2023 CCJ Notes - January through April

JOHN ROBERT CLIFFORD 1944 - 2023

John Clifford CLIFFORD, John Robert, Age 79, of Cambridge, died peacefully, on April 20, after a lengthy illness. He leaves his wife, Pat Glynn, who was with him when he passed; his children, Frank, wife, Monika; and daughter, Kaya; and Vanessa; his brothers, Doug & Sandy, Dan & Margi and Robert; many nieces and nephews, cousins, lots of friends, admirers, comrades, and detractors. He was predeceased by his brother Roger. John was well-known throughout Cambridge and a mentor to many. John was a Marine Corp veteran of the American War in Vietnam and a Purple Heart recipient. John was proud to have been a Marine while being just as strongly opposed to American wars from Vietnam until now. John was a 1974 graduate of UMass-Boston and Hudson High School in 1961. Perhaps best known as the owner of the Green Street Grill, where camaraderie and jazz were outdone by the food. John was also a former labor and political organizer, youth worker and for a short time after college, a teacher. John worked for Cambridge Mayor Ken Reeves as the Education Liaison when he retired from the restaurant. His legacy will be his loyalty to his family, friends, and community. Burial services will be private. A Celebration of John’s Life was held on Sunday, April 23, at Sonia’s (at the Middle East Restaurant), 10 Brookline Street, Central Square, Cambridge, from 1:00-4:00pm.

You learn something new (and old) every day

April 13 - I just discovered that the original 1846 proposal to establish the City of Cambridge is not exactly the same as what was finally approved by the Mass. State Legislature and sent to Cambridge Town Meeting for approval by Cambridge voters. The original proposal called for 4 wards, a common council of 24, and 4 aldermen (one per ward).What was actually passed and sent to the voters of Cambridge called for 3 wards and 6 alderman (2 per ward) and a common council of 20 (5 + 9 + 6 by wards).

Now I have to fix some documents to reflect this. Oh well. - RW

Apr 15 Update: All fixed now – Original 1846 Charter w/amendments appended

Nuggets from the Cambridge Chronicle Archives

Apr 12 – We have been working for some time on the first of a series of video programs covering various topics of Cambridge history and civic involvement - starting with a history of the Cambridge City Charters from prior to Cambridge becoming a city in 1846 through the adoption of the current Plan E Charter. You’ll be hearing more about this project very soon.

One aspect of the history of the charters has been the introduction of proportional representation (PR) for municipal elections. Though there was a ranked voting system proposed in the failed 1911 charter proposal, it was not a PR system. That would have to wait until the 1938 and 1940 campaigns to adopt the Plan E Charter. That said, PR was being discussed and promoted long before it was ever formally proposed and eventually adopted.

I was just scouring the Cambridge Chronicle archive seeking an image for “League of Women Voters” but came up empty. On the other hand, it’s remarkable how many interesting related stories you can stumble upon when doing these searches. See below for a Nov 19, 1921 reference of Lewis Johnson speaking at a League of Women Voters meeting about proportional representation. It’s interesting to see something like this 16 or 17 years before Plan E was proposed. Lewis Johnson was the Chairman of the Cambridge Charter Association who proposed and campaigned for the 1911 Charter that was not adopted.

Needless to say, two institutions whose revival would be more than welcome would be the Cambridge Chronicle and a Cambridge chapter of the League of Women Voters (which in this day and age would likely be open to to more than just women). Maybe we could just call it the League of Cambridge Voters - scrupulously nonpartisan and working solely on matters of voter education and civic participation.

Lewis Johnson talking about PR to LWV

Members Sought for Cambridge Conservation Commission

April 3, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking volunteers to fill vacancies on the Cambridge Conservation Commission. City Seal

The Conservation Commission is responsible for administering the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). The WPA is a state law governing activities in and around local wetlands, waterways, and floodplains.

The Conservation Commission has seven members appointed by the City Manager to serve three-year terms. Cambridge residents with expertise in landscape architecture, civil/environmental engineering, hydrology, ecology, or law are encouraged to apply.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Commission members must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

The Commission holds two public meetings each month to review permit applications under the WPA, issue permits, and conduct other business related to the management of Cambridge’s natural resource areas.

Interested individuals may apply for this Committee through the City’s online portal at cambridgema.gov/apply. The application deadline is Monday, May 8, 2023. A cover letter and resume may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available at the City Manager's Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. Once your application is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email.

Members Sought for Cambridge Committee on Public Planting

March 30, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking Cambridge residents interested in serving on the City’s Committee on Public Planting. City Seal

The Committee on Public Planting is charged with the responsibility of promoting and improving the quality and diversity of plantings throughout all areas of Cambridge. This includes reviewing planting plans for new public work in the city; advising the City on effective maintenance of public plantings; supporting the role of the Urban Forestry Division; and encouraging interest in public plantings in all neighborhoods.

The Committee holds a hybrid meeting where members and the public have the option to either attend in person or virtually on the second Wednesday of each month from 5:30-7:00pm.

Committee members are appointed to 2-year terms. Candidates should be Cambridge residents who have an interest in urban forestry and landscape issues, and, ideally, experience in horticulture.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Committee members must also have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and résumé or applicable experience should be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave. The application deadline is Monday, May 1, 2023.

For more information about the committee, contact David Lefcourt, City Arborist at 617-349-6433 or dlefcourt@cambridgema.gov.

Members Sought for Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

March 27, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking residents who are interested in serving on the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.

The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (the Trust) works to expand and protect affordable housing opportunities in Cambridge. The Trust also administers and oversees most city funds allocated to create and preserve affordable rental and homeownership housing, and to support housing programs that address the city’s affordable housing needs. City Seal

The Trust has helped thousands of families and individuals afford to remain in the Cambridge community. Trust funding is used for:

Affordable housing development and acquisition;
Affordable housing preservation;
First-time homebuyer assistance;
Affordable housing rehabilitation.

The Trust reviews requests for funding for new housing development propoals and preservation efforts, and other housing programs. The Trust also provides housing policy and program advice to the City Manager, city staff, other city boards and commissions, and the Cambridge City Council. Some of the criteria the Trust uses when reviewing proposals for new programs, policies, and housing developments include:

Creation and preservation of long-term affordability;
High-quality sustainable design to benefit housing residents and the surrounding neighborhood and community;
Use of energy-efficient materials, and environmentally-friendly construction techniques;
Emphasis on the creation of family-sized housing (units with two or more bedrooms); and,
Leveraging of Trust funds by other public and private financing sources.

The Trust offers predevelopment, acquisition, construction, and permanent financing to support the efforts of local housing development organizations to create new affordable housing units, preserve existing affordable housing, and finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing properties. The Trust also provides direct financial assistance to income-eligible families seeking to purchase affordable homes.

The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust is made up of nine members appointed by the City Manager to 3-year terms. The Board is also chaired by the City Manager and currently meets virtually on the fourth Thursday of the month from 4-5:30pm.

Affordable Housing Trust members often have experience in affordable housing, housing policy, finance, development, planning, and design.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trust members must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Individuals interested in being considered for the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust should apply using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience can be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The application deadline is Monday, May 1, 2023.

If you have questions, contact Chris Cotter in the Community Development Department at 617-349-4634 or ccotter@cambridgema.gov or visit Cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingtrust.

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Transit Advisory Committee

March 27, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking persons interested in serving on the City’s Transit Advisory Committee. The application deadline is Monday, May 1, 2023. City Seal

The Transit Advisory Committee advises on city and state projects, positions and policies on transit service planning, schedules, infrastructure modernization, expansion and long-term sustainable funding for transit.

Committee members help advance an agenda for a robust public transit system for all who live, work, and visit Cambridge, including the transit services provided by the MBTA and EZRide, among others.

The recent work of the advisory committee includes:

Writing letters of support for public transit expansion projects;
Brainstorming ideas to change or add new bus routes;
Reviewing street designs for city and state projects;
Providing feedback on service reliability and improvements;
Identifying new funding opportunities.

Committee members are appointed to two-year terms and represent a cross-section of stakeholders: businesses and large institutions; commuters; persons with disabilities; neighborhood residents with low income, elderly, youth, students, and transit advocates.

This committee generally meets virtually on the first Thursday of every month from 5:30-7:30pm.

Interested individuals may apply for this Committee through the City’s online portal at cambridgema.gov/apply. The application deadline is Monday, May 1, 2023. A cover letter and resume may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available at the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. Once your application is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email.

If you have questions or require more information, please contact Andrew Reker at 617-349-6959 or areker@cambridgema.gov. For more information, visit: Cambridgema.gov/transitadvisorycommittee

City of Cambridge to Implement New Citywide Street Cleaning Pilot Program
Towing will not be Enforced though Residents Should Still Move Vehicles

City Seal March 21, 2023 – Beginning April 3, 2023, the City of Cambridge will implement a one-year street cleaning pilot program designed to evaluate the effectiveness of its street cleaning operations, while seeking to reduce the impacts of towing on residents. During this pilot program, towing associated with street cleaning will not be enforced, though residents should continue to move their vehicles accordingly, following the posted street cleaning schedule. Additionally, parking tickets issued for street cleaning will be raised from $30 to $50.

Cambridge residents are encouraged to sign up to receive email or text reminders about their street cleaning schedule, view and download their complete street cleaning schedule for the year, or import the schedule to their digital calendar at CambridgeMA.Gov/StreetCleaning.

“The city’s street sweeping program dates back to 1885 when annual cleaning was performed manually,” said John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Works. “Cambridge takes pride in our high-quality street cleaning aimed at improving the water quality of storm water that is discharged to the Charles River and Alewife Brook. By sweeping up sand and other debris, catch basins are kept clean and able to function properly.”

We ask for your help in continuing to collect leaves from the sidewalk and the curb in front of your home or business. By collecting leaves for yard waste collection, you’re helping to prevent street flooding, reduce stormwater pollution impacts, and reduce our impact on the climate.

The City of Cambridge will evaluate this program’s effectiveness throughout the pilot year and encourages residents to provide feedback throughout the pilot by filling out a survey at Camb.ma/streetcleaning2023.

Members Sought for Cambridge Public Art Commission

March 15, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking Cambridge residents interested in serving on the Cambridge Public Art Commission (PAC).

The Public Art Commission guides the implementation of the Public Art Ordinance and the Art Gifts and Donation Policy, and advises on the overall direction of the Public Art Program. The Commission brings its collective expertise to bear on discussions regarding the various program areas of the city's public art program, such as acquisition and deaccession, project planning, maintenance, conservation, educational programming, and the exhibitions in Cambridge Arts’ Gallery 344. The Commission reviews every percent-for-art project from artists’ proposals to final design. PAC approval is required before a project can go into fabrication.

The Public Art Commission is composed of nine volunteer members who are appointed by the City Manager to a three-year term, renewable once. The PAC meets on the second Tuesday of the month from 6-8 p.m., at the Cambridge City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway, 2nd Floor, in the Cambridge Arts Council Conference Room, or when permitted, virtually on Zoom.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Commission members in must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

The PAC seeks to represent the socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the city, as well as various art and design disciplines (such as artists, architects, landscape architects, art educators, urban planners, art historians, conservators, curators, and art administrators). City Seal

Additional responsibilities of the Public Art Commission include:

Advising on the artist selection process and community engagement process for major projects;
Recommending qualified jurors to select artists (the Commission does not select artists);
Reviewing public art proposals;
Recommending potential sources for additional funding;
Advising on outreach and education;
Providing connection to the wider community and recommendations on community interests, resources, contacts, and neighborhood or city-wide issues;
Contributing a broad perspective and interest in the city’s goals and values;
Attending monthly meetings.

Commission members are encouraged to participate in Public Art activities and Gallery 344 events, such as public art openings, artist talks, community presentations, gallery receptions, public art tours, and other related happenings. Additionally, members have the opportunity to learn about the day-to-day work of the staff, Arts Council partners, and other departments and to offer advice and viewpoints that reflect the Commission’s purpose and role of arts advocacy within city government.

For more information about public art in Cambridge, visit Cambridgema.gov/publicart.

Applications to serve on this commission can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience should be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave. The application deadline is Monday, April 24, 2023.

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

March 13, 2023 - There’s a City Council Roundtable tonight that includes a presentation on “Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options”. Advocacy for municipal broadband has gained a lot of traction among city councillors over the last few years - perhaps even unanimous support - but the issue has always been about financial cost and exposure, i.e. the notion that a huge amount of money might be invested in a technology that might become obsolete with the next wave of innovation. City Hall

If surveyed, residents would likely be nearly unanimous in the view that having affordable alternatives for fast Internet access is very desirable - hence a winning position for city councillors to support. What is often not said is that municipal broadband would likely not include Cable TV access (unless you subscribe to one of the new streaming options), and if consumers who now bundle their phone, Internet, and TV access wanted municipal broadband there might not even be a financial benefit in doing so. More significantly, the full capital cost of such an investment is estimated to be $194 million with a City contribution estimated to be $150 million.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS

• The full capital cost is estimated at ~$194 million, incorporating a 30% contingency and inflation over a 5-year construction period, assuming a 40% take-rate.

• A City contribution of ~$150 million is required to establish a sustainable FTTP business from scratch, applying reasonable assumptions under a “base case”. This contribution is the investment the City would need to make for which there would likely be no return. The remaining capex can be supported from net revenues after operating costs.

• Entering into a partnership with one or more entities to lease fiber and run the business would reduce the City’s risks and potentially reduce costs. A partner could potentially leverage existing operations and assets, achieving economies of scale.

Comments?

The City of Cambridge Unveils Report on Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options

March 15, 2023 – The City of Cambridge has released the final report for its comprehensive year-long municipal broadband feasibility study, Municipal Broadband in Cambridge: Feasibility and Business Model Options. The report examines the feasibility of the City of Cambridge implementing a municipal fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service, providing a detailed FTTP design and cost estimate, and a range of business and financial models for building, operating, and providing service to all premises in Cambridge. City Seal

“We have the opportunity to build a gigabit fiber network that will serve Cambridge for the next generation while protecting our values around data privacy, net neutrality, and digital equity. While there is still significant work to be done, this report will guide the City’s next steps in its broadband journey,” said City Manager Yi-An Huang.

The City of Cambridge partnered with nationally recognized firms, CTC Technology & Energy (CTC) and Rebel Group (Rebel), to conduct the study. CTC offers independent strategic, technical, and financial guidance primarily to public sector and nonprofit entities, while Rebel works with public and private organizations on infrastructure needs and financial resources through public-private partnerships, innovative financing, and strategic program management. CTC and Rebel have helped develop municipal broadband strategies for cities and communities across the nation.

The Municipal Broadband in Cambridge report explores several key findings, including:

Constructing an FTTP network to reach all 52,300 residences and businesses in Cambridge would cost an estimated $124 million to $161 million in 2022 dollars or $149 million to $194 million when considering inflation.
A citywide FTTP network would likely require a significant capital contribution to be financially feasible, including a $150 million upfront City contribution, based on relatively conservative assumptions, including that 40 percent of premises subscribe.
There are several business models that the City could explore, each impacting Cambridge’s contribution differently depending on the type of partnership and a variety of business factors.
Once the City reaches a decision to move forward on exploring a specific option, there is 18 to 24 months of key activities and decision points before the City would formally decide to execute a specific implementation project.

The report also highlights a high-level FTTP network design and cost estimates developed by CTC to inform the City’s broadband planning effort. The design provides for ubiquitous service within the Cambridge city limits, delivering residential services at symmetrical speeds of up to gigabit speeds and scalable to higher speeds with modest upgrades to electronics in the future.

The report identifies four business models developed by Rebel, each with the potential to meet the City’s goals, albeit to varying degrees and with certain tradeoffs. Regardless of the business model selected, the report suggests that the City should leverage competition to maximize value for taxpayers and subscribers.

A randomized mail survey conducted in May and June of 2022 also provided key insights into broadband access and use, and demand for additional internet service options. The survey found very few gaps in acquisition of residential internet services, but also that lower-income households may be underserved. Additionally, connection reliability ranks as the most important internet service aspect among subscribers, followed by connection speed. Many respondents also would be interested in acquiring services from a new internet service provider (ISP) in Cambridge, and would support a new fiber broadband network, even if it is subsidized by the City.

Any finalized project time horizon would most likely include a five-year construction period and 25 years of operations.

The Municipal Broadband in Cambridge: Feasibility and Business Model Options report is available for download on the City of Cambridge website.

Member Sought for Cambridge Community Benefits Advisory Committee

Mar 6, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking to fill a vacancy on the City’s Community Benefits Advisory Committee. This Committee makes recommendations to the City Manager for the approval and awarding of grant agreements with nonprofit organizations for the provision of Community Benefits. City Seal

Community Benefits may be programs or services provided by nonprofit organizations that directly benefit Cambridge residents. The role of the Committee is to solicit and evaluate applications from local non-profit providers for the provision of services that are consistent with the Cambridge City Council’s Funding Priorities. The Committee is also responsible for establishing rules, regulations, and guidelines to provide for the proper administration and implementation of Community Benefit funding.

In 2020, the Committee recommended funding for four Partnerships to work with low-income families to address housing stability, financial stability, and behavioral health issues. Those Partnerships will be entering their 4th year of funding. The Committee will be focusing on the evaluation of the Community Benefits Projects, and the Committee’s work as well as supporting the Partnerships in planning for the future.

The Committee’s 13 members represent non-profit organizations, City staff members, Cambridge residents, the Cambridge Community Foundation, the business/property development community, the city’s universities, and the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition. One seat is currently open for a Cambridge resident, who would serve a 3-year term. The Committee currently meets virtually on the first Monday of the month, from 4-6pm, though the schedule may sometimes change to accommodate Committee needs. In the future, meetings may transition to hybrid format to include in-person.

Individuals with interest in human service programs, experience/expertise in relevant topics (examples include but not limited to nonprofit leadership, fiscal management, community development, program design/development, public health, housing, homelessness, food access/insecurity, mental health/substance abuse, grant writing, social justice, child development), and a demonstrated ability to work effectively with diverse viewpoints to craft consensus solutions are encouraged to apply.

The City is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All committee members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Applications to serve on the Commission should be submitted by Monday, April 3, 2023 using the City of Cambridge’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue.

Members Sought for Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board

Mar 6, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang seeks candidates for consideration for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board (CRA). The CRA is an independent public body focused on publicly-beneficial real estate projects and infrastructure investment within the City of Cambridge. City Seal

The mission of the CRA from its 2014 Strategic Plan states “the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is committed to implementing imaginative, creative development that achieves social equity and environmental sustainability. Our goal is to work in the public interest to facilitate infrastructure investments and development projects that integrate commercial, housing, civic, and open space uses. We are a public real estate entity with a unique set of redevelopment tools, working in close partnership with the City of Cambridge and other organizations.”

In 2012, under the guidance of a newly appointed Board, the CRA launched a strategic planning process which developed the mission above, along with a guiding set of operating principles, from which the organization initiated a series of new redevelopment activities for the community. Since then, the CRA launched the Foundry Redevelopment Demonstration Project, amended the Kendall Square Urban Redevelopment Plan (KSURP), initiated the Forward Fund nonprofit grant program, initiated multiple park and streetscape improvement projects, and purchased and renovated the nonprofit office building at 99 Bishop Allen Drive.

The CRA is finalizing a new strategic plan that deepens its commitment to equity and sustainability through community infrastructure projects, affordable housing investments, and economic opportunity programs. This strategic plan requires that the CRA be both nimble and thoughtful in taking on new projects and initiatives. Anticipated efforts for the upcoming years include the development of affordable homeownership opportunities, the preservation and renovation of commercial and non-profit spaces that advance economic opportunity, and the support of vital community infrastructure including community facilities, open space, and transit. The CRA Board will be responsible for the deployment of its financial resources and establishing partnerships to implementation of imaginative redevelopment programs.

Per the state regulations creating redevelopment authorities (M.G.L. 121B), the CRA Board is composed of five members, four of whom are appointed by the City Manager and confirmed by the City Council to five-year terms. The fifth member is appointed by the Governor’s office. The CRA Board is a public body that meets at least monthly under the guidance of the Open Meeting Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Regular board meetings are currently held virtually on the second or third Wednesday of each month, from 5:30-8:30pm.

Board members are responsible for overseeing the fiscal management and strategic direction of the CRA. They oversee project selection, program policy, internal controls, contracting and procurement decisions, and general management of operations. The Board hires the Executive Director and sets annual budgets for the organization. They serve as a critical connection between community interests and program management. They bring forward redevelopment concepts for consideration. They review suggested initiatives received from the City of Cambridge and CRA staff. They guide existing redevelopment programs providing land use and design review of buildings in the KSURP area of Kendall Square. They monitor the delivery of ongoing community benefit agreements in Kendall Square and other plan areas.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Additional information regarding the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is available on the project webpage, www.cambridgeredevelopment.org.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, April 3, 2023. Applications can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can also be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. For more information, call the City Manager's Office at 617-349-4300.

Peter Valentine: The Fence Speaks for Itself

In the Spring of 2014, when an art walk was being planned for River Fest, organizers invited Peter to talk about his Cosmic Moose and Grizzly Bear’s Ville fence, the imaginative “canvas” he’d created in front of his home on the corner of Brookline and Franklin streets.

From locals around Cambridgeport, to tourists wandering off the beaten path in Central Square, the fence was legendary. People would stop to read the insights, wit and philosophy that Peter freely shared. If he was home, some were lucky enough to chat with him. Regular visitors noticed that, from time to time, he would add new thoughts for passersby to stop and ponder.

Peter declined the invitation to speak about the fence at the June festival but asked me – his brother-in-law, (we called each other “brothers-in-love”) – to speak in his place. I quickly told Peter that I didn’t feel qualified to speak about the fence, but I had an idea: what if I read a sampling of his writings “so the fence could speak for itself.”

Peter agreed. When we met before I began compiling his insights, Peter told me, “At a certain point when I was creating the fence, I thought it was a living thing. And then I came to feel it was the Earth speaking. And then – I just let go.”

What follows is a selection that I read at River Fest that year and again at Starlight Square on September 10, during the uplifting, heartfelt celebration of Peter’s remarkable life.

— Rob Okun

Peter Valentine Thought is beautiful.

Talk to the day.

There is only one frontier that’s endlessly self-fulfilling – the frontier of words.

You are having an intergalactic conversation with the fence.

Freedom is a special tree. It can only be grown by a fierce gardener.

Truth cannot be voted on. Either you allow it in or you are without it.

Your only true power is your uniqueness, which you will never discover if you crave group similarities.

Problems aren’t the problem. Solving them magnificently is the problem.

It’s okay to be happy. It’s better to be ready.

All lies are honest.

It’s permissible to lie to a liar because for a liar being lied to is like being made love to.

Only the pure makes you honest.

I’m stumbling my way into perfect expectations. Be careful not to trip on me.

Stop talking. Make something incredible.

Today’s date is – forever.

What does City Hall lawn and Fort Point Channel have in common?

City Hall encampment - March 8, 2023 March 22, 2023 – Many of us are familiar with the characters of Central Square who do such things as setting up an encampment on the front lawn of City Hall. I have been told that the cost of the tent was covered by donations from within City Hall - most likely from the Mayor’s Office. The encampment lasted barely a day before an appropriate dime was dropped and the encampment was dismantled and the occupants sent packing. Several days later they showed up at Fort Point Channel and … you can read the story in the Boston Globe. You can also read about this and add comments on Universal Hub.

“A Boston man was charged Thursday for allegedly picking his wife up out of her wheelchair and trying to throw her into the Fort Point Channel, according to officials from the Suffolk district attorney’s office.”… “A witness told police he saw a man, later identified as Jonathan Pinney, 38, attempting to throw a woman over the railing and into the water below, Borghesani said. The woman, Pinney’s wife, confirmed the account to police and was taken to Tufts Medical Center for treatment.”… “Pinney told officers that he “believed his wife was an ‘imposter’ and was attempting to ‘dump her’ into the channel,” Borghesani said. … “Pinney — who has a “history of crimes in Illinois, California, and Arkansas” — was charged with assault and battery on a family or household member and assault and battery on a disabled person,” Borghesani said.

