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

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

November 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 525-526: November 16, 2021

Episode 525 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Final Election process; reprecincting; Boncore vacancy; non-implementation of planning efforts in Alewife and Central Square; Alewife and Envision chronology; failure of well-paid councillors to show up for work; deep pockets and the means to achieve good results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 526 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Detailed election results and analysis; the dominance of incumbency; political spin in the absence of mandates; importance of establishing a loyal political base vs. “movement” candidates; winners & feeders; slate voting results; Siddiqui’s margin of victory and dissatisfaction with other candidates; the Cincinnati problem; ballot transfers, #2 votes, alternate measures of popularity; School Committee campaign finance. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 13, 2021

Final 2021 Cambridge Election Results

Final Official City Council Results (Nov 12)
(in order of election)

Siddiqui, Sumbul
Simmons, E. Denise
Nolan, Patricia M.
Carlone, Dennis J.
McGovern, Marc C.
Zondervan, Quinton Y.
Azeem, Burhan
Mallon, Alanna M.
Toner, Paul F.

Final Official School Committee Results (Nov 12)
(in order of election)

Wilson, Ayesha
Fantini, Alfred B.
Bhambi, Akriti
Weinstein, Rachel B.
Rojas Villarreal, José Luis
Weinstein, David J.

All three ballot questions passed (Final, Official)

Final Official City Council results:
Council2021-Official
Distribution of #1 Votes by ward/precinct – City Council 2021:
Council2021ward-precinct
City Council 2021 – #2 Vote Distributions
Council2-2021
Alternate Measures of Popularity – 2021 City Council Election
Council2021rank
Final Official School Committee results:
School2021-Official
Distribution of #1 Votes by ward/precinct – School Committee 2021:
School2021ward-precinct
School Committee 2021 – #2 Vote Distributions
School2-2021
Alternate Measures of Popularity – 2021 School Committee Election
School2021rank

Who would replace each of the elected city councillors and School Committee members should a vacancy occur? Replacements are determined from the ballots used to elect each councillor or School Committee member. I ran the tabulation software with the 2021 ballot data and here’s what I found:

City Council Replacement
Azeem Sobrinho-Wheeler
Carlone Williams
Mallon Sobrinho-Wheeler
McGovern Sobrinho-Wheeler
Nolan Williams
Siddiqui Sobrinho-Wheeler
Simmons Sobrinho-Wheeler
Toner McGuirk
Zondervan Sobrinho-Wheeler
 
School Committee Replacement
Bhambi Hunter
Fantini Hunter
Rojas Villarreal Lim
D. Weinstein Johnson
R. Weinstein Hunter
Wilson Johnson

November 6, 2021

2021 Cambridge City Council and School Committee (Unofficial) Election Results

For those who like their information in spreadsheets….

Cambridge City Council
Council2021-Unofficial

Cambridge School Committee
School2021-Unofficial

November 4, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 523-524: November 2, 2021

Episode 523 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 2, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 2, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Election Day; turnout; early and mail-in voting; Candidate Page statistics; ballot questions & Quest for Control – selling control as “democracy”; truths about City boards & commissions; civic responsibilities; Federico Muchnik videos – Walden Square, The Tasty; reducing elections to “hot topics”. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 524 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 2, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 2, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Changing rules for voter registration; auxiliary ballots, provisional ballots; preliminary vs. unofficial vs. official election results; campaign finance for City Council and School Committee; reporting the details of the PR Count; the down side of slate voting and the importance of voting for individuals. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 6, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 519-520: October 5, 2021

Episode 519 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 5, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Oct 5, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Wild Card baseball; voter registration and voting options; tax classification & taxes, councillors wanting to tax & spend; over-reliance on commercial development, residential exemption and the condo sweet deal; neighborhood associations, community schools, & neighborhood councils; topics for candidates. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 520 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 5, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Oct 5, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Tim Toomey Park and happy reunions; from carpetbagger to townie; voting history and supervoters; reprecincting; PACs and candidate slates; campaigning door-to-door; using City Council committee meetings for political organization and promotion. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 19, 2021

Featured Items on the September 20, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Featured Items on the September 20, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here are my choices for the notable stuff:Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2022.
19 Orders Adopted; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

80%-10%-10%. Never changes.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for approval to submit an amendment to the proposed Home Rule Petition for a special law regarding a fire cadet program for the City of Cambridge Fire Department.
Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Just a technical revision for clarity.

Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department, the City Solicitor, and other appropriate City staff to compile a report detailing the efforts the City has made toward creating LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing over the past decade, to state what impediments had been identified in realizing this effort, and to outline recommendations for how the City may successfully create such housing within the next three years.   Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

I still don’t understand the intent of this, though apparently the legal opinion that this “might violate federal fair-housing laws” has led to a more “affirmative action” alternative rather than the previous segregated housing proposal which seemed fundamentally regressive.

Order #4. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Public Health Department and report back to the City Council on the milestones that will be used to determine when the indoor mask mandate will no longer be needed.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order is primarily a request for public information, i.e. “it would be helpful for the community to know how decisions are made and what specific milestones need to be achieved.” At first glance I thought it was yet another attempt by inexpert councillors to micromanage our public health professionals. I actually would love to know what the milestones will be – and I hope they come real soon.

Order #5. That section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the linkage fee, be amended by substitution.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern
Referred to Housing Committee, Ordinance Committee, and Planning Board 9-0 as Amended

Our “squeeze ’em ’til it hurts” councillors are proposing to increase in one giant leap the Incentive Zoning Linkage Fee from the current $20.10 per square foot to $33.34 per square foot for new commercial developments of more than 30,000 square feet of gross floor area. That’s a 66% increase. The fee sat at $4.58 per square foot of new commercial development from 1988 to 2015 when it was increased to $12 per square foot plus periodic annual and CPI adjustments that brought it to the current $20.10 per square foot in 2020.

Order #6. Council Support of H.926, The Massachusetts Schoolchildren Pesticide Protection Act.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

This is absolutely a good idea, but it’s always worth remembering that prior to the (hopefully thoughtful and cautious) use of pesticides and other means to combat food-borne pathogens, sickness and death as well as some cancers (notably stomach cancer) were very common. The Modern World giveth and taketh away.

Order #7. That the City Council urges the US Congress to fulfill its obligation to prevent nuclear war, as outlined in the Back from the Brink campaign.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0 as Amended

So good to see the Cambridge City Council engaging again in what it does best – national and foreign policy.

Order #9. That the City Council schedule a hearing of the Ordinance Committee for the purposes of amending the Ordinance of the City of Cambridge regarding MUNICIPAL BUILDING PERMITS and WAGE THEFT.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern
Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Among other things, it’s interesting that in this proposal the City Council is already presuming to have veto power over City Manager appointments. Also, the proposed “Wage Theft Enforcement Committee” would require that “No less than half the committee members shall be Cambridge residents, and no less than half shall be union/labor representatives.” In other words, existing labor unions would control all proposed enforcement.

I will note that even in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance there is no mention of any union requirements. Indeed, a search for the word “union” in the Zoning Ordinance returns no results.

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee met on July 14, 2021 to discuss car storage policies in Cambridge.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

The Cambridge City Council’s never-ending war on motor vehicles continues. Councillor Zondervan stated that “car storage is one of the worst land uses cities employ and hopes to achieve zero car storage and usage through policy regime.” Councillor Zondervan has a parking space on his property.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from City Clerk, Anthony I. Wilson, transmitting memorandums from City Solicitor, Nancy E. Glowa regarding Minor Correction to Ballot Question No. 3 Which Is to be Placed on the Nov 2, 2021 Ballot Pursuant to Calendar Item No. 3 of 6/28/21. [Note: Date of Election Day corrected – RW]
Amended text Approved 9-0; Report Placed on File 9-0

There is much that can be said on this topic and I will continue to do so in the days to come. The most significant change is the proposal to effectively give a bare majority of the City Council the right to control 100% of the membership of all City boards and commissions. So much for representation of minority viewpoints or, for that matter, expertise from anyone other than those favored by 5 councillors.

As further evidence of the shoddy work of the proponents of these ballot questions, the proposal that would require annual performance reviews of the city manager (which, by the way, they already have the power to do) would amend section 116 of the Plan E Charter that has to do with “General election laws; applicability” even though this proposed change has zero to do with elections. It seems pretty obvious that this should more properly amend section 103 that concerns “City manager; appointment; qualifications; compensation; removal.” Reading is apparently a lost art.

Personally, I feel that the primary intention of these “reforms” is simply to transfer some measure of executive power away from the city manager to the legislature (City Council) – which is supposed to be a policy-making body. The other two ballot questions are superfluous. It’s also worth noting that there was essentially zero public process leading up to the Council’s decision to place these particular questions on this November’s municipal ballot. There are potentially some good amendments to the Charter that could have been considered (for example, modifying the PR elections to eliminate ballot order dependence), but those were never discussed. – Robert Winters

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress