A few thoughts before the March 31, 2008 City Council meeting:

City Manager's Agenda - The nature of the Manager's Agenda changes from week to week. Some weeks feature one or two major fiscal items such as last week's setting of the water & sewer rates, the mid-May vote on the annual budget, and the setting of the property tax rates in the fall. (The Manager always correctly points out that the City Council merely votes on tax classification, exemptions, and various other parameters, and the Mass. Department of Revenue sets the rates.) The primary focus of this week's Manager's Agenda is catching up on Council requests for reports on various matters. Of the 26 items on "Awaiting Report", the Manager answers 10 this week covering topics from parking meters to bicycles to rodents to block grants to tree plantings to bricks on Cedar Street. Not too sexy or controversial, but these are all part of managing a city.

Last week's Council Order from Mayor Simmons regarding possible changes to the rules governing Public Comment at City Council meetings is sure to elicit further response from the usual suspects. It's been funny watching the reactions to this highly non-specific Order that doesn't actually propose any changes, though you would never know it from the reactions. A little history may be helpful here. There are few people among those who now attend Council meetings who go back to times before the current protocols were in place, but I am one of them. The reporters, in particular, have no basis for comparison. It used to be that if you wanted to speak on a particular item, you waited until that item came up during the meeting and you stepped up to the microphone and were recognized by the Chair. The great advantage of that system was that members of the public were obliged to address a specific agenda item at the time the item was under discussion. I preferred that system because it allowed those who had something serious to say to do so when that topic was before the Council. It was not uncommon that there would even be some interaction between the councillors and the person making the comments. The major down side of that system was that you had to stick around until your item came up, and some of those meetings could run pretty long.

Because rent control was always the big deal of the day, this meant that you could count on seeing Mike Turk, Connie Thibault, Bill Noble and others from the Cambridge Tenants Union dutifully occupying their usual seats in the Sullivan Chamber just in case anything involving rent control came up during the meeting. We were also blessed with the presence of Bill Jones who would regularly offer his perspectives on current events and local history (though not always accurately) when he was not partaking of the plentiful food provided in the Council's Green Room. Though everyone was supposed to address specific agenda items, it was an unwritten rule that Mr. Jones could stray somewhat from the agenda. Say what you will about Billy, but none of the would-be comedians who now work the Sullivan Chamber can hold a candle to Mr. Jones in terms of pure entertainment. More importantly, just about everyone liked Billy Jones. That cannot be said of today's crop of crabby complainers.

One East Cambridge woman at last week's meeting who generally speaks intelligently on matters of substance during Public Comment seemed upset at possibly being lumped in with the "nut cases". Let's be clear about this. Whether or not you want to see some changes in the protocols governing Public Comment, no one wants to curtail the rights of any member of the public to speak on relevant matters before the City Council. The principal problem, as I see it, is that some members of the public feel they have license to use this opportunity to mock and attack anyone and everyone for no purpose other than to draw attention to themselves. I agree with Councillor Toomey that the rules as they stand do not need to be changed. They merely need to be enforced - perhaps, in some cases, with an iron hand. Most or all of the principal abusers of Public Comment have “blogs” in which they freely express themselves - just as I freely express myself on this website (as I am doing now). Nobody is obliged to read my erratic ramblings. Anyone can similarly read “From the Port” or “Enough Room” if they want to listen to the erratic ramblings of Councillor Podgers or Councillor Bercaw. Free speech reigns.

Anyone who reads my ramblings can easily discern some of my likes and dislikes of elected officials and others who work in the City administration. Most have picked up on the fact that I'm generally supportive of candidates (new ones in particular), elected officials, department heads, and City workers. I actually believe Cambridge is a well-run city - as compared to many other Massachusetts cities, especially those without a city manager form of government. This doesn't mean I believe there's no room for improvement. I think we do a piss-poor job of community policing, we don't do nearly enough to address problems of vandalism and loud cars, and I believe there are a number of City programs that exist primarily to preserve the jobs of those who work in them. I will likely never be convinced that city councillors need personal aides (perhaps better referred to as Sullivan chambermaids or manservants). I am flabbergasted by some of the salary levels in the City administration and how the elected officials go along to get along just as long as we're flush with property tax revenue. It bothers me that the executive director of the Election Commission treats one of the best friends the commission ever had like an enemy for no rational reason, and I still believe that the Dept. of Traffic & Parking owes me $80 for towing my VW Bus away without warning. Then again, my mechanic has been holding my Bus hostage in Natick since December 13, so T&P is looking pretty good in comparison.