A chronology of the 1972 conflict over Proportional Representation in Cambridge

Senate Next? House Votes To Kill PR
Cambridge Chronicle, March 2, 1972

In a legislative surprise, the House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday afternoon that would abolish the proportional representation method of voting, unique in this country to Cambridge. The bill, passed on a voice vote, now goes before the Massachusetts Senate next week. Representative Thomas (Hap) Farrell, of Worcester, and former Representative Charles McGlue, of Boston, submitted the bill. Last year, a similar bill passed the House but was defeated in the Senate. Cambridge Representative Thomas H. D. Mahoney said the question of retaining or abolishing PR was for the city to decide under the Home Rule amendment. Four times in the past, Cambridge voters have opted to retain PR when the matter has appeared on the city ballot.

PR Wobbles on Last Legs on the Hill
Cambridge Chronicle, March 9, 1972

Cambridge’s unique Proportional Representation system of voting was wobbling on its last legs on Beacon Hill this week after receiving all but the final death blow from the State Legislature. The Senate Tuesday voted 18-10 not to reconsider its earlier vote to abolish PR. Monday, the Senate had given initial approval of the move to kill PR on a 17-8 vote. The bill, which was passed by the House last week, now goes to the Senate’s Committee on Bills for a Third Reading where it will be checked for form. From there, it will go back to the Senate floor for approval. Then, the bill goes back to the House for enactment and returns to the Senate for final enactment. The bill is expected to be on Governor Sargent’s desk for his signature sometime this week. Supporters of the bill to abolish PR, including Senators Francis X. McCann and Denis L. McKenna, charged that PR voting violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s “one man, one vote” rule. Opponents of the bill said that the issue was for Cambridge residents to decide under the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution. Senate debate on the bill was highlighted by the surprising opposition of legislators representing areas outside Cambridge. Senator Irving Fishman, Democrat, of Newton, argued that passage of the bill would violate Home Rule. Senator John Parker, Republican of Taunton, said no Cambridge residents had co-sponsored the bill. But Senators McCann, McKenna and Mario Umana supported the bill. McKenna told the Chronicle he questioned whether PR is constitutional. “The Supreme Court has called for one man one vote, but you don’t get this under PR,” he said. He said, however, “I don’t like pushing this down the throats of residents and if PR is constitutional the City Council should have the final say on whether PR is used.”

Let Cambridge Decide
Cambridge Chronicle Editorial, March 9, 1972

If the Legislature, as is expected, gives its final approval to the bill to abolish Proportional Representation voting, we hope that Governor Sargent will veto it. We feel that this would be an appropriate and logical step for the Governor since there are questions of whether, under the Home Rule amendment, the Legislature should pass a bill which tells one city how to elect its municipal officials. Although the bill calls for the repeal of the general law allowing PR and is not, in its wording, aimed specifically at Cambridge, this is the only city which will be affected by its passage. Cambridge is the only city in the country which uses PR to elect City Council and School Committee officials. Retaining this system should be left up to the citizens in Cambridge and not the State Legislature. In both the House and Senate votes on the PR issue during the past two weeks, many legislators were absent. That's understandable. Why should legislators from Saugus, or Fall River or any community outside Cambridge care what method of voting is used in this city? We are not arguing the concept of PR itself here. At this point in the discussion of the Legislature's action, we feel the issue is not whether PR is good or bad, but rather who should decide on its merits. Five times since PR was first adopted by the city in 1941 Cambridge voters have approved this system in local referendums. The last referendum, in 1965, resulted in a 2,536 margin in favor of keeping PR. We feel it may well be time for another referendum, and we would support a movement to put PR before Cambridge voters once again either in a special election or the next municipal election. The Council could vote to put PR on the ballot. Failing that, six percent of the registered voters could sign a petition to have PR on the ballot in the next municipal election. Twelve percent would be needed to hold a special election on the question of PR. The point is it’s the option of Cambridge voters to decide the fate of PR since this is the only city which has it.

Compromise Sought In PR Repeal Bill; Referendum is Key
Cambridge Chronicle, March 16, 1972

Thomas H.D. Mahoney

Cambridge residents may still get a chance to vote on whether they want to retain Proportional Representation voting in spite of assaults against PR on Beacon Hill.

Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney Tuesday got the blessing of House Speaker David Bartley to submit a compromise amendment to the bill to repeal PR which would hinge the effective date of bill on a local referendum.

Under Mahoney’s amendment, the repeal would not take effect until approved by voters in a referendum here.

Mahoney said that Representative Thomas Farrell, of Worcester, who submitted the bill to repeal PR, had tentatively agreed to the compromise.

“I am not arguing the merits of PR,” Mahoney told his House colleagues Tuesday. “It is conceivable that the system has outlived its usefulness. The issue is who should make the decision to keep it (PR) or abandon it. In my opinion, the time may well be here that a popular referendum should be held... it is the option of the voters of Cambridge to decide the fate of PR since this is the only city which uses this method of election.”

Mahoney hopes to submit his amendment to the House next Monday.

The House last Monday voted to enact the repeal of PR into law. Mahoney, however, moved reconsideration of the vote.

Reconsideration will be voted on Monday, and if it passes Mahoney will submit his amendment. Between 11am and 1pm Tuesday, Mahoney button-holed about 40 representatives to get their support to pass reconsideration so he could submit his amendment.

Mahoney said that “abolition of PR is not your (the House) prerogative” because of the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution.

“This should be left up to the citizens of Cambridge not the Legislature,” he said.

Representative Charles Flaherty, also of Cambridge, told the Chronicle Tuesday that he would “have no problem” supporting Mahoney’s amendment “as long as I can be sure that the amendment requires a referendum and that citizens would not have to petition to get PR on the ballot”.

Flaherty originally supported the repeal of PR when it first reached the House floor February 29.

“I have opposed PR voting since I have been in the House,” Flaherty said, “and I base my opposition on philosophical grounds.”

He said the majority of the voters don’t understand PR and that PR can “dilute” the effect of votes. “In some instances, a minority can rule the majority under PR,” he said.

In the Senate, Senator Francis X. McCann told the Chronicle Tuesday that if the language of the amendment is clear, “if it doesn’t leave an opening where at a later date someone could claim the amendment was a violation of Home Rule,” he would vote for it if it reached the Senate.

He said he would have to read the amendment first, however. McCann originally supported the repeal of PR when the bill reached the Senate floor last week. To be sent to the Governor, the bill would have to be voted on again in the Senate, this time for enactment.

Mahoney’s amendment may be on the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.

The Amendment is Needed
Cambridge Chronicle Editorial, March 16, 1972

We support Representative Thomas H. D. Mahoney’s efforts to strike a compromise in the Legislature’s moves to repeal Proportional Representation voting.

Mahoney’s amendment requiring Cambridge voters’ approval via a referendum before the repeal of PR could take effect should gain wide support in both the House and Senate.

Legislators will be hard pressed to justify a vote opposing such a requirement, especially if they ever want to proclaim the peoples’ right to make decisions on issues which affect them.

The amendment is perhaps the safest way to assure that the decision on retention or abolition of PR will be left up to Cambridge voters.

To allow the repeal to be passed without the referendum requirement, hoping for either a Gubernatorial veto or court decision in favor of a PR referendum is to play a risky game. Neither the veto nor the favorable court decision are assured. The amendment to be offered by Mahoney does assure Cambridge will have the deciding voice on the fate of PR.

As Mahoney said on the House floor, interfering with the affairs of one city will place the Home Rule amendment in jeopardy. Cambridge will be the victim this time, but any of the other cities or towns in the Commonwealth could be the victim the next time.

House Okays PR Compromise
BY PAUL E. TEAGUE
Cambridge Chronicle, March 23, 1972

The Massachusetts House Monday okayed an amendment to the bill repealing Proportional Representation voting which would hinge the effective date of repeal on a local referendum.

The amendment, submitted by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney and passed on a voice vote, says that the repeal bill will be submitted to the voters “in the next biennial state election in which voting by PR is in effect” (next November).

The question on the ballot would read: “Shall an act passed by the general court in the year 1972 entitled ‘An Act to prevent the election of certain city and town officers by proportional representation or preferential voting be accepted’”?

If the majority of the votes on that question are “yes”, then repeal would take effect, “but not otherwise”.

The amended bill now goes to the Senate, where it should be voted on next Monday. It will then go to Governor Sargent for his signature.

Last week, the House had voted to enact the repeal bill without the stipulation of a local referendum, but Mahoney, with the blessing of Speaker David Bartley, moved reconsideration so he could submit the compromise amendment.

The House Monday voted to reconsider its action, Mahoney offered his amendment, and it passed.

“I am not concerned with the merits of PR at this time, Mahoney told the House”. “I am concerned with the question of who should decide on abolishing or retaining PR. I believe it is up to Cambridge voters”.

Meanwhile, the battle over PR flared on at least two other fronts.

The city council Monday voted 5-4 to oppose the repeal of PR (see story elsewhere in the Chronicle).

The council majority was seen as opposed also to Mahoney’s amendment calling for a referendum.

Councillor Robert Moncreiff said that under Home Rule the only two ways PR could be repealed were through a locally elected charter commission or a special act of the legislature on petition of the council or the voters.

But the counsel for the House of Representatives said, in an opinion delivered to Mahoney, that “the General Court may repeal any general law relative to proportional representation which it had previously enacted without first obtaining the prior approval of any city.”

In another development, the Cambridge Civic Association sent a letter to its members asking them to write Governor Sargent urging him to veto the PR repeal bill.

The letter said, in part, “in a sudden display of machine politics, Senators McCann, McKenna, Councilmen Clinton and Sullivan, and a few cronies, have quietly rushed through the Legislature a bill abolishing PR voting in Cambridge. This self-serving band of old line Cambridge politicians and courthouse hangers-on, having lost control of city government in last November’s election, are trying to re-write the election laws, to recoup their losses.”

The letter also said the CCA board of directors had written to the Governor urging his veto.

“Regardless of your own view on PR”, the letter said to members, “basic changes in the election laws should come only after thorough study of alternatives, wide public debate and local referendum – not by precipitous legislative action”.

The letter was dated March 10, before Mahoney had submitted his amendment to the House.

MAIL from our readers
On Proportional Representation
Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
I wish to thank Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney for his single-handed, successful fight to keep the choice of voting system up to the people of Cambridge. Our other legislators originally wanted to abolish PR without a referendum.

A proportion is a share. If we do not have proportional representation we will have UNproportional representation and some group will have more than its share. The at large system for the House elections was abolished by the U.S. Congress in 1842 because it does not guarantee that a majority of the voters will elect a majority of the representatives. The same is true of the ward system. In good faith, we cannot go back to those systems. The issues cut across ward lines and we must have a system which represents the majority and minority fairly.

The thing some people are forgetting is that no organization elected anyone. It was the voters of Cambridge who chose five from the CCA slate and four others for council and three from the CCA slate and three others for school committee. So many white voters voted for blacks that two were elected to the council. When the first choice votes were counted, the five CCA slate members now on the council were in the top nine, and three CCA slate members in the school committee race were in the top six.

There is really no mystery about PR, it’s just a lot of preliminary elections in which only one candidate is eliminated at a time. Your number two choice, three, four, and so on, marked on your ballot with numbers, saves you a trip back to the polls if your favorite is eliminated.

The votes Sullivan didn’t need helped elect Danehy, Vellucci, and Clinton. If they had been left in Sullivan’s pile they would have been wasted and the result of the election might have been different.

At the end after all the little preliminaries, members of the CCA slate had 13,793 votes, the independents 11,856. The school committee ended with 12,591 for the CCA slate and 12,641 for independents.

With PR, a majority of the votes elected a majority of the councillors.

BYRLE BRENY
1039 Mass. Ave.

PR Bill And NASA Acres Are Discussed on the Hill
Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 1972

The bill to repeal Proportional Representation voting, complete with an amendment requiring a local referendum, was in the Senate Consul as of press time this week.

It was expected that the Senate would pass the bill and send it back to the House for final enactment this week so it would be ready for Governor Sargent’s signature.

