Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 25, 2011

Cambridge Re-Precincting – May 31 Final Vote

Filed under: elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:00 pm

PROPOSED VOTING PRECINCTS AVAILABLE ONLINE

The Board of Election Commissioners met on May 24th to discuss the suggestions made at that meeting and the May 19th public hearings. After reviewing many suggestions, the Commissioners are now considering the following two maps:

May 31st Proposed Scenario 1 (with current precinct overlay in red)

May 31st Proposed Scenario 2 (with current precinct overlay in red)

The Commissioners will vote on a final map at their meeting scheduled for May 31, 2011 at 5:30pm.

In many areas of the City, voters would continue to go to the same polling places to cast their ballots as they have in the past. It should be noted that the re-precincting changes would not take effect until the 2012 elections.

Questions or comments can be sent to elections2@cambridgema.gov.

Other maps of interest:

Population by Census Block

The current map with 11 wards and 33 precincts

The May 19th proposed map with 11 wards and 33 precincts

The May 19th proposed map with the present precinct overlay in red


Editor’s Note: Each of the proposed new maps has only minimal changes from the current map. The main changes are in East Cambridge where above-average population growth over the last decade requires that precincts be adjusted so that all 33 precincts in the city have approximately equal population.

May 24, 2011

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election Calendar

Filed under: 2011 Election — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 10:01 pm

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election Calendar (and advice for candidates)

Fri, July 1:

Municipal Election Nomination Papers available at Election Commission office, 8:30am to 5:00pm.

Nomination papers will be available through the Aug 1 submission deadline, but it is advisable that a candidate pick up papers early and get started collecting signatures. The process is an excellent way for a new candidates to "get their feet wet" and acclimate to the process of asking for support. ALL pages of your nomination papers must be notarized and there are a total of three sheets. You will also want to get a current database of registered voters. This is available from the Election Commission free of charge to any candidate who has pulled nomination papers. Voter history files and the street listing are also available. If you are a legitimate candidate and want a merged file showing all currently registered Cambridge voters with their ten year voting history in Cambridge elections (if they voted – not who they voted for!!), you can request it from me free of charge.

Mon, Aug 1:

5:00pm deadline to submit nomination papers & statements of financial interest for candidates.

A minimum of 50 valid signatures must be filed and a candidate may submit up to 100 signatures. Once a voter’s signature has been recorded for a particular candidate, it cannot be used for another candidate in the same race. That is, a voter should sign for exactly one candidate for City Council and one candidate for School Committee. Candidates should submit as many signatures as possible over the minimum of 50 because it is very likely that some signatures will not be certified. It is advisable that all signatures be checked against the voter registration list before submitting them. Candidates do not have to submit all their signatures at one time, and it is advisable that signatures be submitted as each sheet becomes full. The Election Commission staff traditionally checks signatures soon after they are submitted, so it is possible to know how many signatures have been tentatively certified in case it is necessary to obtain more signatures to reach the minimum of 50 certified signatures. Actual certification is only official when the Election Commission votes to approve them.

Mon, Aug 15: 5:00pm deadline for Election Commission to certify signatures on nomination papers.
Wed, Aug 17: 5:00pm deadline for municipal candidates to file withdrawal of nomination.
Wed, Oct 19: 8:00pm deadline to register to vote in municipal election. In person registration hours are 8:30am to 8:00pm at Election Commission office only. (Mail in registration must be postmarked by Oct 19).
Mon, Oct 31:

5:00pm deadline for School Committee candidates and Political Committees to file Municipal Campaign & Political Finance Reports. (City Council candidates should consult their OCPF packets regarding depository-filing requirements).

City Council candidates are required under state law to set up a depository account at a bank. The bank will report all deposits and expenditures directly to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). School Committee candidates are not required to set up a depository account, but they must file a campaign finance report in mid-October and at the end of the year.

Fri, Nov 4: Election Commission will be open 8:30am to 5:00pm for over-the-counter absentee voting.
Sat, Nov 5: Election Commission office will be open 9:00am to 5:00pm for over-the-counter absentee voting.
Mon, Nov 7: Noontime (12:00pm) deadline to apply for absentee ballot, either for mail-in or over-the-counter voting.
Tues, Nov 8:

Municipal Election. Polls are open 7:00am until 8:00pm.
All absentee ballots (except Overseas Absentee Ballots) must arrive at the Election Commission office by 8:00pm to be counted. Ballot count begins at Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square after the polls close. Overseas Absentee Ballots are due by 5:00pm on Friday, November 18th, but must be postmarked by November 8th.