Cambridge water is good enough to win prizes, and that doesn't happen by accident. The Cambridge Department of Public Works has a public service philosophy that can't be beat. If anyone wants to complain about the condition of Cambridge sidewalks or snow plowing, they should visit almost any other city or town in Massachusetts to see just how good we are in comparison. Cambridge is way ahead of most cities in terms of recycling and environmental initiatives - and the City Manager deserves most of the credit for this. I attended a public hearing last week about the Cambridge Energy Alliance and the programs they will be providing for Cambridge residents and businesses, and it made me feel very proud to live in this city. Though some of the City Manager's appointments are, in my opinion, driven by the desire to avoid trouble rather than to improve things, I still believe Mr. Healy is possibly the best in the business and, unlike some of the naysayers, I believe our multiple AAA bond ratings speak volumes about how well this city is managed.

Hmmm... maybe I should say that during Public Comment, but it's not on the agenda and I don't know if I can squeeze it in under three minutes.  -- Robert Winters

Coming up at the March 24, 2008 City Council meeting:

Water and Sewer Rates - "That the City Council approve the following block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2008 and ending Mar 31, 2009. The City administration and City Council continue to recognize that it is important to mitigate the effects of water and sewer increases both for FY09 and future fiscal years as much as possible. Therefore, I am pleased to submit a recommendation that calls for a 2.1% increase in the water rate, a 4.8% increase in the sewer rate and a 3.9% increase in the combined rate."

Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of Isaac Meyers.   Councillor Davis
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on how the March 17 accident in Central Square happened and that said report back contain a copy of the relevant police report to the extent that that information may be shared.   Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Davis

Suffice to say that this intersection where trucks turn right from River St. onto Mass. Ave. is hazardous for pedestrians - especially for those who don't consider the mechanics of a turning truck with a long wheel base. The death was both horrible and preventable.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the City's policies and regulations concerning the number of unrelated people living in the same dwelling unit and any suggestions to modify that number.   Councillor Kelley

Monkey See, Monkey Do. The City of Boston just put limits on the number of unrelated people who may live in a single household, and the Boston Globe wrote a story about it. Is this really a problem in Cambridge? Why is this being brought up now? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Order #6. That the Mayor is requested to hold a special combined meeting, to be open to public comment and to be televised as with a normally scheduled meeting, of both the School Committee and the City Council to start a discussion on how to best coordinate various youth services.   Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel, Councillor Maher and Councillor Toomey

I expect this to generate discussion and future committee meetings, but it's worth noting that not all youth centers and other activities draw many participants. Part of this is political - building youth centers and establishing related programs makes for good copy on political campaign brochures, but this does not necessarily imply either good planning, good allocation of resources, or practical benefits. Cambridge politicians love to build youth centers on which they can hang their hats (and possibly their names) even if nobody shows up at them. My model program would integrate the Police Department and the Recreation Department in a manner similar to the Police Athletic League in New York City. In such a model, you would get all the best aspects of community policing as well as better security and supervision. In my opinion, there is far too much emphasis on youth centers. Whatever happened to the community schools model? Does it make any sense to have school buildings and their facilities open only during school hours and a limited range of after-school activities?

Order #7. That the Government Operations Committee review City Council policy on Public Comment with a view towards making any necessary amendments and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Mayor Simmons

I'm not sure what the mayor has in mind with this order, but we would all benefit from changes that limit the role of the narcissists that now dominate public comment at City Council meetings. There's an old phrase we used to hear a lot around Cambridge: “The bad drive out the good.” When nut cases (do I really have to name them) turn the opening of every City Council meeting into a circus side show, this benefits no one and does nothing to promote democracy. Of course you don't really have to refer this to a committee for a solution. All it takes is a mayor with a firm hand and a heavy gavel. Enough already!

