)
Order Adopted 9-0
Late Order #5. That the City Council petition the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to enact the attached home rule petition entitled, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE; provided, that the Legislature may make such incidental changes necessary to effectuate passage of this petition. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#57)
Order Adopted 9-0
Late Order #6. That the City Council request that State Rep. Marjorie Decker sponsor the home rule petition entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Councillor Siddiqui
Nolan amends to have rest of delegation invited, Siddiqui very truculent in response; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)
This has been a long haul, and not such a pleasant one. On the bright side, there won’t be any major changes to the general framework of Cambridge municipal government. We’ll still have a city manager form of government with all at-large elections conducted via proportional representation with some added flexibility for the Election Commission to slightly modify the tabulation methods (the one thing I wanted to see for many years). The City Council will continue to choose their own Chair (the Mayor), but the Mayor will serve as an ordinary member of the School Committee with its Chair being elected by the School Committee (something I suggested over 20 years ago). Also, I was finally heard regarding the matter of keeping intact the current mechanisms for Resident Initiative Petitions and Referenda (which the City Council had originally eliminated). The updating of the language and overall structure of the proposed Charter is also a worthwhile change.
On the negative side (for starters): (a) the selection of the original Charter Review Committee was tainted and driven by the whims of the Mayor at that time; (b) the current penalties under the Plan E Charter for City Council interference (not acting through the City Manager) were eliminated (a very bad thing); and (c) at every step the City Council insisted on greater control of budgetary matters, board appointments, and more. I can only speculate how the whole procedure may have been different (and probably better) had there been an actual Charter Commission – as opposed to having only incumbent city councillors having any say regarding any changes in the structure our municipal government.
Assuming the posted draft of the new Charter is approved by the City Council, it will then have to be reviewed by the Attorney General and the Home Rule Petition will have to be approved by the State Legislature. If all that takes place, it will then come back to the voters of Cambridge – optimistically in time for the November 2025 election, but it could potentially be further delayed. – Robert Winters
March 17 marks the 249th anniversary of the end of the 11-month siege of Boston that ended when the Continental Army under the command of George Washington fortified Dorchester Heights in early March 1776 with cannons captured at Ticonderoga. British General William Howe’s garrison and navy were threatened by these positions, and they were forced to decide between attack and retreat. Howe chose to retreat in order to prevent what could have been a repeat of the Battle of Bunker Hill, withdrawing from Boston to Nova Scotia on March 17, 1776. The British evacuation was Washington’s first victory of the Revolutionary War. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this event was how 
There is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.