Thurs, Feb 13 - Special Committee of the Whole

3:00pm   The Special Committee of the Whole will hold a public meeting to resume the review and discussion of recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and any additional suggestions from the full City Council pertaining to the Cambridge City Charter. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Dec 9, 2024, that reconvened and recessed again on Jan 27, 2025.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom) [Agenda & Attachments]

Meeting of the Special Committee of the Whole on the City Charter – Monday, January 27, 2025, 11:00am-1:00pm [Agenda]

I was the only person who gave public comment at the previous meeting in December. Presumably there will be others this time, but the unfortunate truth is that even though this is perhaps the single most significant matter now before this City Council, it has been flying almost completely under the radar.

This meeting features 5 additional proposed Charter changes from several city councillors, but the most interesting part of the agenda is the master class response from City Solicitor Megan Bayer that lays out with remarkable clarity the major problems with each of these proposals.

The new proposals are:

(1) give the City Council the power to increase parts of the annual budget by up to 10% compared to what is initially proposed by the City Manager

(2) City Solicitor would be appointed by the City Council

(3) Popularly elected mayor alongside a City Manager similar to Worcester

(4) 4 year (staggered) terms, with elections every 2 years

(5) Department heads appointed by the City Manager and approved by the Council

It is also worth noting, and I will likely address these during Public Comment, that:

(a) At the previous meeting of this Special Committee of the Whole, the councillors dismissed proposals for Resident Assemblies as well as proposed mechanisms for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions. What they perhaps failed to realize is that citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions are part of our current Plan E Charter (by reference) and the apparent intention of the Charter Review Committee was to incorporate those provisions (with some changes) into the new proposed Charter. The action of the Special Committee effectively threw out an existing right to a mechanism for redress by citizens.

(b) The current Plan E Charter imposes severe penalties for Interference by City Council:

Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of, any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and upon final conviction thereof his office in the city council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.

The Proposed Charter addresses Interference by City Council, but conveniently removes all penalties:

3.3 (d) Interference by City Council Prohibited – Except as provided in Section 2-7 and by this charter, neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, office by the city manager or any of their subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except as otherwise provided by this charter, the city council and its members shall not give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately and shall direct all requests for service through the city manager. Nothing in this section shall prevent city council or its members from discussing matters generally with city staff, presuming the city manager is kept informed.

Without severe penalties against improper Council interference, it is likely that councillors would routinely blow past guardrails that protect against political meddling within City departments. I am of the belief that we should have better mechanisms for inquiry into policies and actions taken within City departments, but removal of these necessary guardrails is definitely not the remedy. - Robert Winters

Comments?

Special Committee on Charter Review Meeting – Monday, December 9, 1:00pm-3:00pm [Agenda]

December 5th, 2024
To Mayor Simmons and Members of the Cambridge City Council:

As Co-Chairs of the Special Committee on Charter Review, we have scheduled a meeting on December 9th, 2024, from 1 to 3pm for the full Council to discuss the status of Charter Review process and develop a timeline and plan for advancing recommendations to put forward on the November 4th, 2025 ballot.

In advance, we ask that you review the discussions and materials from the June 5th and June 25th, 2024 Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee meetings. Both meetings began with public comment and were followed by discussions on the Charter Review Committee recommendations, challenges of some of the recommendations, and strategies for moving the process forward.

• June 5th Government Operations meeting (VIDEO)
• June 5th Meeting Agenda and Documents
• June 25th Government Operations Committee Meeting (VIDEO)
• June 25th Meeting Agenda and Documents

At this time, the only decision that has been made is that a two-thirds majority of the Council will be required to advance any recommendations to the Attorney General and/or Legislature, and residents on a future ballot.

Our goal for the December 9th meeting is to review each of the recommendations from the Charter Review Committee. We will schedule a follow-up meeting in January 2025 for items that require more discussion, as well as any additional recommendations from the City Council.

Sincerely,

Paul Toner Co-Chair, Special Committee on Charter Review

Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair, Special Committee on Charter Review

---

The Committee met for 2¼ hours and recessed until a to-be-scheduled next meeting in January. All votes taken were recommendations to the full City Council, held for further discussion, or referrals to the Government Operations Committee for possible future action independent of the Charter revision process.

A. City Manager or Strong Mayor form of Government
Vote was 7-2 to in favor of retaining city manager form. (Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler preferred strong mayor form.)

B. Maintain an at-large city council elected by proportional representation.
Vote was 8-0-1 to retain PR (Simmons Absent).

C. Maintain an at-large city council of 9 members.
Vote was 7-1-1 in favor. (Nolan expressed preference for a mixed system with some district councillors and some at-large. Simmons was Absent.)

D. Enfranchise non-citizens in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent). There were actually two parts to this: (1) allowing non-citizens to vote, and (2) allowing non-citizens to be candidates in municipal elections. Only Councillor Zusy expressed the view that voting rights are intertwined with citizenship.

E. Enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).

F. Move municipal elections to even years.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).

G. Create more flexibility and modernize election voting and tabulation methods in charter language.
Vote was 8-0-1 in favor with directive that Law Department draft appropriate language (Simmons Absent).

H. Participation in and Accessibility of Government for all Residents by creating Resident Assemblies.
Vote was 1-7-1 with only Sobrinho-Wheeler in favor (Simmons Absent).

I. Public tracking mechanisms of council policy orders.
Vote was 1-8 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter. Only Sobrinho-Wheeler was in favor.

J. Effectiveness of Government through Measurable Goalsetting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.

K. Maintain 2-year terms for city councillors.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting. Some councillors expressed view that extending terms might be viewed as self-serving (obviously).
Note: None of the councillors seemed to understand that staggered 4-year terms (5 and 4) would fundamentally change the nature of our PR elections with a much larger election quota and diminution of minority representation. They also failed to understand the need for a recall provision with longer terms - something that is not compatible with our PR elections.]

L. Responsiveness and Accountability through delineating budget process and priority setting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view that this is already done and if any further clarity is needed it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.

M. Give the City Council the power to add or increase line items in the budget.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting.

N. Enshrine resident initiative provision.
Vote was 0-9.

O. Enshrine group petition provision.
Vote was 0-9.

P. Campaign finance study committee.
Vote to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee was 2-7.