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the impact an exodus of bio-tech companies from Cambridge may have on the tax base of our city, and further report back on Northpoint and what likelihood there may be for further development.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Reeves and Councillor Toomey

I mention this item only to note the changing tone over the course of the last 10 to 15 years. There was a time when entities like the Cambridge Citizens for Livable Neighborhoods (CCLN) and it's cousin, the Cambridge Citizens for Growth Management (CCGM) were very vocal in opposing any kind of development in Cambridge, and many elected officials would butt heads with City planners and the City Manager over development issues. Nowadays, the tone seems to be consistently one of maintaining the revenue stream to support every imaginable affordable housing program and human services program in addition to a parade of major capital projects. I offer no opinion on this shift in political winds - I merely note the change in the weather. -- Robert Winters

January 14 - It's Mayor Simmons and Vice-Mayor Murphy

My fellow occupant in the balcony of the Sullivan Chamber called it as soon as people began arriving for tonight's City Council meeting. The tip-off was the assembled campaign people, family and friends of Denise Simmons over on her side of the Sullivan Chamber. All that remained was to see how the details would play out. Rumors had been swirling since last week about which councillors were going to cross over to cut the deal to make either Denise Simmons, Henrietta Davis, or Brian Murphy mayor. In the end, it was Simmons who was able to garner the five votes and Henrietta Davis and Brian Murphy made it clear as the roll call got underway that the outcome would not be determined this time around by the Billy Walsh coalition. The coalition of the reasonable, including freshman Councillor Sam Seidel, would determine the outcome. In the end, after the outcome was clear, both the vote for mayor and for vice-chair of the City Council was made unanimous as the other councillors changed their votes.

This promises to be a good City Council term. Newly elected Mayor Simmons showed us that the Sullivan spirit is still alive and well in the Sullivan Chamber as she swiftly and expertly moved through the City Council agenda and wrapped up the meeting by 7:30pm. We've had to suffer through two years of poorly run meetings that often dragged on toward midnight, but there's hope now that we'll see efficiently run meetings and good City Council subcommittee appointments. The best start would be to give Henrietta Davis any and all appointments she wants since she's been the most consistent in her committee meeting attendance and preparation.

There was a comic moment late in the meeting when Councillor Kelley spoke on an Order from Henrietta Davis asking the City Manager to publish Cambridge's snow removal policies “in the Cambridge Chronicle and other local papers” several times this winter. Kenneth Errol Reeves responded that the City should not use the Cambridge Chronicle at all - continuing the kafuffle that raged last year between him and the Chronicle. Councillor Decker then weighed in on the side of Reeves and exercised her charter right to delay the Order until the next Council meeting.

For the record, the mayoral vote (the 2nd ballot officially) initially had Davis, Kelley, Murphy, Reeves, Seidel, and Simmons voting for Denise Simmons; Maher and Toomey voting for Tim Toomey; and Decker voting “present” (I won't even bother trying to figure that one out). David Maher then asked to change his vote to Simmons and make the vote unanimous. Decker then changed her vote to Simmons and City Clerk Margaret Drury gaveled the vote closed before Councillor Toomey had a chance to weigh in - declaring the vote unanimous even though no such vote was taken. I suppose you could argue that the vote was actually an 8-1 vote for Simmons since the rules are clear that the vote is final when the gavel drops. Nonetheless, Councillor Toomey did ask to have his vote changed to Denise Simmons after she had already been sworn in. Let's just call it unanimous, regardless of the technicalities.

The vote for Vice-Chair of the City Council (traditionally called Vice-Mayor) came next. In the initial vote, all councillors except Decker voted for Brian Murphy. Decker again voted “present”. Only afterwards did she join the others as she changed her vote to Murphy to make the vote unanimous.

Some have focused on Denise Simmons' racial and gender identity in regard to her election as mayor. I prefer to think of her as the person who has shown more interest in local Cambridge history than any of the other city councillors. In this regard, she and I are siblings. Cambridge is a city with a history like few others in the United States, and it's great to have someone in the public eye who appreciates this. -- Robert Winters

Mayor Simmons

Vice-Mayor Murphy

Davis - 6 favorable, 1 unfavorable, 2 unknown

Decker - 3 favorable, 4 unfavorable, 2 unknown

Maher - 4 favorable, 0 unfavorable, 5 unknown

Murphy - 5 favorable, 0 unfavorable, 4 unknown

Reeves - 3 favorable, 2 unfavorable, 4 unknown

Simmons - 5 favorable, 0 unfavorable, 4 unknown

Toomey - 4 favorable, 0 unfavorable, 5 unknown

Neither Craig Kelley nor newly-elected councillor Sam Seidel has expressed interest in being mayor.

The thing that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to predict what will happen is that the most viable candidates will likely need the votes of other viable candidates in order to get the necessary five votes. If the 1st ballot fails to elect a mayor, votes may shift to get the job done on the 2nd ballot.

If the vote remains deadlocked after the first few ballots, then almost anything is possible.