Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Feb 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Cambridge is still without a mayor, i.e. Chair of the City Council, and the consequences are minimal. [Scorecard below or here.] That said, it would be nice if the boys and girls would settle their grudges and pick someone who can appoint members and Chairs of the Council subcommittees and be the 7th voting member of the School Committee. Someone suggested that the councillors should begin getting their salaries only after this matter has been settled. That would bring this impasse to a rapid end. It is unlikely that there will be a mayoral vote tonight since Councillor Toomey is expected to be absent, and next Monday is a holiday, so the next opportunity would be Feb 22 unless a Special Meeting is called for this purpose. There was a Late Order introduced last week by Councillor Cheung calling for such a Special Meeting on Feb 10 (and possibly Feb 17 if necessary), but Councillor Davis exercised her charter right to delay discussion of this proposal until tonight (Charter Right #3).

The Feb 1 meeting also featured another Late Order from Councillor Cheung calling for the members of the City Council to select their Chair using Instant Runoff Voting. Councillor Decker exercised her charter right to end debate on that proposal, though it will come up again tonight (Charter Right #1). Though it’s relatively clear that this idea is inconsistent with the Charter and City Council rules, a more significant problem is that in a small election (only 9 people voting), there could be the unintended consequences of strategic voting in this or any similar alternative. For example, it is very possible that voting councillors could “bury” their 2nd choices in order to increase the possibility that their 1st choice would prevail. This might result in the most favored candidates becoming unelectable with 3rd or 4th preference candidates gaining an advantage. Instant Runoff Voting can work well in a large population, but a top-two runoff may be preferred in this kind of election. In any case, it’s a moot point.

Councillor Cheung (with the support of Councillor Decker) also introduced a Late Order calling for the Council subcommittees and Chairs from last term to be temporarily reappointed with Councillor Cheung assuming positions then held by former Councillor Ward until a new mayor is chosen. One councillor suggested that this might only further delay the vote (possible), and Mr. Reeves objected on procedural grounds. However, with the current configuration of councillors, this might be a very good idea. Councillor Kelley exercised his charter right to delay the proposal until tonight (Charter Right #2).

I suspect that none of these proposals will go anywhere, but you have to like newly-elected Councillor Cheung’s willingness to dive right in with creative proposals for getting things moving. We need more councillors like him.

Other than the mayoral soap opera, there are a few other items of note on this week’s agenda:

Councillor Decker introduced 32 identical resolutions for each student graduating from the YouthBuild Just-A-Start Program. This should have been a single resolution – ample evidence for why councillors should never be judged simply by the number of resolutions they (or their political patronage assistants) introduce.

Councillor Maher’s Order #1 inquires about the circumstances leading to the recent exit of Pearl Art from Central Square. It’s worth noting that there are now many vacant storefronts in Central Square. It would seem that commercial property owners are somewhat unaware of the current economy and are determined to accept high rent or no rent for their properties. Go figure.

Councillor Seidel’s Order #7 asks for publication on the City website of funds received by the City of Cambridge from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Far be it from this writer to comment on national politics, but “stimulus” money should only be expended on projects that would soon have been undertaken anyway, i.e. an advance payment rather than just throwing money around on anything in the hope that jobs and economic activity will follow. This should be only about spending sooner and not about spending significantly more.

That’s enough for now. It will be interesting to see how Council business proceeds over the next two months with two members (Decker, Simmons) competing along with five others for the State Senate seat vacated by Anthony Galluccio. When City Council “research assistants” were first introduced several years ago, it was in the context of several councillors planning to seek other elected offices and wanting taxpayer-funded stand-ins to handle their business while out on the campaign trail. This looks to be more of the same this year. — Robert Winters

Feb 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Now that the City Council is entering its second month without choosing its Chair or forming subcommittees, it should surprise no one that the agenda is light. The fact that at least one councillor and possibly as many as three are exploring or actually running for the vacant State Senate seat also means that not a hell of a lot of attention is being paid to City Council matters. For those keeping score, here’s the record on the mayoral votes so far:

As is often the case, those who argue about who should get to wear the golden tiara of Mayor mention the role of Chair and 7th voting member of the Cambridge School Committee. Here’s a suggestion that requires no charter change and might just earn the undying respect of the other 6 members of the School Committee: Once elected, the Mayor voluntarily takes a seat as an ordinary member of the School Committee and allows the School Committee through its elected Vice-Chair to lead the School Committee and chair all of the meetings unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise. This would be a nice tradition that could start now. It would also permit the Mayor to exercise greater leadership in the more appropriate setting of the City Council.

City Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Marlissa Brigget as the Executive Director of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission and Executive Secretary of the Police Review & Advisory Board effective Jan 19, 2010.

It’s good to see that this appointment has been made and that there will continue to be a joint responsibility of this person to manage both of these City Boards. A City Council Order encouraging the City Manager to further consolidate City Boards, departments, and divisions with overlapping responsibilities would be welcome, but don’t anyone hold your breath waiting for that kind of leadership.

There are a few other minor items on the agenda, but nothing to write home about. — Robert Winters

Jan 25, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights (and post-meeting update)

The main item of interest for tonight’s meeting is the still-unresolved election of a mayor. Amazingly, the City of Cambridge has been getting along just fine without a mayor for these last three weeks, but it would be nice if the City Council could choose its Chair so that Council committee appointments can be made. Most of the scuttlebutt suggests that David Maher should pick up the necessary 5th vote to get the nod as gavel-bearer, but there are still a few poker moves being played in this relatively inconsequential game. See below for a scorecard.

There was one ballot for Mayor taken at the meeting. The votes were identical to the previous ballot. See below.

Mayor or no mayor, there is a bit of an agenda for tonight’s meeting. Here are a few notable items:

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Fanning, et al zoning petition as filed.

The affected area is bounded by Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, Binney Street, the Grand Junction railway, and the edge of the Residence C-1 District. The Planning Board acknowledges some of the residents’ concerns that led to this petition, but nonetheless recommends that the petition not be adopted as written. In particular, the Planning Board highlights that the provision to include the floor area of the existing above-ground parking garage in the calculation of the FAR for the One Kendall Square site would result in the disallowance of any additional development and that it would be unreasonable to effect a change of such magnitude on a single site. They also note that the Eastern Cambridge Planning Study (ECPS), which was the basis for zoning in this area, established a goal of encouraging the development of housing on the affected sites and this existing zoning provides incentives to favor the future development of residential uses over commercial or industrial uses. The proposed zoning change would remove such incentives.

Resolution #13. Resolution on the death of Reverend Douglas Whitlow.   Councillor Simmons

I didn’t know Doug Whitlow very well, but it’s worth noting that he was a City Council candidate in 1997 around the time of the big controversy surrounding the Holmes property in Central Square that pitted the anarchists vs. the capitulators (as some would characterize the conflict). Doug and I were cordial but on opposite sides of the issue. It’s interesting how many of the people who were so concerned at the time about “the indigenous population of Central Square” vanished soon afterwards. The whole tempest seems trivial in retrospect.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to address the complaints of the abutters of 220 Putnam Avenue regarding the illegal housing and raising of chickens and ducks at that address.   Councillor Simmons

It would seem that a conflict is arising between pro-poultry Councillor Davis and anti-poultry Councillor Simmons. Perhaps their differences can be ironed out over a nice chicken dinner. Goose would be a tasty and controversial alternative. – RW

Mayoral update (Jan 25): The City Council failed to elect a Mayor on January 11 and again on January 25. Here’s a scorecard of the poker game to date:

For those who have asked, here’s a quote from Glenn Koocher’s Political History of Cambridge in the 20^th Century: “Battles over the mayoralty went back and forth with partisans occasionally changing sides. One race, in 1948, required four months and 1368 ballots to complete. Other mayoralty votes traded back and forth over issues.” We’ve only had two ballots so far, folks, so stop your wailing. If they’re still at it a month from now, that’s another story. The next opportunity for a vote will be Monday, January 25. There are no big partisan issues at play now, so it really comes down to personalities and, to some degree, payback.

The most ridiculous aspect to the current mayoral impasse is how some councillors are claiming how much consideration they are giving to the School Committee’s preferences in their decision, yet what I hear from the School Committee members contradicts much of this claim. – RW

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the first regular meeting of the 2010-11 City Council term, and the new Council begins with a relatively clean slate as the much of the detritus of Councils past has been allowed to expire. The first order of (unfinished) business is the election of a mayor. The first attempt on January 4 resulted in a highly fractured vote, but it is expected that votes will shift on the second ballot and any subsequent ballots. Multiple factors are at play including (a) the news from the grapevine that Marjorie Decker will be having a State Senate campaign event in Saugus on January 31 – an apparent sign that she intends to pursue the Galluccio seat; (b) the commitments for the first mayoral ballot have now been expended; (c) feedback from political supporters in the wake of the January 4 ballot may cause a councillor or two to think twice about the political fallout; and (d) nobody really wants this to go on very long with the resultant delay in Council business caused by the lack of any appointments to City Council subcommittees by the new mayor. Most of the speculation centers on either Henrietta Davis or David Maher being best positioned to pick up the necessary 5th vote, but the continued meetings and wheeling and dealing and political hardball yields no certainty in the outcome.

As far as the rest of the meeting agenda goes, here are a few items of interest:

RECONSIDERATION. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration on the vote taken on Dec 21, 2009 confirming the appointments transmitted on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as Commissioners of the Cambridge Housing Authority: Anthony Pini (term expires 4/1/2014) and Gerald Clark (term expires 1/11/2015) [Dec 21, 2009 motion of Councillor Kelley to Table failed 4-5-0. Appointments confirmed 8-1-0. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration.]

Though I don’t pretend to understand all the intense passion expressed about these appointments and the behind-the-scenes push to change the vote late in the December 21 meeting to approve these appointments, it is worth noting that this is precisely the reason why state law and Robert’s Rules of Order allow for reconsideration of votes. Many outspoken public housing advocates had gone home on December 21 after this matter had been tabled and were shocked to learn that this changed late in the meeting. Expect some spirited public comment on this matter regardless how the final vote goes.

Order # 1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City department heads and personnel in order to determine alternatives to laying off the five employees from the Lead Safe Cambridge program.   Councillor Simmons

This Order is noteworthy primarily in that it seems to direct the City Manager what to do in a personnel matter. It would be one thing if the Order focused on the importance of preserving the Lead-Safe program, but this Order instead is all about retaining five employees. Presumably, all of these employees have the opportunity to respond to any internal or public postings for City jobs. The City Council Order seems to say that the Manager should retain these employees in their current jobs regardless of need or budgetary concerns. Does this not seem like micromanagement from a city councillor?

Order #4. City Council concerns regarding House Bill 4410 which would give new powers to state and local school officials to turn around under-performing schools and increase the number of charter schools.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Maher

The sponsors of the Order seem to agree with the Legislature on (1) reducing the financial impact of charter schools on regular public schools; (2) better processes for evaluating and approving charter schools; and (3) amendments that would help turn around underperforming schools. However, the sponsors express opposition to amendments that would (1) weaken proposed management powers or enhance the ability of unions to block action by school districts; (b) require municipalities and school districts to sell or lease surplus school facilities to charter schools; (3) new spending mandates on cities, towns and school districts; and (4) lifting the cap on charter schools. Councillor and State Representative Toomey may have something to say in response to this Order. H4410 passed by a 119-35 vote. The Senate approved a different version and a 6-member House-Senate conference committee is now working on a compromise of the two versions.
According to my reading of the City Council materials, the only holdover items from the previous Council are these:
(1) Council Kelley’s Reconsideration of the Cambridge Housing Authority appointments.
(2) The Fanning Petition to rezone an area in East Cambridge.
(3) A December Order regarding increasing the amount of public information about elections while the municipal election is in progress.
(4) A December Order and a committee report regarding the City Council’s policy on naming street corners.
(5) A request to the City Manager for information regarding what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.

Also in the pipeline – a scattered set of recommendations from December’s “Climate Congress” which will have a follow-up City Hall meeting on January 23. Unlike an actual legislative process where most proposals require majority support, the current draft of these citizen recommendations reads like a laundry list of every imaginable idea in environmental regulation and social engineering. Many of the ideas presented will be dead on arrival such as the proposal to increase the cost of a residential parking sticker every year for the next 20 years – even though most participants seemed to agree that the local impact of automobiles on climate was far less than things like poorly insulated and inefficient commercial, residential, and institutional buildings. A strong theme at this gathering was the need to better quantify the primary contributors to climate change before setting priorities or determining policies and initiatives. Nonetheless, the draft recommendations are dominated by proposals made without any such prioritization. It’s worth looking at for a few good ideas, but this document leaves a lot to be desired as either a legislative agenda or a blueprint for change. – Robert Winters