The original amendment calling for a local referendum, sponsored by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney, was changed by the House Committee on Bills in a Third Reading, but the changing only affected the way the referendum question would be worded.

The amended bill requires this question to be on the ballot here in the November state election: “Shall the elective officers of this city be nominated by preliminary election and elected by ordinary plurality voting? Yes or No.”

A majority of yes votes would kill PR. A majority of No votes would mean the city keeps PR.

PR Bill Is Vetoed By Sargent
Cambridge Chronicle, May 11, 1972

Gov. Francis Sargent this week vetoed the bill passed by the legislature which called for a local referendum on proportional representation voting here.

In his veto message. Gov. Sargent said the bill was “unwarranted and probably unconstitutional interference with home rule.” He said further the bill as passed “violated the spirit and probably the letter of the home rule amendment.”

Introduced in the house this spring the bill called for a local referendum to ask voters the question, “Shall the city adopt a plurality method of voting?” PR opponents here gave active support to the legislation.

PR Bill Is Dead
Cambridge Chronicle, May 11, 1972

The bill requesting a local referendum here on PR (proportional representation) voting is, for all practical purposes, dead.

Senate President Kevin Harrington’s office says the President has no plans to remove the bill from the table, where it has been since it was sent to the Senate several weeks ago. That effectively kills the bill for this year.

Originally passed by both House and Senate, the PR bill backed by opponents of Cambridge’s unique PR system was vetoed by Gov. Francis Sargent, who said it interfered with home rule.

Legal fights due on PR
Cambridge Chronicle, July 13, 1972

Supporters of the city’s Proportional Representation system of voting were scrambling this week to put together lawsuits challenging a referendum on PR which is scheduled to be on the September ballot here.

In a swift vote at noon on Saturday, the State Senate voted 24-12 to override Governor Sargent’s veto of a bill which requires the referendum.

The Senate vote came as a last minute surprise during the Legislature’s drive toward Prorogation. The House had overrode the veto May 16, but Senate President Kevin Harrington said at that time he had no intention of calling for a Senate vote.

PR supporters will charge that the referendum violates the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution. That amendment, they say, protects cities and towns from interference in such matters by the state.

The original bill to kill PR was voted by the House on February 29. The Senate followed with a quick initial approval of the bill.

But Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney got the blessing of House Speaker David Bartley to amend the bill with a requirement for a referendum. He said at the time the merits of PR were not at issue, but that it was important that Cambridge voters make the decision on abolishing the system of voting.

The city council March 20 voted 5-4 to oppose the PR bill and referendum on the grounds that it violated Home Rule.

Governor Sargent vetoed the bill on the same grounds in early May, but the House overrode his veto May 16.

Mahoney said the controversial bill against PR was not his idea, “but since the bill was there and the House and Senate seemed bound to pass it, I added the referendum to ensure a local voice on the matter. To simply hope the courts would rule against the original bill to abolish PR was too chancy”.

Cambridge has had PR since 1941. There have been five referendums on PR, and each time voters have decided to keep the system. The last referendum was in 1965, and the margin in favor of PR was 2,536.

MAIL from our readers
On PR bill
Cambridge Chronicle, July 20, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
I am writing concerning the article about the “legal fights due on PR” appearing on the front page of the July 13 Chronicle.

Rep. Mahoney’s statement implied that he was basically against the bill and that his amendment just made it less bad. If this is the case, why did he ask the Governor to sign what he considered a bad bill?

HARLEY R. VICTOR
37 Lee St.
City Republican Chairman

Former city leaders rally on both sides of PR fight
Cambridge Chronicle, September 28, 1972

The question of whether to keep Proportional Representation (PR) voting or throw it out may not appear on the ballot in this city in November if legal efforts of some former city officials are successful.

If those efforts are not successful, however, another group, including four former mayors, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the first chairman of the Cambridge Advisory Committee will wage a campaign to convince voters to drop the controversial I voting system.

Monday morning, Attorney Michael Callahan went before Supreme Judicial Court Justice Paul Reardon to present the case for getting the PR question off the ballot.

He was representing former City Councillors Don Belin, and Connie Wheeler, former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, Professor Edwin C. Newman, husband of Mary Newman, state Secretary of Manpower Affairs, and attorney Gerald Berlin. DeGug-Crane-Wheeler-Solomons

They are contending that the law passed by the State Legislature which puts the PR question on the ballot is invalid “since it applies only to Cambridge despite its general soundings”. They say it could only be adopted by a special law procedure which requires a request from the city council or the Governor.

(The law putting a PR question on the ballot was passed by the Legislature last Spring. Originally it outlawed PR, but was amended by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney to include a local referendum on the question. The bill, with the amendment, was vetoed by Governor Sargent, but both the House and Senate overrode his veto.)

Callahan told the Chronicle a hearing by the full bench of the SJC would probably be held next week. He said he was hoping for a decision before the ballots are printed by the Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, the second group of former city officials formed the “Committee to Make Every Vote Count” to convince voters that plurality voting is better than PR.

This group consists of former Mayors Edward A. Crane, Joseph A. DeGuglielmo, Daniel J. Hayes Jr., Edward J. Sullivan and Advisory Committee Chairman George A. McLaughlin, Sr., all of whom are co-chairmen. Don S. Greer, president of the chamber, is treasurer.

Crane and DeGuglielmo were endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association while on the council, and DeGuglielmo was chairman of a Committee to Save Cambridge by keeping PR when a similar question appeared on the ballot in 1965. McLaughlin was one of the co-founders of the move to adopt the city manager — Plan E charter form of government in 1938-40. Plan E at that time included PR.

In a statement announcing their effort to get plurality voting for Cambridge the committee members said:

“We now have an exhausted government in Cambridge and an exhausting tax rate, exhausted rent payers and exhausted property owners because of the 10 to 12 percent exhausted ballots which have robbed us of representation and total lack of leadership.

“In 1971 there were 30,400 ballots cast with more than 3000 exhausted ballots which could not be tallied for anyone.

“We wind up after each election with a 5-4 fractionalized city council as the result of this confusion.

“For eight long months this year the fractionalized council struggled just to settle the city manager issue.

“This set a new record for frustration and time wasted which could have been better used to provide leadership for a city so badly in need of corrective measures for the benefit of all our citizens.

“A Yes vote for plurality voting will guarantee that all the councillors and school committee members will have to answer to every voter rather than to a personal constituency.

“We want to eliminate the confusing transferable vote and substitute the American way of counting in Cambridge.

“We support a strong city manager form of government and the system will be more responsive to the will of the citizens when the electorate has nine effective votes for the city council and six effective votes for school committee.”

[Photo caption] AMONG FORMER city leaders involved in the PR issue are, top left, Former City Manager and City Councillor Joseph DeGuglielmo; top right, former Councillor Edward A. Crane; former Councillor Cornelia Wheeler, bottom left, and former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, bottom right.

PR voting: Two different views
Cambridge Chronicle, October 5, 1972

(Editor’s note: The Chronicle publishes below two separate views on Proportional Representation voting which were received in the news office this week. We do not necessarily agree with the conclusion drawn in either of the two articles.)

Let’s keep it
By BYRLE BRENY Byrle Breny - photo by Olive Pierce

Cities all over the country are frustrated and searching for acceptable solutions to problems. They have many different kinds of charters and voting systems. The fault lies in things that are common to all cities. These are the things we must identify and correct. Changing our voting system will not bring us the money we need to get decent housing, fix our streets, build our schools, and pay for our skating rinks.

The “Committee To Make Every Vote Count” has complained about a 10 to 12 per cent exhausted vote under PR. They want plurality voting. That’s very strange because the exhausted vote in last year’s plurality election in Boston was 52 per cent. That means plurality voting is worse than PR. That can’t be their real reason.

If we end up with a 5-4 city council under plurality voting what will they blame then? All cities are divided. Cambridge is just more evenly divided than most. Voting for the plurality system won’t change that.

The four former mayors on the committee against PR know full well that any citizen of Cambridge can file a “corrective measure” with the city council.

Why would a councillor have to answer to all of the voters, or even to a majority of them, if he doesn’t need a majority to win?? Plurality voting allowed three candidates to win in Boston last time who were supported by less than a third of the voters. All of the present Boston councillors are minority councillors!

One man – one vote does not mean one man – nine votes. It means that councillors should each represent the same number of people. PR does that best. In Boston, one councillor has a 93,000 vote constituency while another has a 60,000 vote constituency. There’s nothing one man - one vote about the plurality system.

It doesn’t bother me that the first person in modern times to suggest that people use PR was a Mr. Andrae in Denmark. Who invented plurality voting? Was he an American? What’s his name? Or her name?

We will go back to the polls in November to finish the election of state representatives and state senators. If our favorite candidate lost in September we must transfer our vote to someone else. If we had been able to mark our ballots with numbers, 1 for first choice, 2 for second choice, and so on, we wouldn’t have to do it all over again. That’s all a transferable vote is, not very confusing is it?

Votes that count for losers are not very effective votes. In plurality voting in Boston last year 40 percent of the votes were for losers. In PR voting in Cambridge last year more than 90 percent of the votes were for winners. PR clearly has a much larger percentage of effective votes.

Incidentally, any city can choose a plan E type of government, including PR, by using a charter commission, unless the courts rule otherwise. None of the “alphabet charters” can be adopted by the old 10% petition and referendum method at this time. Section 96 of Plan E has not been repealed. It is the section which says “the city council shall be elected at large by proportional representation (PR)”.

(Ms. Breny was a candidate for city council in 1969.)

Let’s get rid of it
By GEORGE A. McLAUGHLIN, SR.

Many of us who worked to establish the City Manager Plan E Charter in 1938 and 1940 in Cambridge have now realized what devastation PR has brought to our Plan E government.

Even the Cambridge Chronicle, which has from the start been a strong supporter of Plan E, and still may be, said editorially in 1970 that our city is “a municipality of loose ends and unfinished business.” The editor added: “Of course the fundamental reason why things are at sixes and sevens is that our City Council lacks the kind of majority (whether CCA or coalition) that is needed to make the City Manager plan tick.” Then the editor chides the voters for a city policy which “sometimes led to confusion of voices and a delay in acting on community needs.”

The editor was wrong on one point. It is not “sixes and sevens” that divides the city but the many city councils of fours and fives.

For example, take the election of mayors to demonstrate what the customary 5-4 fractionalized council has done. It took 309 ballots and weeks to elect John D. Lynch as mayor. It took 1321 ballots and many more months to elect Michael J Neville mayor. It took 189 ballots to elect John J. Foley and 49 ballots for Alfred E. Vellucci.

And this year it took 8 long months for the city council to end its struggle on the City Manager. And all the while Cambridge community needs, citizen needs and business needs suffered from the weak system which left Councillors staring at one another.

More than one million voters in Lowell, Quincy, Worcester, Medford, Gloucester and Revere in this State and 36 other communities in the United States abolished PR and adopted the American way of counting votes. They had given the transferable voting system a fair chance to bring stability to their local governments. Today Cambridge stands alone in the entire country with the transferable voting system. Just as PR failed elsewhere, it has failed in Cambridge.

I speak for Edward A. Crane, Joseph A. DeGuglielmo, endorsed by the CCA when they were in city government, and for Daniel J. Hayes and Edward J. Sullivan who ran as independents when in city government. All four are former mayors who have reason to be concerned with the devastating results of a fractionalized city government. Don S. Greer, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and I are working with the four former mayors to put together a team of citizens which seek to take advantage of the chance given to Cambridge by the Legislature to vote YES for plurality voting on Question 10 on the Cambridge ballot on Nov. 7.

We support a strong City Manager Plan E form of government. A divided city government, fractionalized by the present PR system of voting, can only bring continued high costs, higher taxes, further confusion and instability. We want every voter to help elect all nine city councillors and all six school committee members rather than have their votes count for only one city councillor and one school committee member, if his ballots are not exhausted before the election count is completed.

A YES vote for plurality voting, when Cambridge citizens get a chance to vote, will guarantee that all city councillors and all school committee members will have to answer to every voter rather than to their personal constituency.

Next Thursday evening in the Hotel Commander at 8 o’clock the voters of Cambridge are invited to join the effort to “Make Every Vote Count.” The meeting is open to the public.