Overseas Absentee Ballots and Provisional Ballots will be counted on Friday, November 18th at 5:00pm.

It is expected that the Election Commission will report preliminary election results Tuesday evening (Nov 8), but this tally does not include auxiliary ballots (write-in ballots and other ballots not yet counted for a variety of reasons). These will be scanned and tabulated on Wednesday. Unofficial election results are expected to be announced on Wednesday when all of the auxiliary ballots have been included. The official election results will not be complete until any overseas absentee ballots and provisional ballots have been included on Friday, November 18.

Wed, Nov 9: 9:00am-5:00pm. Ballot count resumes at Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square.
Fri, Nov 18: Overseas Absentee Ballots and Provisional Ballots will be counted at 5:00pm.

Regular Election Commission Office Hours: (Unless otherwise indicated)
Mondays: 8:30am to 8:00pm
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays: 8:30am to 5:00pm
Fridays: 8:30am to Noon

Holidays: The Election Commission will be closed for the following holidays:
Independence Day – Monday, July 4th
Labor Day – Monday, September 5th
Columbus Day – Monday, October 10th

Printable copy of 2011 Municipal Election Calendar

January 10, 2011

Looking Ahead to the 2011 Cambridge City Council Election

Filed under: 2011 Election,campaign finance,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 9:00 am

Though it may be the time for Seasons Greetings for most of us, for local City Council candidates this is also the time for planning the campaign for the November 2011 election. Though the landscape will likely change somewhat between now and then, it’s interesting to look at the money raised and spent by the incumbent councillors and by those expected to run in November 2011. Here are the most recent figures.

City Council Campaign Finance (2009-2010) - updated Feb 18, 2012
CandidateOpenReceipts (2009-10)Expend. (2009-10)BalanceDate#1 Votes$/VoteNotes
Adkins, Lawrence$34.93$495.00$199.80$330.1312/31/2010103$1.94
Cheung, Leland$0.00$21757.50$13675.87$8061.6312/31/2010756$11.48$5000 repaid loan subtracted
Davis, Henrietta$11185.16$57901.70$66267.88$2818.9812/31/20101858$35.67
Decker, Marjorie$1867.27$101624.90$101716.40$1775.7712/31/20101285$79.16includes money related to State Senate campaign
Flanagan, Mark$0.00$140.35$140.35$0.0012/31/2010112$1.25
Glick, Silvia$0.00$12466.22$12424.01$42.2112/31/2010256$48.53
Kelley, Craig$6465.86$12620.92$9321.41$9765.3712/31/20101250$7.46
Leavitt, Neal$0.00$5856.17$5439.21$416.9612/31/2010136$39.99
Maher, David$12827.62$58636.50$53595.34$17868.7812/31/20101286$41.68
Marquardt, Charles J.$0.00$34909.40$31449.90$3459.5012/31/2010385$81.69
Nelson, Matthew P.$0.00$2255.00$90.50$2164.5012/31/2010--Filed papers for candidate account (Dec 2010)
Podgers, Kathy$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0012/31/201078$0.00no records
Reeves, Ken$6401.11$65906.34$67526.48$4780.9712/31/20101166$57.91
Seidel, Sam$775.16$27934.02$26701.73$2007.4512/31/2010900$29.67
Simmons, Denise$8689.90$117709.78$120780.40$5619.2812/31/20101785$67.66includes money related to State Senate campaign
Stohlman, Tom$0.00$5525.00$2790.76$2734.24 12/31/2010378$7.38
Sullivan, Edward$3950.24$25100.00$28420.48$629.7612/31/2010885$32.11
Toomey, Tim$34043.27$68070.73$97092.27$5021.7312/31/20101748$55.54includes money related to State Rep. campaign
vanBeuzekom, Minka$0.00$22097.64$19218.64$2879.0012/31/2010682$28.18
Ward, Larry$132.86$16933.34$16817.73$248.4712/31/2010736$22.85
Williamson, James$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0012/31/201090$0.00

Click on the field names to sort in ascending order and again to sort in descending order.

As always, you can look this up yourself at the website of the Office of Campaign & Political Finance (OCPF).

September 13, 2010

Final Results – Sept 2010 State Senate Primary (Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex)

Filed under: 2010 Election,2010 State Senate election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:46 pm

Until we get separate results, the totals for Charlestown and Allston-Brighton will be reported together under Charlestown.