(Mr. McLaughlin is a member of the Committee to Make Every Vote Count.)

MAIL from our readers
Wants PR out
Cambridge Chronicle, October 5, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
Having publicly advocated charter reform in Cambridge for several years, both as a candidate for city council and as a private citizen (and as recently as July 20), I was very pleased to see in last week’s Chronicle an editorial urging that it “is important ... to re-assess the present system” (Plan E).

The most immediate question we face in terms of charter reform is that of Proportional Representation, because a referendum question on PR will be on the ballot this November. PR does have its good points, but it is no doubt in part responsible for the present situation, in which our city government has virtually ceased to function as an effective servant of the people of this community.

The first step toward having a city government which does a good job is to vote against PR in November, and I strongly urge all residents who are dissatisfied with the state of affairs in this city to vote out PR. Then we can go to work to rebuild a city government which serves the needs of the people of Cambridge, a city government which is more than merely an arena for the games of windbag politicians, whether old-style or so-called new-style.

200 years ago Americans searched for, and fought for, a new way to govern themselves. That is what we need today, a new way to govern ourselves, a way which gets things done. And the place to start is by voting out PR.

STEVE NELSON
104 Kinnaird St.

PR question out; ’73 is new target
Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 1972

The State’s Supreme Judicial Court, in an order last Friday, threw the referendum question on Proportional Representation voting (PR) off the ballot this year.

The Court issued an order to Secretary of State John F. X. Davoren not to print the question on the ballots to be used in the November 7 election here.

Plans to have the question put on the ballot next year have already gotten underway, however.

The Committee to Make Every Vote Count, composed of four former mayors, the former head of the Cambridge Advisory Committee and the president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, will hold a public meeting Oct 26 at 8pm at the Hotel Commander to map a campaign to kill PR.

In other action, however, the Cambridge League of Women Voters, long a supporter of PR, reaffirmed its support at a series of memberships meetings recently.

League members agreed that in spite of their dissatisfaction with the operation of Cambridge government “PR is the voting system that gives the most accurate representation to minority groups at the same time it ensures majority rule,” according to Nancy R. Evans, city government chairman of the League.

The Supreme Court case to get the PR question off the ballot was brought by former City Councillors Don Belin and Connie Wheeler, former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, Professor Edwin C. Newman, husband of State Secretary of Manpower Affairs Mary Newman and attorney Gerald Berlin.

They contended that the State law putting the question on the ballot was “invalid” because it applied only to Cambridge “despite its general soundings”.

That law was passed by the Legislature last spring. Originally it simply outlawed PR, but was amended by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney to include a local referendum. Mahoney said at the time his concern was not with the merits of PR but with reserving the right to decide its fate with Cambridge voters.

Governor Sargent vetoed the bill, with the amendment, but the Senate and House overrode his veto.

The Committee to Make Every Vote Count was formed in early September to mobilize support to dump PR in favor of plurality voting if the question remained on the ballot.

Committee members include former Mayors Daniel Hayes, Edward A. Crane, Joseph DeGuglielmo and Edward J. Sullivan, former Advisory Committee Chairman George A. McLaughlin and Chamber President Don S. Greer.

Speaking for the Committee, Hayes said the members were “disappointed that voters will not have an opportunity to vote on PR this year”.

Hayes expressed surprise that the group which has “stressed power to the people” in the past took action to deprive voters of the right to decide the PR question on the November ballot.

“At a time when an estimated 40,000 will go to the polls in Cambridge, the PR supporters decided to go to court to deprive them of the right to vote on the question.”

The former North Cambridge city councillor said the current voting system has fractionalized the nine member Council and six member School Committee into a group “who represent neighborhoods rather than the entire city.”

Hayes said that fractionalization was the cause of the delay in electing a city manager and a new school superintendent.

Mail from our readers
League supports PR
Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
At a series of recent membership meetings the Cambridge League of Women Voters reaffirmed its support of proportional representation in Cambridge. League members agreed that in spite of their dissatisfaction with the operation of Cambridge government, PR is the voting system that gives the most accurate representation to minority groups at the same time that it insures majority rule. PR guarantees minority groups - racial, ethnic, or ideological - representation but not control over the governing body. PR prevents a minority of the voters from winning a majority of seats on the council.

On the other hand, at-large plurality voting makes it possible for a bare majority to sweep all of the seats on the council or even for a minority of the voters to capture a majority of the seats. Although plurality voting might give us a council that could easily reach agreement, such agreement could be bought at the price of many groups and points of view being excluded from the debate.

The experience of cities such as Cincinnati and Worcester which have switched from PR to at-large plurality voting shows that under plurality voting it becomes increasingly difficult for new candidates to win, for incumbents to be unseated, and for minority groups to be represented.

We believe that PR is not the cause of our problems in Cambridge; it simply reflects quite accurately the different forces and points of view that actually exist in the city. Most cities - with diverse populations and interest groups - whatever their form of government or voting system — are similarly dissatisfied with the operation of their government since all segments of the population are not being served equally; taxes are rising at all levels of government and taxpayer dissatisfaction is growing.

We therefore object to any view which attempts to simplify the debate over city government by pinning the blame on PR and which purports to solve our problems simply by getting rid of our present voting system. Instead we urge Cambridge citizens to look at our total structure of government - PR, council-manager form, the state-mandated authorities and procedures, as well as the personalities and forces at work in our community — before attempting to diagnose our problems and prescribe a solution to them.

NANCY R. EVANS
City Government Chairman
League of Women Voters of Cambridge

Citation: 362 Mass. 530
Parties: G. D'ANDELOT BELIN & others vs. SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
County: Suffolk
Hearing Date: October 4, 1972
Decision Date: October 19, 1972
Judges: TAURO, C.J., REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, & KAPLAN, JJ.

Statute 1972, c. 596, requiring that a question regarding a change to plurality voting be placed on the ballot to be used at the biennial state election in any city or town with proportional representation voting but in fact, when enacted, applicable only to the city of Cambridge, is a special act “relating to cities and towns” and not a general law applicable “to a class of not fewer than two” cities and towns, and thus violates art. 89 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution in that it was enacted neither on a petition filed or approved by the voters or the city council nor by the two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation of the Governor.

PETITION for a writ of mandamus filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on September 21, 1972.

The case was reserved and reported by Reardon, J.
Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr. (Barry R. Furrow & Jeffery Swope with him) for the petitioners.
Walter H. Mayo, III, Assistant Attorney General, for the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
George A. McLaughlin & Edward J. Lonergan, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Charles H. McGlue was present but did not argue.

REARDON, J. The petitioners, residents, taxpayers, and duly registered voters in Cambridge, have petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The facts are not in dispute.

Cambridge has a Plan E form of government conformable to G. L. c. 43, Sections 93-116, as amended, and is the only city or town in the Commonwealth where officers are elected by proportional representation or preferential voting. The respondent was in the process of preparing a question contained in St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3, to be placed on the official ballot for the November 7, 1972, biennial State election in Cambridge. The question described in Section 3 will not appear on the ballot in any other city or town in the Commonwealth. Statute 1972, c. 596, which was enacted over the veto of the Governor, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. Section one hundred and fifteen of chapter forty-three of the General Laws is hereby repealed.”

“SECTION 2. Chapter fifty-four A of the General Laws is hereby repealed.”

“SECTION 3. The state secretary shall cause the following question to be placed on the official ballot to be used at the biennial state election in each city in which voting by proportional representation or preferential voting is in effect: --

‘Shall the elective officers of this city be nominated by preliminary election and elected by ordinary plurality voting?’ YES. NO.”

“The state secretary shall cause the following question to be placed on said ballot in each town in which voting by proportional representation or preferential voting is in effect: -- ‘Shall the elective officers of this town be elected by ordinary plurality voting?’ YES. NO.”

“If a majority of the votes in answer to such question by any such city or town is in the affirmative elective officers in such city or town shall thereafter be nominated and elected in the manner provided in said question.”

“If a majority of the votes in answer to said question is in the negative those elective officers who, on the date of said election, were elected by proportional representation or preferential voting shall continue to be so elected.”

Statute 1972, c. 596, was not enacted (1) on a petition filed or approved by the voters or by the city council of Cambridge, or (2) by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation by the Governor.

The contention of the petitioners is that because St. 1972, c. 596, was enacted in violation of art. 89 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth (the home rule amendment), it has no force and effect, and the respondent is under a duty not to place the question described in Section 3 therein on the official ballot in Cambridge for the biennial State election to be held on November 7, 1972.

Section 1 of art. 89 provides, “It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters, subject to the provisions of this article and to such standards and requirements as the general court may establish by law in accordance with the provisions of this article” (emphasis supplied).

The provisions limiting the power of the Legislature are to be found in Section 8 of the article. On its face it is plain that St. 1972, c. 596, can be classified as a law “in relation to cities and towns” and therefore subject to the restrictions of Section 8. If it be a special law, it is unconstitutional since it was not enacted on a petition filed or approved by the voters or by the city council of Cambridge or by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation of the Governor.

If on the other hand c. 596 can be viewed as a general law applicable “to a class of not fewer than two” cities and towns, there being no obstacle in art. 89 to the enactment of such laws, it is constitutional.

The basic issue thus is whether St. 1972, c. 596, by its terms applicable to a class of “all” cities having proportional representation but in fact only to Cambridge, is to be characterized as a general law applicable to a class of not fewer than two or as a special law within the meaning of Section 8 of art. 89.

In Opinion of the Justices, 356 Mass. 775, we stated that legislation for a multi-purpose stadium, tunnel and an arena was, in most of its aspects, regional legislation having some State-wide effect and was not to be considered as a law “in relation to cities and towns,” and therefore was not subject to the requirements for either general or special laws specified in Section 8. We there noted, “We do not interpret the words ‘to act in relation to cities and towns’ as precluding the Legislature from acting on matters of State, regional, or general concern, even though such action may have special effect upon one or more individual cities or towns. If the predominant purposes of a bill are to achieve State, regional, or general objectives, we think that, as heretofore, the Legislature possesses legislative power, unaffected by the restrictions in art. 89, Section 8. On the other hand, in instances where the primary purpose of a major and severable portion of a bill, otherwise enacted for State, regional, or general purposes, is to legislate ‘with respect to . . . [the] local government,’ or ‘local matters,’ of a particular city or town, it may be necessary to consider whether in the particular circumstances that severable major portion complies with Section 8 of art. 89. pp. 787-788.

In our view the last quoted sentence is fully applicable to c. 596, Section 3. That section provides for a question to be placed on a municipal ballot which, if approved by the voters in Cambridge, will alter the method by which the city council and the school committee are elected in that city. It is directly and solely concerned with altering a crucial feature of municipal government. If the words “in relation to cities and towns” are to be given any meaning they must be applicable to this statute. Therefore, c. 596, Section 3, must be subject to the requirements of art. 89, Section 8.

We thus consider whether c. 596, Section 3, applies alike “to all cities, or to all towns, or to all cities and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two.” That c. 596, Section 3, is phrased in general terms, and is, arguably, potentially applicable to cities in addition to Cambridge at some indefinite future time, is not sufficient to meet the test which Section 8 of art. 89 establishes. When enacted, c. 596, Section 3, was applicable in fact only to Cambridge. That it was phrased in general or specific terms does not control under Section 8, which prescribes a clear and simple test of minimum applicability. In Opinion of the Justices, 357 Mass. 831, we pointed out relative to an act affecting the towns of Southwick and West Springfield that it met the test of a general law within the meaning of the first sentence of art. 89, Section 8, and, hence, did not need to be enacted in accordance with the special procedures for special laws there defined. That case involved two towns, a situation quite different from that which confronts us here.

We said in Mayor of Gloucester v. City Clerk of Gloucester, 327 Mass. 460, 464, “No municipality has any vested right in its form of local government. All such matters are subject to the paramount authority of the Legislature, which may change, and even abolish, at will.” However, the relevance of this and other cases decided prior to 1966 has been considerably diminished, if not erased. The adoption of art. 89 “effected substantial changes in the legislative powers of the General Court and the cities and towns.” Opinion of the Justices, 356 Mass. 775, 787.

In sum, art. 89 was adopted by the people to prevent precisely the type of legislation which is represented by St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3.

It is for this reason that, by our order dated October 6, 1972, we have directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to print the question contained in St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3, on the official ballot for the biennial State election of Cambridge.

Note on Gaspard D'Andelot Belin

Guy D. Belin (May 30, 1918 – April 15, 2003; also referred to as Don Belin) was elected to the Cambridge City Council in 1961. He resigned effective November 13, 1962 to take a position in Kennedy Administration as General Counsel to the United States Treasury. (He was McGeorge Bundy's brother-in-law.) Cornelia (Connie) Wheeler was easily elected on his redistributed vote on November 16, 1972 in the Vacancy Recount.

He and his wife Harriett Bundy Belin are buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

Grave of Don Belin

March 2 - I see that there’s an 81 page Annual Surveillance Report posted in advance of this coming Monday’s Cambridge City Council meeting. In recent years there have been even more voluminous reports. My question is simply this: “How much staff time is occupied assembling these reports?”

March 1, 2023 – My mother was born 100 years ago today. Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon was released 50 years ago today.

MLC1941 Pink Floyd

Breathe
(Waters, Gilmour, Wright) 2:44

Breathe, breathe in the air.
Don’t be afraid to care.
Leave but don’t leave me.
Look around and choose your own ground.

Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you’ll give and tears you’ll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be.

Run, rabbit run.
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don’t sit down it’s time to dig another one.

For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

A Personal Note

Feb 14, 2023 - Valentine’s Day this year marks the 45th anniversary of my moving to Cambridge (and I've lived in the same building the entire time). Moving Day in 1978 for me was the first day the roads were fully open for the Greyhound Bus to make the trip from New York City to Boston after the Blizzard of 1978. That year I covered the rent by tutoring area college students in mathematics, physics, and chemistry based in little notices I stapled onto various message boards at MIT, Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University. I had already applied to graduate school at MIT, but I would not learn that I had been accepted (with a Teaching Fellowship) until (appropriately) April Fools Day. When I got the phone call informing me that I had been accepted, I literally jumped for joy. Unfortunately, I was standing in a doorway at the time and managed to slam my head into the top of the doorway yielding a rather dramatic bleeding head wound minutes before the doorbell rang with a student coming over for tutoring. She was a nursing student, took a look at the blood streaming down my face, and said simply, “You ought to do something about that.”

45 years laters (and more than 35 years after buying my building), I’m still here, still teaching, and most likely couldn’t now jump high enough to hit the top of the doorway. - Robert Winters

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board

Feb 6, 2023 – The City of Cambridge is seeking members to serve on the Planning Board. All Cambridge residents are invited to apply. City Seal

The Planning Board is made up of Cambridge residents who make recommendations and decisions about urban development on behalf of the City of Cambridge. The Planning Board has seven full members and two associate members who are appointed by the City Manager, and then approved by the City Council. Members generally serve a 5-year term. All members can participate in Planning Board discussions.

The Planning Board meets regularly in a public forum to discuss the city’s urban planning objectives, and apply them in the following ways:

Reviewing major urban development proposals, granting certain types of special permits when they are needed, and putting conditions on special permit approval. The Planning Board reviews about 20-25 special permit cases each year.
Reviewing proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, which sets rules for urban development, and making recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Board reviews about 10-15 proposed zoning amendments each year.
Making recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) on some cases. The BZA is a different board that grants some special permits and variances.
Discussing other city planning efforts.

Anyone who lives in Cambridge can apply to serve on the Planning Board. You don’t need to be a homeowner. The city is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, Black, Indigenous and other people of color, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

No specific professional background is needed to serve on the Planning Board. However, since a big part of the Planning Board’s role is reviewing building plans and designs, it is important that members have a strong interest and enthusiasm for urban design and how it shapes the community. Successful members of the Planning Board will be able to:

Engage in a constructive discussion of urban planning topics, including urban design, transportation, housing, infrastructure planning, public space, and other topics
Listen to people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives and consider different points of view
Visit and learn about different parts of Cambridge, and bring experience from other cities that members have visited, lived in, or learned about
Ask critical questions and make sure to get clear answers
Work toward constructive solutions to complex problems
Collaborate and build consensus with a group of people
Learn about and understand the laws related to planning and zoning
Make reasonable decisions on behalf of the City that follow those laws

We strongly suggest that people who are interested in the Planning Board attend or watch a Planning Board meeting. Visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard to learn about upcoming meetings. Archived video of meetings can be found on the city’s website here (then scroll to “Available Archives” / “Planning Board”).

By state law, all board members need to complete training in ethics and conflict-of-interest laws. The city’s Law Department also provides training and assistance to Planning Board members on legal issues. The city provides training to employees on topics including Preventing Sexual Harassment and Valuing Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These trainings will be available to Planning Board members and may be required.

The Planning Board is supported by professional planning staff in the Community Development Department, with added support from the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Department of Public Works, and others. Staff give written reports to Planning Board members on cases that are before them, and are also available if members have questions. Staff may also develop training on other topics that are relevant to the Planning Board’s work and may direct Planning Board members to training offered by outside organizations.

The Planning Board usually meets 2-4 times each month on Tuesday evenings at 6:30pm. Meetings can last about 3-4 hours. Members are expected to attend most meetings.

The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law usually requires meetings to be in person. However, the Planning Board has been meeting remotely under the temporary Open Meeting Law provisions established during the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue to meet remotely through March 2023. For remote meetings, Planning Board members will need to have a computer or other device with an internet connection, camera, and microphone that can support video conferencing. It is also helpful to have a private place to attend remote meetings without distractions.

Members can expect to spend about 2-4 hours before each meeting reviewing materials such as plans and documents, which are sent to members about 5 days before each meeting. Some members find it helpful to visit sites that they are reviewing in person, but it is not required.

Starting in January 2023, Planning Board members will get $6,000 per year as a stipend. This stipend is meant to offset the annual out-of-pocket costs that members might need to pay to make it possible to serve on the Planning Board, such as child care, transportation, and other expenses.

People interested in being considered should apply by using the city’s online application system at www.cambridgema.gov/apply and selecting “Planning Board” in the list of Current Vacancies. You can also obtain a paper application in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. During the application process, you should provide a cover letter to explain why you are interested in being on the Planning Board, and a résumé or summary of applicable experience. Experience can include both professional and volunteer work.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, March 6, 2023.

If you have questions, contact Swaathi Joseph in the Community Development Department at 617-349-4668 or sjoseph@cambridgema.gov or visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard.

Foundry Family Festival

A week of Arts and STEM programming for the community!

Date: Saturday, February 18 - Saturday, February 25, 2023
‍Time: Various
Location: The Foundry, 101 Rogers St., Cambridge

The Foundry building will be bustling with free or pay-what-you-can public programming, to allow makers and artists of all ages to spend the school break opening their minds, connecting with new artists and makers in the area, and all in all, creating!

To honor the undeniable power of community voice that made The Foundry what it is today, the theme of the festival is storytelling – embracing the power of dialogue and sharing our stories to build bridges and community.

All ages and skill levels are welcome to participate in as many activities as you are excited about.

Each day of programming will feature a show from Liars & Believers: A Story Beyond. Grab your tickets for the show here!

Library to Offer Passes to the Museum of African American History

Feb 3, 2023 – Cambridge Public Library is offering free passes to the Museum of African American History (MAAH) beginning in February. The passes to the Museum of African American History are made possible by the generous support of the Friends of the Cambridge Public Library.

Located on Beacon Hill, which was the center of the Black community in Boston in the 17th century, the MAAH is the pre-eminent repository of African American history in Boston. The museum holds a collection of over 3,000 items, which chronicle a journey that began in Africa, across the middle passage, to Boston as early as 1638. Items in the museum’s collection also celebrate the important role that Boston’s small but influential free Black and abolitionist community, who planted a foothold in the city by building gathering places, founding businesses, and establishing schools, and whose actions played in the national story from the birth of the nation through the 20th century. “The Library is pleased to enter into a partnership with the Museum of African American History that will result in greater access to the Museum’s resources,” said Director of Libraries, Dr. Maria McCauley. “We look forward to partnering with the MAAH.”

To qualify for a free museum pass to the MAAH and other museums, patrons must present a valid Minuteman library card in good standing. Only one pass per household may be borrowed for any one day, and patrons are allowed to borrow each museum pass once every 30 days. “We are thrilled to offer access to the MAAH to our community,” said Diana Fendler, Manager of Adult Services, “these passes will provide access to a wealth of resources that community members will appreciate.” Passes may be picked up at the patron’s convenience at the Main Library or a branch location during Library hours, and do not have to be returned. In addition to the MAAH, the Library offers free or discounted admission to Boston’s Children’s Museum, the Harvard Museums of Science and Culture, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts, the New England Aquarium, the USS Constitution Museum, and Zoo New England. Please visit the service page for museum passes to learn more about discounted passes provided by the Library.

Launch of the 2023 Cambridge Black History Stroll, presented by the Cambridge Museum of History and Culture, will take place in Kendall Square on Saturday, February 4 at 2:00pm.

It will be very cold out, but this exhibit will be entirely indoors, in the lobby of Kendall Center, 355-325 Main Street, Cambridge, and will feature a short speaking program and light refreshments.

The focus of this year’s exhibit is upon Black Entrepreneurs and Black Excellence, and shall shine a spotlight on the following individuals: Erinn Pearson, Kathleen Walcott, Adina White, Artis and AJ Spears, Alice Freeman, Charles Lenox, Floyd Freeman, Gustave Solomons, Marvin Gilmore, Deborah Laverne Anderson, the Dunbar Association, Emory J. Clark, Everton C. Johnson, Henry F. Owens, Joshua Bowen Smith, and Murray Thames.

This is an excellent opportunity to learn about the rich history of Black residents of Cambridge and to celebrate Black History Month.

The Cambridge Museum of History and Culture Black History Stroll 2023: Black Entrepreneurship & Economic Empowerment

Floyd Freeman, Denise Simmons, Red Mitchell (?)

Jan 31 - Please be advised that Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey has ordered that the United States of America Flag and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag be lowered to half-staff at all state buildings beginning immediately today until sunset on January 31, 2023, the day of interment, in honor of the life and legacy of former Representative Alice K. Wolf, who passed away on January 26, 2023.

This gubernatorial order applies to:
1. The main or administration building of each public institution of the Commonwealth, e.g. town and city halls
2. Other state-owned or state-controlled buildings
3. All state military installations

Jan 28 - Former Mayor Alice Wolf passed away on Thursday, January 26, 2023 after a short battle with leukemia at the age of 89.

WOLF, Alice K. (Koerner) - Former Democratic member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (1997-2013), member of the Cambridge City (1984-1994), Mayor of Cambridge (1990-1992), member of the Cambridge School Committee (1974-1982) died on Thursday, January 26, 2022 after a short battle with leukemia. Alice Wolf worked to make government accessible to all and make it work hardest for society’s most vulnerable. Her focus was early childhood education, children at risk, and equality & equity for all people (especially women, racial and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community). Her vision and compassion led her to pursue goals and policy solutions years, sometimes decades, ahead of common recognition of a need. For 67 years, she was the beloved wife of Robert A. Wolf. Loving mother of Eric J. and Adam N. Wolf. Adored grandmother of 4 and great-grandmother of 4. A private funeral for family & friends will be held on Tuesday, January 31st. A public celebration of Alice’s life and work will be announced at a later date. Shiva will be observed at the family home, Wednesday and Thursday from 4-7pm. (Per Alice’s wishes, masks will be required at both the funeral and shiva). In lieu of flowers, please consider a donation to Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), www.massadvocates.org or the Cambridge Community Center, www.cambridgecc.org.
Published by Boston Globe from Jan. 28 to Jan. 29, 2023. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/bostonglobe/name/alice-wolf-obituary?id=39091726

Alice Wolf Wikipedia page

Former Cambridge mayor Alice Wolf, an advocate for refugees and LGBTQ equality, dies at 89 (Boston Globe, by Bryan Marquard)

Alice Wolf, Evelyn Murphy - April 1990

Fred Salvucci, Alice Wolf - July 1990

City of Cambridge 2023 Scholarship Applications Now Available

Jan 25, 2023 – Applications for the 2023 City of Cambridge Scholarship are currently being accepted. The annual Scholarship Fund, now in its 31st year, provides financial assistance to college-bound high school seniors and other Cambridge residents who wish to pursue post-secondary education. Applicants can submit their application completely online at Cambridgema.gov/cityscholarship. City Seal

In 2022, the City of Cambridge awarded 81 scholarships of $3,000 each for a total of $243,000. Since the program’s inception in 1993, the city has awarded 1,269 scholarships totaling $3.2 million. With the increasing cost of higher education, these scholarships help ease the financial burden for many Cambridge individuals and families.