CandidateAllston-
Brighton
CambridgeCharlestownChelseaEverettRevereSaugusSomervilleTotalPercent
DiDomenico, Sal09939577213249423440227701050.6
Flaherty, Tim0259314997011028448323237682949.2
Write-In/Other056128200330.2
Total03591
(11 complete)
2462
(13 complete)
1434
(16 complete)
4285
(18 complete)
873
(3 complete)
763
(3 complete)
464
(2 complete)
13872
(66 complete)
100.0

These are now official vote totals.
Sal DiDomenico won this election by a margin of 181 votes.
The Somerville Journal reported that candidate Flaherty filed for a recount of the ballots cast in Everett. This recount was expected to commence on Saturday, Sept 25, but Tim Flaherty has now rescinded his request for a recount.
For comparisons, the results of the April 2010 Special Primary Election may be found at: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=616.

September 6, 2010

2010 Pre-Primary Campaign Finance Reports (Cambridge Candidates)

Filed under: 2010 Election,2010 State Senate election,campaign finance — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 5:26 pm

Here are the summaries for all candidates seeking office in districts which are wholly or partially in Cambridge. The table is sortable in each field by clicking on the top row. You can also click on the candidate’s name to go to his or her OCPF page (Office of Campaign & Political Finance).

2010 Pre-Primary Campaign Finance Reports (Cambridge candidates)

CandidateOffice soughtStartEndOpenReceiptsExpendBalanceLiabilitiesNotes
DiDomenico, SalSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex6/1/20108/27/2010$3528.83$84880.00$62547.18$25861.65$28250.00$1500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included. Total receipts for primary is $86,380. Grand total for year is $195,335. Candidate loan to campaign is $28,250.
DiDomenico, SalSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20105/31/2010$19201.42$108955.00$124627.59$3528.83$1550.00Previous report.
Flaherty, TimSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex6/1/20108/27/2010$292.47$60550.00$28080.09$32762.38$16000.00$11,500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included. Total receipts for primary is $72,050. Grand total for year is $226,339. Candidate loan to campaign is $16,000.
Flaherty, TimSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20105/31/2010$756.91$154289.00$154753.44$292.47$0.00Previous report.
Bush, Barbara T.
Senate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20108/27/2010$0.00$10590.90$4261.90$6329.00$8718.01
Tolman, StevenSenate: 2nd Suffolk & Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$149758.53$60098.00$77044.91$132811.62$0.00$500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Petruccelli, AnthonySenate: 1st Suffolk & Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$10693.69$56675.00$66000.04$1368.65$0.00$2,000 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Brownsberger, WilliamHouse: 24th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$12584.99$47961.00$11712.79$48833.20$6806.62
Wolf, AliceHouse: 25th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$80752.40$24916.98$6578.33$99091.05$0.00
Toomey Jr., Timothy J.House: 26th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$9202.29$27442.14$23014.43$13630.00$26345.00
Hecht, JonathanHouse: 29th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$136.45$3000.00$0.00$3136.45$0.00$1,500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Walz, MartyHouse: 8th Suffolk1/1/20108/27/2010$83153.07$46237.00$41040.34$88349.73$0.00
Rushing, ByronHouse: 9th Suffolk1/1/20108/27/2010$13915.89$500.00$140.00$14275.89$0.00

This table will be updated as reports come in. The filing deadline was Tues, Sept 7.

August 30, 2010

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Filed under: 2010 Election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:05 pm

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Governor/Lt. Governor
Democrat: DEVAL L. PATRICK / TIMOTHY P. MURRAY (incumbent) Republican: CHARLES D. BAKER / RICHARD R. TISEI
Green Party: JILL STEIN / RICK PURCELL
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Independent: TIM CAHILL
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Treasurer
Democrat: STEVEN GROSSMAN
Democrat: STEPHEN J. MURPHY
Republican: KARYN E. POLITO
Auditor
Democrat: SUZANNE M. BUMP
Democrat: GUY WILLIAM GLODIS
Democrat: MIKE LAKE
Republican: MARY Z. CONNAUGHTON
Republican: KAMAL JAIN
Green Party: NAT FORTUNE
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Attorney General
Democrat: MARTHA COAKLEY (incumbent)
Secretary of State
Democrat: WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN (incumbent) Republican: WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL
Representative in Congress (8th District)
Democrat: MICHAEL E. CAPUANO (incumbent)
Governor’s Council (3rd District) [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: MARILYN M. PETITTO DEVANEY (incumbent)
Democrat: COREY A. BELANGER
Governor’s Council (6th District) [Wards 1 through 8 (all precincts); Pcts. 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SUZANNE R. ENGLISH-MERULLO
Democrat: TERRENCE W. KENNEDY
Republican: PAUL A. CARUCCIO
State Senate
First Suffolk and Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Ward 2 (all); Pcts. 3-1, 3-3;
Ward 4 (all); Ward 5 (all); Pct. 8-3]
Democrat: ANTHONY W. PETRUCCELLI (incumbent) Republican: FRANK JOHN ADDIVINOLA, JR.
Second Suffolk and Middlesex District [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: STEVEN A. TOLMAN (incumbent)
Democrat: WILLIAM B. FEEGBEH
Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex District [Pct. 3-2; Ward 6 (all); Ward 7 (all): Pcts. 8-1, 8-2, 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SAL N. DiDOMENICO (incumbent)
Democrat: TIMOTHY R. FLAHERTY
Republican: BARBARA T. BUSH
State Representative
Eighth Suffolk District [Pcts. 2-3, 3-3; Ward 5 (all)]
Democrat: MARTHA MARTY WALZ (incumbent) Republican: BRAD MARSTON
Ninth Suffolk District [Pct. 2-2]
Democrat: BYRON RUSHING (incumbent)
24th Middlesex District [Pct. 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER (incumbent)
25th Middlesex District [Ward 4 (all); Pcts. 6-2, 6-3; Ward 7 (all); Ward 8 (all); Pcts. 10-1, 10-2]
Democrat: ALICE K. WOLF (incumbent)
26th Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Pcts. 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, 6-1]
Democrat: TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. (incumbent)
29th Middlesex District [Ward 9 (all)]
Democrat: JONATHAN HECHT (incumbent)
District Attorney (Northern District)
Democrat: GERARD T. LEONE, JR. (incumbent)
Sheriff (Middlesex County)
Democrat: JAMES V. DiPAOLA (incumbent)
Coming up in the November 2, 2010 State Election: BALLOT QUESTIONS (Laws Proposed by Initiative Petition)

Question 1: Sales Tax on Alcoholic Beverages

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would remove the Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol, where the sale of such beverages and alcohol or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2011.

A YES VOTE would remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol.

Question 2: Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing. The repeal would take effect on January 1, 2011, but would not stop or otherwise affect any proposed housing that had already received both a comprehensive permit and a building permit for at least one unit.

Under the existing law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on the application and considers the recommendations of local agencies and officials. The ZBA may grant a comprehensive permit that may include conditions or requirements concerning the height, site plan, size, shape, or building materials of the housing. Persons aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision to grant a permit may appeal it to a court. If the ZBA denies the permit or grants it with conditions or requirements that make the housing uneconomic to build or to operate, the applicant may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).

After a hearing, if the HAC rules that the ZBA’s denial of a comprehensive permit was unreasonable and not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s decision issuing a comprehensive permit with conditions or requirements made the housing uneconomic to build or operate and was not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to modify or remove any such condition or requirement so as to make the proposal no longer uneconomic. The HAC cannot order the ZBA to issue any permit that would allow the housing to fall below minimum safety standards or site plan requirements. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s action was consistent with local needs, the HAC must uphold it even if it made the housing uneconomic. The HAC’s decision is subject to review in the courts.

A condition or requirement makes housing “uneconomic” if it would prevent a public agency or non-profit organization from building or operating the housing except at a financial loss, or it would prevent a limited dividend organization from building or operating the housing without a reasonable return on its investment.

A ZBA’s decision is “consistent with local needs” if it applies requirements that are reasonable in view of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing and the number of low-income persons in the city or town, as well as the need to protect health and safety, promote better site and building design, and preserve open space, if those requirements are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Requirements are considered “consistent with local needs” if more than 10% of the city or town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town. Requirements are also considered “consistent with local needs” if the application would result, in any one calendar year, in beginning construction of low- or moderate-income housing on sites making up more than 0.3% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town, or on ten acres, whichever is larger.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit.

Question 3: Sales and Use Tax Rates

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.

The proposed law provides that if the 3% rates would not produce enough revenues to satisfy any lawful pledge of sales and use tax revenues in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation, then the rates would instead be reduced to the lowest level allowed by law. The proposed law would not affect the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would reduce the state sales and use tax rates to 3%.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales and use tax rates.

Where do I vote?

Comment: My general practice is to leave blank any uncontested race. If you are given no choice, why pretend that you have one? – RW

March 1, 2010

Marjorie Decker has withdrawn from the State Senate race

Filed under: 2010 State Senate election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:50 pm

March 1 – Marjorie Decker has withdrawn from the State Senate race to replace Anthony Galluccio.
Here what she had to say:

After consulting with my family, friends, and close supporters over this past weekend, I have decided to withdraw from the Special Election for the Mass State Senate to replace Anthony Galluccio.

I chose to run for Senate for many of the same reasons that motivate me to serve on the Cambridge City Council. To me, public service is advocating for good jobs, affordable housing, better access to health care and equal opportunity.

Last year I called on my family, friends and constituents to give me their time, effort and financial support for my re-election to the City Council. They worked hard and sacrificed much to help me win that election. I have never run for office just for the sake of running.

When the Special Election for State Senate was first announced, I considered the prospects for victory extremely promising. Since I announced my candidacy, the number of candidates has increased dramatically – more than doubling – thus my chances of winning have been greatly reduced.

In good conscience, I cannot ask my family, friends and supporters to give more time, effort and financial support if there is no realistic prospect of success.

Consequently, I have decided that at this time I can best serve by focusing all of my energies and efforts toward my role as a Cambridge City Councilor. As the effects of the recession continue to devastate working families, we have many challenges that must be addressed.

I want to thank my family, friends – new and old, and supporters –from Cambridge, Charlestown, Chelsea, Somerville, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Allston and Brighton for their willingness to consider my candidacy and to offer their support to me.

It’s worth noting that, up to a point, it was the fact that there were many candidates in this race that helped make Marjorie’s campaign viable – as the only woman in an election that would likely be determined by vote-splitting and personal identity. Denise Simmons’ entry into the race changed the equation substantially, and now Simmons’ candidacy becomes immediately viable for the same and related reasons. Denise is now the only woman in a six-way race and she will likely be able to use her status as an African-American woman, an openly gay woman now legally married to her partner, and as the most recent Mayor of Cambridge to her advantage. This should translate into campaign donations from within the Senate district and from outside the district from various interest groups just as Jarrett Barrios was able to draw those donations a number of years ago for this same seat. Whether this helps her to succeed throughout this district remains an open question.

One factor worth considering in Marjorie’s decision to withdraw (though you’ll have to ask her!) is that she would have to share the support of labor unions with several of the other candidates. Another important factor is that this April/May election will have to be done all over again in September/November and you can only spend your campaign donations once. It is likely that, regardless who wins in the special election, many of the same candidates will do it again this fall, and short-term incumbency is not likely to provide that much of an advantage. It’s entirely possible that Marjorie will keep her resources intact and try again in September under more favorable conditions. If not, she really does have the potential to be a very good city councillor if, as we teachers like to say, she would only apply herself.

Regarding the Simmons vs. Decker aspect to this, I ran some numbers yesterday using the November 2009 municipal election ballots from the 11 Cambridge precincts in this Senate district. Denise Simmons was ranked somewhere on 48.9% of those ballots compared to Marjorie Decker being named on 21.1% of those ballots. Certainly, Marjorie’s status as a write-in candidate was a factor, but it’s reasonably clear that Denise Simmons would have the greater degree of Cambridge support in this election. Denise will, of course, have to share that Cambridge support with Tim Flaherty, Dennis Benzan, and Sal DiDomenico, each of whom have some base of support in the Peoples Republic.

Most of the speculation continues to be that Sal DiDomenico has the best chance right now in this election with Tim Flaherty driving hard for the hoop. Much of this is determined by the fact that Everett is expected to generate 30% or more of the votes in this election and Sal is the Everett candidate (with Cambridge roots). However, the likelihood in this race where vote-splitting will determine the outcome as much as anything is that the winner will largely be dictated by who can raise the most money and assemble the strongest get-out-the-vote effort on April 13. — Robert Winters