Listed below are the Scholarship application eligibility requirements:

Must be a resident of Cambridge (All ages may apply);
Must be attending, received admittance to, or have an application pending at an accredited education institution beyond high school level prior to award date of May 2023;
Scholarship is paid directly to education institution and must be used during 2023-2024 academic year;
Prior recipients are NOT eligible as the City Scholarship Award is one-time only.

The City of Cambridge Scholarship fund is administered by the Finance Department. A Scholarship Committee comprised of six Cambridge residents appointed by the Cambridge City Manager, reviews all applications and selects the scholarship recipients. Applications are evaluated and ranked based on academic achievement, financial need, community, and extracurricular activities, and special circumstances.

The deadline for the 2023 scholarship application and all supporting documentation will be Monday, March 6, 2023. Questions and requests for paper applications via mail can be directed to the Finance Department at 617-349-4220 or Scholarships@cambridgema.gov.

The Scholarship Program is possible thanks to the generosity of Cambridge residents and businesses. Contributions can be made online through the contributions link at Cambridgema.gov/cityscholarship or via mail to: City of Cambridge Scholarship Fund, City of Cambridge, P.O. Box 2005, Cambridge, MA 02139.

Concerns about Garden Street and environs - a letter from Beth Gamse and Judith Singer

From: Beth Gamse
Date: January 12, 2023
To: City Manager; City Councillors; City Clerk; Dept. of Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Subject: Concerns about Garden Street and environs

January 12, 2023

Dear City Manager,
CC: City Council Members, City Clerk, and Acting Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department

We write to you to express concerns about the recent changes on Garden Street, which have caused numerous unintended consequences on nearby streets and on the overall system of interconnected streets in western Cambridge. We are residents of one of those nearby streets – Walker Street – and are homeowners, taxpayers, and avid pedestrians.

Over the past year, we have attended all of the informational sessions about changes to Massachusetts Avenue as well as each community meeting about changes to Garden Street, and many City Council meetings at which street safety was a topic. Because our primary mode of transportation is on foot, we are especially interested in pedestrian safety, and we support the City’s commitment to improved safety for its residents and visitors. We appreciate the efforts made by the City, including the City Manager as well as the Traffic, Parking and Transportation (TPT) Department to engage in outreach to the community and conduct research about then-planned, since-implemented changes. However, in our opinion – and those of many of our neighbors on affected streets – the communication efforts and data collection/analyses fall far short of intended goals. Below, we outline specific issues and questions (in bold and italicized) about which we would deeply appreciate a response.

Communication and Participation

TPT engaged in a number of efforts to inform residents about proposed changes, including use of postcards to selected residential/business addresses in the neighborhoods thought to be most likely to experience disruption and posted placards announcing upcoming public meetings. This well-intentioned outreach did not take into account the fact that many people who use Garden Street do not live in the immediate catchment area; rather, they use Garden Street to get somewhere else, and now they use Raymond, Walker, Concord, Bond, Robinson, Madison, Huron, and Walden, among other local streets. From what we understand (based on comments from Representative Decker and other Raymond Street residents at the first and second Listening Sessions in November), Raymond Street residents were not included in the initial outreach about changes to Garden Street even though it [Raymond] is arguably one of the most adversely affected streets. Other than the Listening Sessions and periodic updates on the TPT website, how does the City plan to communicate its decisions about any updates and/or changes in implementation of Garden Street Safety Improvement efforts to ensure that information is available/provided to residents across the city’s system of interconnected streets?

Our understanding of the Garden Street Project is that it is part of a “Quick-Build” approach to make progress toward the Networked Streets and the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO). Recently, low concrete curbs were placed on Garden Street between Walker Street and the intersection with Concord Avenue, further narrowing the space available to motorists. Can the City please describe how installing concrete barriers is part of the “Quick Build” solutions? Additionally, how will snowplows navigate when snow renders the barriers less visible?

Project costs are not transparent. As taxpayers, we believe residents should be informed about the City’s budget, and the City should be transparent about how it allocates resources. When residents asked about additional pedestrian crossings across Garden Street at the Listening Sessions, we were told that because curb cuts able to accommodate universal access (e.g., wheelchairs, strollers) would require additional infrastructure costs, no additional crosswalks were possible with incurring capital costs. However, even though the installed bicycle lanes are designed as “quick-build” projects that do not include structural changes, the new concrete barriers clearly represent additional infrastructure costs to install – and plow around. How has the City communicated about planned/expected CSO costs to its citizens? When the CSO was passed by the City Council in 2019, was there a projected budget? How much has been allocated/spent so far?

There is little information about intra-departmental communication with other City agencies, including the Fire, Police, Public Works, School, and local hospital/emergency service providers. Informal communication with a dozen police officers assigned to monitor traffic patterns in the weeks after the Garden Street implementation (on Shepard, Garden, Raymond, Bond) revealed they were blind-sided by the changes, and were dismayed about the increased vehicular speeds on Garden and Raymond in particular, despite the speed alert signs. Walker Street, without the electric speed alert signs, has also seen increased vehicular speeds and volume. We raise this issue because we have observed – on multiple occasions – emergency vehicles blocked from traveling eastward on Garden Street because there is nowhere for cars to pull over. On a related note, the state recently passed a new law governing the minimum distance (4 feet) between cars and those who are “vulnerable,” including pedestrians, cyclists, and those engaged in the provision of emergency services (see the Boston Globe, January 3, 2023): “Pedestrians, cyclists gain protections with new law meant to reduce traffic deaths.” While the separated bike lanes may provide close to the required 4 feet, there is insufficient room to provide that distance to emergency vehicles anywhere on Garden Street between Huron Avenue and Arsenal Street. Can the City please describe pre- and post-implementation communication with other departments to ensure that emergency vehicles have the clearance required to pass traffic on Garden Street?

Listening Sessions both in person and via Zoom have always begun not with listening but with presentations by City staff; attendees have only been allowed to voice comments after City staff presentations. While many attendees of these events have noted that they are city residents, many have reported that they live elsewhere, and traverse Cambridge streets to reach their respective destinations. Despite the fact that the sessions were seemingly designed for residents of the affected neighborhoods – the people whose taxes support our city – too many residents were not even able to speak in thee time allotted for feedback, as individuals from other communities voiced their opinions. Can City officials explain why non-residents have equal speaking priority at meetings for Cambridge residents?

It is not clear that feedback provided at the Listening Sessions registers with the City. TPT personnel have described minor and incremental changes while indicating that the overwhelming majority of comments have been in favor of the current arrangement on Garden Street. The two in-person November listening sessions we attended at the Graham and Parks School were overwhelmingly dominated by residents who are concerned about the unintended consequences and whose questions to TPT remain unanswered; the January 4 Zoom session included both those who applaud the Garden Street Safety Project and those who asked the City to reconsider the Garden Street Safety Project, whether in part or whole. Additionally, the recent TPT report indicated that there is strong support for the changes to Garden Street, yet did not acknowledge the substantial community concerns raised at the Listening Sessions. As a result, it is not clear that the City is indeed listening to residents’ concerns. Can the City Manager, TPT, and the City Council please indicate whether any aspects of the project will be reconsidered, and when?

Nomenclature and word choice matter. The name “Garden Street Safety Project” does not communicate the nature of the project clearly or effectively. This project is exclusively driven by the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and while there have been some mentions of pedestrian safety in TPT presentations, they are clearly secondary. It is MORE challenging now than before October 28, 2022, to be a pedestrian on Walker Street, Raymond Street, Shepard Street, and Garden Street, because cars AND bicycles travel too fast, do not heed traffic light signals, stop or yield signs. Ironically, the 2023 parking permits for the City include a sticker for car owners to place on side view mirrors about checking for bikes, but there is no such sticker about checking for pedestrians. Sadly, in the most recent year, approximately 10 times as many pedestrians died in car-related accidents than cyclists in our state (99 and 10, respectively). As long as this project continues, can the City consider renaming this project to indicate what it is – a protected bicycle lane project – rather than (mis)representing it as creating safety for all, which it is not?

The majority of bicyclists and scooterists are using the lanes as intended. Unfortunately, those who do not risk endangering themselves as well as pedestrians, other cyclists, and drivers when traveling outside the designated lanes whether in the street or on sidewalks, in the wrong direction, and when ignoring traffic signs. We have had to jump out of harm’s way too many times to count when using crosswalks or “Walk” signs on Mass Ave, Garden, Shepard, Raymond, Linnaean, and Follen Streets, because cyclists/scooterists neither stop nor yield. What are the City’s plans for communicating with bicyclists and scooterists about respecting pedestrian safety and heeding traffic signs?

Notably, only a handful of City Councillors have attended some of the in-person “listening sessions,” and our City Manager has not; it is not possible to discern who attends the Zoom sessions as a listener. The recent TPT report includes a statement to residents from City Manager Yi-An Huang, including the following:

The reality is that many people feel unheard, and there is a broader challenge about how we make decisions when people disagree….For the City’s part, I recognize that there is work to do to improve our communication, transparency, and responsiveness, and this is a priority for me.

Can the City Manager, in particular, describe his efforts to improve communication, transparency, and responsiveness about the Garden Street Safety Project?

The City’s commitment to the CSO and the Vision Zero initiatives are laudable, yet the City’s decisions to proceed have not all been transparent nor have been shared in a manner that invites public participation in decision-making. Cambridge residents have not voted directly on either of these initiatives, for example, but instead have voted for City Council candidates who share their broad philosophies and vision for the City. Can the City use a process like a ballot question or the Participatory Budgeting to ask residents about their priorities with respect to these two initiatives? In the most recent round of Participatory Budgeting, for example, we find it telling that none of the selected projects was focused on bicycle safety but instead on other priorities for residents.

Data collection/analysis

The recent TPT report indicates the TPT Department recognizes that the process could have been improved. It also indicates that the City will continue to collect data about implementation. Because so much of the city population adheres to an academic calendar, data collection from mid-December through the end of January is unlikely to be sufficient to provide a clear understanding of the impacts of the traffic changes. Can the City describe the planned data collection for the future? Will the City ensure that sufficient data are collected – on a range of days, times of day and times of year – to demonstrate to residents that their lived experiences of the effects of these changes are represented validly and reliably? We live on an affected street and are out-and-about several times a day most days of the year. There is great variation over time that does not appear to have been captured by the measurements to date.
The report presented information about average speeds on affected streets. However, information about averages alone is not sufficient – the distribution is also important to know because averages mask variation. The major speed issue isn’t about “average speed,” it’s about the faster speeds that many motorists – and frankly cyclists/scooterists, especially those with motorized devices – are achieving. As you consider expanding the amount of data collection over multiple days and times of day, please collect information on the entire distribution of speeds.
Selection of independent third-party urban planning/traffic management organization to collect/analyze data given talent in Cambridge. Governments are wise to contract with independent consultants to evaluate the effects of policy changes. Having the same people who implement the policy evaluate its effects does not provide the level of arms-length assessment needed given the felt impacts of these changes on residents. Will the city commit to a quality independent assessment of the impact of these changes?

Beth Gamse, bethgamse@gmail.com, 617-448-4860
Judith D. Singer, Judith_singer@harvard.edu, 617-999-4701
14 Walker St, Cambridge, MA 02138

Comments?

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Cambridge Climate Committee

Jan 10, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking people interested in serving on the Cambridge Climate Committee. City Seal

The Climate Committee is a volunteer group of community members who work together to provide feedback and ideas to the City on topics related to climate change. It was formerly known as the Climate Protection Action Committee. The Committee is made up of 15 members who are appointed by the City Manager. All 15 seats are currently open to applicants. Regular members generally serve a 2-year term.

The Climate Committee has three roles that help the City reduce climate change impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase equity, and serve as a partner to and example for other communities:

Provide feedback and ideas to the City on ways to reduce and live with climate change while prioritizing the needs of the most at-risk populations.
Share information about City climate programs with community members, listen to community concerns, and raise feedback with City staff so programs effectively serve all community members.
Stay informed about the City’s climate goals and provide accountability and feedback on barriers and opportunities to improve effectiveness.

All Climate Committee members must live or work in Cambridge. There is no age requirement. There is no requirement for a technical background to serve on the Committee; members should be interested in and understand climate change through lived or work experience. Members will have deep connections to communities in Cambridge, especially those most impacted by climate change, so that the Committee can represent the diversity of the city.

Members of the Climate Committee should be able to:

Participate in a collaborative process with other Committee members
Consider diverse ideas and perspectives
Show connections to the broader community
Be interested in learning more about the impacts of climate change
Actively contribute to meetings in dialogue with City staff and other community members
Members do not need to have technical knowledge or knowledge of the City’s plans, but should be open to learning more about these and sharing with their communities

The Climate Committee currently meets on the second Thursday of each month for two hours in the evening; however this schedule may be changed to accommodate Committee needs and member schedules. The standard term is 2 years, beginning in April 2023.

Members are expected to attend all meetings, and should expect to spend an average of 1-2 hours each month outside of meeting time on activities such as:

sharing information and opportunities for engagement on City climate initiatives with their communities
collecting feedback on initiatives or programs to share back with the Committee
planning events
reviewing programs/projects.

The City is currently holding meetings of the Committee remotely using Zoom and may transition to hybrid or in-person meetings in the future.

Individuals interested in being considered should apply using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply and selecting “Cambridge Climate Committee” in the list of Current Vacancies. A resume and cover letter describing why you want to join the committee, or an overview of relevant experience, can be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. For more information about the application process, please contact Francesca Gaines is the City Manager's Office at 617-349-4300 or emailing fgaines@Cambridgema.gov. The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, February 27, 2023.

Members Sought for Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity

Jan 10, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking members of the community who live and/or work in Cambridge (including private sector and municipal employees, business owners, students, and others) to become a part of the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity. City Seal

The mission of the City of Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity is to foster fairness, equity, unity, appreciation, and mutual understanding across all people and entities in Cambridge.

The Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity meets monthly and works to provide opportunities for constructive discussions and community events regarding race, class, religion, gender, abilities, and sexual orientation, through recognizing and raising awareness of historic, existing, and potential civic issues; providing opportunities for honest dialogue and engagement; and by building bridges across communities to better understand and connect with one another.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.

Applications can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and or letter of interest can also be submitted during the online application process.  Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The application deadline is Mon, Feb 13, 2023. If you have question about the application process, please contact Francesca Gaines in the City Manager’s Office at 617-349-4300 or fgaines@Cambridgema.gov.

Volunteers Sought to Serve on the Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship

Jan 10, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking volunteers to serve on the Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship (CIRC). City Seal

Cambridge welcomes immigrants and works to support their success and access to opportunity and advancement. CIRC acts as a centralizing organization in Cambridge to address immigrant rights and citizenship issues by providing information, referrals, and guidance to residents seeking assistance. CIRC also coordinates and collaborates with other city departments and external organizations and individuals that support immigrant rights and citizenship.

The Commission consists of 11 members appointed to three-year terms. Meetings are typically held on the fourth Tuesday of every month at 6:00pm, though the meeting schedule may be reassessed to accommodate Commissioners’ needs.

Commissioners are expected to work with other members of the Commission and CIRC staff, including the newly established Language Justice Division, to fulfill the goals and objectives of the Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship Ordinance (Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.123).

Commissioners should be knowledgeable about immigrant rights and citizenship, preferably with lived experience as an immigrant to the United States, and must be Cambridge residents. The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, February 6, 2023. Applications can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the city’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply.  A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications can also be obtained at the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. For more information, contact Jennifer Mathews at 617-349-4396 or jmathews@cambridgema.gov.

Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission Members Sought

Jan 10, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking volunteers to fill vacancies on the Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission. City Seal

The Commission’s mission is to advocate for a culture of respect and to monitor progress toward equality of all persons with regard to sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression. The Commission also promotes policies and practices that have a positive effect on the health, welfare, and safety of LGBTQ+ persons who live, visit, or work in the City of Cambridge.

The Commission holds a public meeting on the 4th Thursday of each month (with an alternate meeting date in November/December and no meeting in August). Though scheduled meetings are required, much of the work done by Commissioners is often outside of scheduled meetings through working groups. Commissioners work together and with city staff to achieve the goals and objectives of the LGBTQ+ Commission Ordinance, through public outreach events, in-depth research projects, development of new programming, referrals for services, and collaboration across City departments.

The LGBTQ+ Commission consists of up to 20 members appointed by the City Manager to serve three-year terms. Individuals who live or work in Cambridge are eligible to apply. The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. We are seeking members of all ages, gender identities, sexual orientations, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and abilities to join the Commission.

Applications to serve on the Commission can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The deadline to submit an application is Monday, February 6, 2023. To learn more about the Commission please visit Cambridgema.gov/LGBTQPlusCommission.

Members Sought for Three Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commissions

Jan 9, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking to fill vacancies for members and alternate members the following Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) Commissions: Mid-Cambridge, Avon Hill, and Half Crown-Marsh. City Seal

Neighborhood Conservation Districts were established by city ordinance in 1983. Conservation district designation recognizes a distinctive physical environment that reflects the architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city. NCDs foster wider public knowledge and appreciation of such neighborhoods. Designation encourages the conservation and maintenance of these areas so that the city may be a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work.

Each NCD commission includes five members and three alternates. Most members must reside in the respective district. More information and maps of each NCD are available through the following links:

Mid-Cambridge NCD, Cambridgema.gov/midcambridgencd
Avon Hill NCD, Cambridgema.gov/avonhillncd
Half Crown-Marsh NCD, Cambridgema.gov/halfcrownmarshncd

The volunteer commissions meet monthly and are supported by the professional staff of the Cambridge Historical Commission. Applicants should have an interest in architecture and local history and be committed to conserving and enhancing the characteristic built environment of the neighborhood.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.

Experience in the fields of real estate, architecture, or historic preservation is desirable. Appointments to these Commissions are made by the City Manager, with regard for a diversity of viewpoints and experience.

Individuals interested in being considered should apply through the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply and select the respective commission. A cover letter and résumé or summary of applicable experience can be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available through the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, February 6, 2023.

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang Seeks Volunteers to Serve on New LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force

Jan 9, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking volunteers to serve on a new LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force. City Seal

The Task Force will consider opportunities for new or revised practices and procedures to improve LGBTQ+ persons’ access to, and inclusion in, existing housing. The Task Force will also evaluate possibilities for new housing to be more LGBTQ+-friendly. The Task Force will issue a final report with concrete recommendations and action plans for ensuring LGBTQ+ housing access, safety, and inclusivity in Cambridge.

Applicants are sought from various backgrounds and stakeholder groups, including, but not limited to:

Affordable housing providers, Private real estate developers, Individuals who have worked on LGBTQ+-friendly housing efforts in other municipalities, Residents with lived experience as members of the LGBTQ+ community familiar with or searching for inclusive housing, and residents with experience related to and/or regarding housing inequity who seek to participate in developing LGBTQ+ inclusive housing opportunities.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Members of the LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force will represent a diverse cross-section of the community and must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Members of the LGBTQ+ community, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.

The Task Force is anticipated to be approximately 15 members, with two co-chairs appointed by the City Manager. The full Task Force will meet eight to ten times between March 2023 and January 2024. Smaller working groups may investigate specific topics and report back to the full Task Force. Working groups are anticipated to meet more frequently. Meetings of the full Task Force will be open to the public.

If you are interested in being considered for the LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force, please apply online at Cambridgema.gov/apply. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. When applying, please submit a cover letter or brief statement of interest, and a résumé or summary of relevant experience. The application deadline is Monday, February 6, 2023.

Please contact Jennifer Mathews, LGBTQ+ Commission Executive Director, at jmathews@cambridgema.gov or 617-349-3355, or Maura Pensak, Housing Liaison, at mpensak@cambridgema.gov or 617-349-6337, with any questions about the LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force or application process.

Rules? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ rules!

Jan 8, 2023 - Among other tasks, I updated my copy of the 2022-23 City Council Rules. Here’s one that has been ignored for the current term as well as the two previous terms:
Rule 28. Every committee of the City Council to which any subject may be referred shall report on the subject within a reasonable time from the time of referral.…

For example, here are some City Council committee meetings in this term that have failed to be reported more than 2 months after meeting:
Ordinance Committee (2022): Mar 30, Apr 13, Apr 20 [Co-Chairs: McGovern, Zondervan] - 3 missing
Finance (2022): Feb 16, Feb 23, Mar 2, Apr 20 [Co-Chairs: Carlone, Nolan] - 4 missing
Health & Environment (2022): Mar 1, Mar 8, Mar 23, Mar 29, June 7, June 23, Nov 16 [Chair: Nolan] - 7 missing
Gov’t Operations (2022): Apr 26 [Chair: Mallon] - 1 missing
Housing (2022): Sept 13 [Chair: Simmons] - 1 missing
Econ. Development & University Relations (2022): Apr 13, June 15 [Chair: Toner] - 2 missing
Transportation & Public Utilities (2022): May 5, June 28 [Chair: Azeem] - 2 missing
Human Services & Veterans (2022): June 16 [Chair: McGovern] - 1 missing
Civic Unity (2022): Sept 29 [Chair: Simmons] - 1 missing
Public Safety (2022): May 18 [Chair: Zondervan] - 1 missing

This never happened prior to the last two City Council terms.

Catching Up on the (Official) Cambridge News

JOHN ROBERT CLIFFORD 1944 - 2023

You learn something new (and old) every day

Nuggets from the Cambridge Chronicle Archives

Members Sought for Cambridge Conservation Commission

Catching Up on the (Official) Cambridge News

Words of Wisdom (sent to me by a friend)

Members Sought for Cambridge Committee on Public Planting

Members Sought for Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Transit Advisory Committee

City of Cambridge to Implement New Citywide Street Cleaning Pilot Program Towing will not be Enforced though Residents Should Still Move Vehicles

Members Sought for Cambridge Public Art Commission

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

The City of Cambridge Unveils Report on Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options

Member Sought for Cambridge Community Benefits Advisory Committee

Members Sought for Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board

City of Cambridge Low-cost Rabies Vaccination Clinic (for dogs only) and Annual Dog Licensing Event Saturday, April 1

Peter Valentine: The Fence Speaks for Itself

What does City Hall lawn and Fort Point Channel have in common?

Rules? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ rules!

Hidden Agenda

Catching Up on the (Official) Cambridge News

A Personal Note

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board

Library to Offer Passes to the Museum of African American History

Catching Up on the (Official) Cambridge News

City of Cambridge 2023 Scholarship Applications Now Available

Awaiting Report

2018-2019 City Council Committees - Awaiting Report (15 total) - now 14 (as of Jan 23, 2023)

2020-2021 City Council Committees - Awaiting Report (40 total) - now 33 (as of Mar 28, 2022)

Concerns about Garden Street and environs - a letter from Beth Gamse and Judith Singer

There’s a Last Time for Everything

Wed, Jan 18

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Cambridge Climate Committee

Members Sought for Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity

Volunteers Sought to Serve on the Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship

Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission Members Sought

City of Cambridge Events Regarding Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting of Sayed Faisal

Members Sought for Three Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commissions

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang Seeks Volunteers to Serve on New LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force

Rules? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ rules!

City of Cambridge to Implement New Citywide Street Cleaning Pilot Program
Towing will not be Enforced though Residents Should Still Move Vehicles

2018-2019 City Council Committees - Awaiting Report
(15 total) - now 14 (as of Jan 23, 2023)

2020-2021 City Council Committees - Awaiting Report
(40 total) - now 33 (as of Mar 28, 2022)