February 25, 2010

Nominating a Cambridge Election Commissioner

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:58 pm

Thursday, Feb 25 – The Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) will meet tonight at 7:00pm at the Central Square YMCA (820 Mass. Ave.) to nominate three people for one of the two Democratic seats on the Cambridge Election Commission. There are five candidates seeking this position (see below). The practice of each of the two major political party committees has been to rank their three nominees, but there is nothing in the law that either requires this or even suggests this practice. It’s only purpose is to pressure the City Manager to abide by the preferred choice of the political committee, and this choice is often dictated by which candidate is able to pack the meeting when the nominations are determined. There is also a history of using an exclusionary strategy to nominate three candidates as a group solely to ensure that one of the other candidates is not among the three nominees. (This is exactly what occurred last year with the Republican City Committee.) The City Manager is under no obligation to pay any attention to the pecking order of these political committees (nor should he). It’s unfortunate that he is restricted to only these three nominees, but this restriction dates back to the establishment of the Cambridge Election Commission in response to claims made about 90 years ago that the Democratic mayor at that time (long before Plan E) was nominating “Republicans in name only” to the Board of Registrars, the predecessor of the Election Commission.

While I have a long-standing practice of never endorsing individual candidates for public office, the choice of an election commissioner is an appointment to a City board and is not a public election (only City Committee members may vote). Because my interest in the Cambridge elections (for both civic and academic reasons) is significant, I will say that the best choice by far for this position is Tom Stohlman. He was a candidate in the recent municipal election and has been actively involved in the campaigns of other candidates over the years. He is not only one of the most likable and agreeable people I’ve met during my 32 years in Cambridge, he also has a lot of expertise in the mechanics of the Cambridge elections. He would also be the perfect choice to move the Election Commission in the direction of improved public information about our local elections. In terms of the interpersonal relations of the 4-person Election Commission and how the Commission will work with its soon-to-be-appointed new Executive Director, there is no doubt that Tom would be the ideal choice. This is not meant as a negative statement about any of the other four candidates, but only as an affirmation of just how good a choice Tom would be for this position.

Unfortunately, though I am a CDCC member, I teach a class every Thursday night and cannot attend this meeting. If you are a voting member and can attend this meeting, please cast a vote tonight for Tom Stohlman – preferably the top choice, but please make sure he’s on the list of three nominees and that the City Manager chooses wisely from these three nominees. — Robert Winters

Update: Not unexpectedly, Linda Pinti, Mushtaque Mirza, and Martha Older collaborated in a partially successful preclusionary strategy to box out the competition. They were able to get Linda Pinti nominated as 1st choice and Mushtaque Mirza as 3rd choice with Poly Cobb getting the 2nd choice. These are the same results as last time and there’s no reason to believe the City Manager’s appointment will be any different this time, so congratulations goes to Poly Cobb for successfully fending off the competition and virtually assuring her reappointment!

Unfortunately, the best candidate of all, Tom Stohlman, was not included among the three nominees to be sent to the City Manager. I once characterized the Cambridge Democratic City Committee as political hospice. I believe the shoe still fits. For those who might actually care, here’s how the vote went:

Round 1: Pinti 59, Cobb 46, Stohlman 5, Mirza 1 (Older withdrew from Round 1). Pinti has majority, so gets #1 nomination.
Round 2A: Cobb 51, Mirza 46, Stohlman 9 (Older withdrew from Round 2). No majority, drop lowest candidate (Stohlman).
Round 2B: Cobb 51, Mirza 51 (tie). After much debate, decide to revote.
Round 2C: Cobb 54, Mirza 47. Cobb gets #2 nomination.
Round 3: Mirza 63, Stohlman 25 (Older withdrew from Round 3). Mirza gets #3 nomination.

Had I been able to attend this meeting, I might have told the CDCC, all of its officers, and most of its members what I really think of them. Instead, I taught a great Linear Algebra class at the Harvard Extension School and had a greater impact in one evening than the CDCC has made all year. – RW


Attention Cambridge Democrats! Want to be an Election Commissioner? Fill out the questionnaire and submit it no later than 5:00pm on Monday, February 1. The Cambridge Democratic City Committee will have a public forum with all candidates for the three nominations on Thursday, February 11 at 7:00pm and a vote on Thursday, February 25 at 7:00pm (Central Square YMCA). [A Candidate is Qualified if s/he has completed and submitted a Questionnaire to the City Committee and has been present and responded to questions at a public hearing.]

Candidates who Submitted Questionnaires by the Feb 1 deadline are:
Polyxane S. (Poly) Cobb – Questionnaire & Resume
Mushtaque Alikhan Mirza – Questionnaire & Resume
Martha J. Older – Questionnaire & Resume
Linda Sophia Pinti – Questionnaire & Resume
Thomas J. Stohlman, Jr. – Questionnaire & Resume

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress