Cambridge City Council Notes
updated Friday, May 16, 2008

May 19, 2008
City Council agenda
HTML    PDF 

Agenda on City web site 


City Council Committees 2008-2009
(with links to reports)
updated May 14

Zoning Petitions
being considered or acted upon by the Cambridge City Council
updated May 14


City Council Committees 2006-2007
(with links to reports)
Final - updated Mar 21, 2008


City Council Scoreboard

The distribution of Orders and Resolutions by city councillors can provide insight into how they approach their job and how they spend their time and staff resources. (Orders with multiple sponsors count once in the totals.)
     P - Policy orders
     I - Requests for information from the City Manager and City departments
     R - Rules and procedural items, such as the scheduling of hearings
     M - Maintenance orders: fixing things, putting in stop signs, potholes, traffic, etc.
     D - Death resolutions
     C - Congratulations, get-well wishes, birthdays, naming of street corners, etc.
     A - Announcements of upcoming events, holidays, proclamations, etc.
     F - Foreign and national policy matters

Caveat: Merely filing a City Council order does not mean that constructive results will follow. The more successful initiatives are those accompanied by significant amounts of staff time and effort by the city councillors. On the other hand, some policy orders and requests for information can consume enormous amounts of staff time. The mere filing of such an order can thus be a counterproductive measure if the order is either frivolous or has no hope of leading to a productive result.

Council Orders and Resolutions: 2008
through Apr 7 (incl. Apr 7 late orders)

  P I R M D C A F
Davis

10

6 10 4 7 23 6 0
Decker 7 3 0 3 2 12 3 112
Kelley 10 18 3 5 1 3 1 0
Maher 10 6 0 4 34 5 0 0
Murphy 10 3 0 0 4 1 1 0
Reeves 3 1 1 1 1 15 3 2
Seidel 8 5 3 3 0 2 0 0
Simmons 6 4 3 5 10 47 3 2
Toomey 11 17 3 7 65 11 2 0
Total 47 50 18 25 104 111 15 115

Council Orders and Resolutions
Combined 2006-2007 Final Standings

  P I R M D C A F
Davis

130

69 31 67 35 147 17 6
Decker 51 31 6 32 9 119 10 1570
Galluccio 58 55 6 35 341 151 3 3
Kelley 85 129 14 42 2 39 3 1
Maher* 4 4 0 4 16 8 0 0
Murphy 62 11 13 23 8 99 6 2
Reeves 39 10 6 17 66 446 80 2
Simmons 78 53 19 47 30 147 15 1
Sullivan* 90 69 24 113 763 550 68 4
Toomey 50 37 7 59 276 162 19 4
Total 412 364 96 343 1199 1566 197 1581

* Maher succeeded Sullivan on Sept 10, 2007

Number of Orders and Resolutions
2008 Total: 485
2007 Total: 2779
2006 Total: 2979
2005 Total: 3114
2004 Total: 2144
2003 Total: 2040
2002 Total: 1936
2001 Total: 2102
2000 Total: 2063
1999 Total: 1918
(some figures approximate)

Number of City Council committee
meetings held and reports filed

2008-2009:  1
2006-2007:  114
2004-2005:  148
2002-2003:  145
2000-2001:  153

City Council Committee meetings
chaired and attended (2008-2009)
Councillor Chaired Attended
Davis 1 1
Decker 0 0
Kelley 0 0
Maher 0 0
Murphy 0 0
 Reeves 0 0
Seidel 0 0
Simmons
(Mayor)
Mayor chairs all
Council and School
Committee meetings
0
Toomey 0 0

City Council Committee meetings
chaired and attended (2006-2007)
Final Standings
Councillor Chaired Attended
Davis 16 73
Sullivan 36 61
Kelley 14 61
Murphy 26 50
 Simmons 18 50
Toomey 13 40
Decker 20 34
Galluccio 7 33
Reeves
(Mayor)
Mayor chairs all
Council and School
Committee meetings
26
Maher 0 2

City Council Rules
2006-2007
 
[Rule 26 amended Feb 27, 2006]

City Council Goals - FY2008
(approved Dec 18, 2006)

FY2006 and FY2007
City Council Goals


Scoreboards of Previous City Councils


City Council agendas

May 19, 2008    HTML    PDF 
May 12, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Apr 28, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Apr 14, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Apr 7, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Mar 31, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Mar 24, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Mar 17, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Mar 3, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Feb 11, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Feb 4, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Jan 28, 2008    HTML    PDF 
Jan 14, 2008    HTML    PDF 


Dec 17, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Dec 10, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Dec 3, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Nov 19, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Nov 5, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Oct 29, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Oct 22, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Oct 15, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Sept 24, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Sept 17, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Sept 10, 2007    HTML    PDF 
July 30, 2007    HTML    PDF 
June 25, 2007    HTML    PDF 
June 18, 2007    HTML    PDF 
June 11, 2007    HTML    PDF 
June 4, 2007    HTML    PDF 
May 21, 2007    HTML    PDF 
May 7, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Apr 30, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Apr 23, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Apr 9, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Mar 19, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Mar 5, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Feb 26, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Feb 12, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Feb 5, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Jan 22, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Jan 8, 2007    HTML    PDF 
Dec 18, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Dec 11, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Dec 4, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Nov 20, 2006    HTML    PDF
Nov 6, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Oct 30, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Oct 16, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Sept 25, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Sept 11, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Aug 7, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Aug 2, 2006    HTML    PDF 
June 26, 2006    HTML    PDF 
June 19, 2006    HTML    PDF 
June 12, 2006    HTML    PDF 
June 5, 2006    HTML    PDF 
May 22, 2006    HTML    PDF 
May 15, 2006    HTML    PDF 
May 8, 2006    HTML    PDF 
May 1, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Apr 24, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Apr 3, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Mar 20, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Mar 6, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Feb 27, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Feb 6, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Jan 30, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Jan 23, 2006    HTML    PDF 
Jan 9, 2006    HTML    PDF 

City Council meeting
agendas from 1998-2005

 

Preview of May 12, 2008 City Council meeting:

City Manager's Agenda #16 - Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 08-68, regarding a report on the status of testing, and any associated results for pharmaceutical residue in the City's drinking water supply.

May 12, 2008
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 08-68, regarding a report on the status of testing, and any associated results for pharmaceutical residue in the City's drinking water supply, Managing Director of the Cambridge Water Department Sam Corda reports the following:

The Cambridge Water Department had submitted water samples for pharmaceutical residual compound testing. The results have shown there to be NO pharmaceutical residual compounds in the City of Cambridge’s drinking water.

Test Protocol and Results: The water samples were collected on March 24, 2008 by our laboratory staff and the water quality testing involved 86 different pharmaceutical compounds, a greater number than most other water systems chose to test for. Two samples were collected by Water Department Laboratory Staff. The first was our “drinking water” sample (treated water - water leaving the water treatment facility) and the second was our “raw water” sample (untreated water entering the treatment facility). The official results were received on Monday May 5, 2008 and are as follows:

Drinking Water: 86 pharmaceutical residual compound tests were performed - all were negative.

Raw Water: 86 pharmaceutical residual compound tests were performed – 3 were positive.
Carbamazepine 0.001 µg/l (1 part per trillion) – anticonvulsant
Cotinine 0.002 µg/l (2 parts per trillion) – nicotine metabolite
DEET 0.008 µg/l (8 parts per trillion) – personal mosquito spray

These results show that the processes within our Water Treatment Facility are “destroying” the pharmaceutical compounds. This was the same result as found in the research conducted by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF). The AwwaRF research has found that primary disinfection by “ozonation” is a very effective “destroyer” of these pharmaceutical compounds.

Future Water Quality Testing Plans: The Cambridge Water Department is planning to take another set of samples in September 2008 and compare the results to the March samples. Based on this review the City will define the best time to sample, cold or warm water, and subsequently perform annual sampling and testing of these pharmaceutical compounds.

As a note the cost to perform this round of tests was $2,900.00 ($1,450.00 per sample) to test for 86 different pharmaceutical compounds.

Charter Right #2 - That the Ordinance Committee be directed to draft language to rescind Ordinance #1138 regarding posting of handbills and to prepare new language to provide that non-profit organizations and community groups may post flyers on utility poles with contact information and the responsibility to remove the posters after a specific amount of time. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Order Number Twenty-one of Apr 28, 2008.]

This item is carried over from the last meeting. Councillor Reeves made the most sense in the previous discussion when he noted that this is really a solution in search of a problem. (I don't recall Reeves' exact words.) As with the case of letting people park in the 'No Parking' zones near churches on Sunday, selective enforcement of the existing ordinances makes the most sense. You can't neatly codify every possible human activity - not even in Cambridge.

Resolution #7 - Retirement of Paul J. Schlaver from the Consumer Council/Division of the License Commission.   Mayor Simmons

Paul's a great guy. Everyone should go out an buy him a beer to celebrate his transition to gentleman farmer - just not all at once.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to ask all City Department Heads to provide in writing, within a designated period of time (i.e., 1 year), Standard Operating Procedures for their department that include details of staff positions, functions, and narrative or step-by-step procedures standard operations and functions.   Mayor Simmons
O-6     May 12, 2008
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have long been considered a form of best practice in business and government, allowing for the smooth transition of personnel as administrations change, employees shift roles, or unforeseen circumstances occur including natural and unnatural happenings and disasters; and
WHEREAS: It is a burdensome to new personnel filling vacancies, existing personnel who carry the responsibility of training, and the taxpayers who pay for excessive staff hours that could be replaced by appropriate written Standard Operating Procedures that would provide a step-by-step support to the functions of specific employees and departments, and their programs and functions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to ask all City Department Heads to provide in writing, within a designated period of time (i.e., 1 year), Standard Operating Procedures for their department that include details of staff positions, functions, and narrative or step-by-step procedures standard operations and functions.

This has to be the most cryptic Order I've seen this year. The City Manager is in charge of the operation of the City government. He hires department heads to run the various City functions. Why is a city councillor asking for an extremely detailed account of the management of each department? I was under the impression that the Plan E Charter was adopted so that councillors could focus on policy rather than operational details. What is Mayor Simmons really asking here?

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments on why the youth Hip Hop Concert for Justice sponsored by Centro Presente was cancelled.   Councillor Decker

This could be an entertaining discussion with some unwarranted accusations.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the CEO of the Cambridge Health Alliance to provide the City Council a break-down and further detail regarding the FY08-09 budget for staffing/personnel, services, the Cambridge Teen Health Center, Healthcare for the Homeless, Institute for Community Health, Physician Consultation, and Administrative Services.   Councillor Decker

This sounds like Councillor Decker wants to have the conversation she missed by showing up late to the Budget Hearing last week where the Cambridge Health Alliance answered questions about its FY09 budget. I suppose information is always a good thing, but I look at the $6 million paid each year by the City of Cambridge to the Cambridge Health Alliance more like an insurance policy than as a fee for services. Considering the financial uncertainties in the hospital business, Cambridge did very well in reducing its financial exposure by spinning off the CHA from the old Cambridge City Hospital days. Paying $6 million per year for services and protection from financial disaster seems like a good bargain. - Robert Winters

Preview of April 28, 2008 City Council meeting:

April 28 - It's Budget Season! Tonight's the night when the FY2009 Budget Book becomes available (but only after each and every city councillor gets his or her copy - they are very sensitive about this!). I've always found this to be the most mischievous part of the year for city councillors. It's the time when quiet discussions happen behind the scenes and we only learn about the product of those discussions when we read it in print - and it's a long established fact that once it's in The Book, the likelihood of the City Council voting down an appropriation is essentially zero. Two years ago, this is how we learned about the 54% increase in the Mayor's Office Budget to fund the Sullivan Chambermaids, i.e. "research assistants" for each councillor. What will be this year's surprises?

The bottom line for this year's budget is an operating budget of $416,128,365 (up from $394,375,940 in FY2008 - a 5.5% increase), Water Fund at $17,998,625 (paid almost entirely by water rates, up from $17,898,685 in FY2008 - virtually unchanged), and a capital budget of $12,236,615 (up from $11,538,660 in FY2008 - a 6% increase).

Also of interest on tonight's agenda are a couple of "Reconsiderations" by Councillor Maher of matters passed on April 14 - a zoning-related matter and an Order regarding public/private aspects of e-mail to and from public officials. That could be an interesting discussion, but perhaps they've already had it via e-mail.

In addition to the Budget Book, there are a number of other big ticket items on the agenda:

Mgr #23. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $8,630,000 to continue sewer projects in the Cherry Street/South Massachusetts Avenue, Agassiz, and Fresh Pond areas of the City.

Mgr #24. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,000,000 to fund extensive improvements to the Lafayette Square Fire Station and Fire Headquarters.

Mgr #25. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $6,700,000 to fund the replacement of all City and public safety radio systems.

Those must be some seriously good radios at almost $7 million dollars.

Then there's this item:
Mgr #22. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 08-18, regarding a report on the methods to provide long-term protection for Joan Lorentz Park.

The recommendation is to not change the designation of the park into something out of the hands of future City Council control, e.g. a designation that would require approval of the State Legislature in order to make even minor modifications. Makes sense, methinks.

Potentially the most contentious item is:
Charter Right #1: That the City Manager is requested to review the process by which the Board of Zoning Appeal turned down a variance request to build a new hotel in Porter Square, where the Porter Square Neighborhood Association and the majority of the abutters supported the proposal and the only opposition was from a neighborhood association not located in Porter Square and there was commentary that zoning was the domain of a given councillor. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Order Number Eight of Apr 14, 2008.

This one had all the makings of a schoolyard fight on April 14 until Councillor Kelley shut it down via Charter Right before Councillor Decker had a chance to vent. They may need to call out the Fire Department tonight. There's also a new zoning petition (Applications and Petitions #6) relating to this matter introduced at tonight's meeting by the Kaya Hotel owner/developers. Councillors Reeves and Decker received substantial campaign donations from the developer and there's no doubt some watchers will be viewing the commentary through this lens.

Councillor Decker has four Orders on behalf of union workers at the Marriott Hotels, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. She should have no trouble finding people to hold her signs during her next campaign.

There are also these:
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft a new ordinance that would replace the original ordinance (Ordinance #1138) to provide that non-profit organizations and community groups may post flyers on utility poles.   Councillor Seidel, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Decker

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to investigate locations near and around community centers, and where permission is provided create and install Information Posting Boards for use by and for the community.   Mayor Simmons

I can understand why you might want to allow some flexibility for posting on lampposts and telephone poles, but exactly where shall the line be drawn? Are election campaign flyers acceptable? What about announcements from the Ward 5 Democratic Committee? Is that a community organization or a political organization? Does it depend on what they're hawking? As far as Order #16 goes, it's a nice sentiment but these almost invariably degenerate into depositories of commercial advertising and rubbish.

Then there are these two items:
Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the status of the multiple small holes in street pavement found in groups on various City streets, to include who is responsible for drilling them, what sort of permits are required to drill them, who is responsible for filling them and what threats they might pose to maintaining safe and even streets.   Councillor Kelley

Why is this even on the agenda? Can't you just pick up the phone and ask someone, Craig? Jeez.

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant department heads and report back to the City Council on the status of testing, and any associated results, for pharmaceutical residue in the City’s drinking water supply.   Councillor Kelley and Councillor Seidel

Well, the MWRA just shelled out $23,250 to find nothing. I expect we'll have similar negative results, but I hope we don't have to flush as much money down the toilet to find out.  -- Robert Winters

Preview of April 14 City Council meeting:

It's mainly fund transfers within the School Department capital budget and minor appropriations this week on the relatively short City Manager's Agenda. Much more interesting are several City Council Orders:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Information Technology, the City Purchasing Agent, the City Clerk and the Assistant to the City Council to report back to the Government Operations and Rules Committee on the feasibility of a paperless City Council agenda.   Councillor Maher

This isn't a bad idea, but I can assure you that for any newcomers to City Council meetings who are already somewhat bewildered by the proceedings, this could put them completely in the dark. They'll have to keep at least a little paperwork available for the public to know what's going on. Personally, I always just bring my own printed PDF version of the meeting agenda, but I do like to read in advance of the meeting the printed materials not available via the City website, especially the communications of some of the stranger characters.

Order #5. Questions regarding public/private aspects of e-mail to and from public officials.   Councillor Kelley and Councillor Seidel

This promises to be a nice "acting out" of the current (mainly contrived) tempest regarding e-mail sent to the School Committee via their website. My sense is that this whole matter is just a way of creating political cover for reconsideration of the School Superintendent's contract extension. To every member of the public who wants to say something privately to a public official, here's some advice: Don't do it via e-mail or even by letter. Say it face-to-face. Clear enough?

Order #6. That the subject of the use of City Council meeting time to make public announcements be referred to the Government Rules and Operations Committee to determine an appropriate procedure to make such announcements.   Councillor Toomey

This is noteworthy mainly in relation to a recent Order regarding possible changes to the Public Comment portion of City Council meetings. Councillor Toomey understands that it's not just the public who needs to follow some basic rules.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to review the process by which the Board of Zoning Appeal turned down a variance request to build a new hotel in Porter Square, where the Porter Square Neighborhood Association and the majority of the abutters supported the proposal and the only opposition was from a neighborhood association not located in Porter Square and there was commentary that zoning was the domain of a given councillor.   Councillor Reeves

This should be fun. Who is the offending councillor? Nothing like a little jealous indignation to spice up a local legislative body. You may also want to look into the campaign finance reports to see who received $500 checks from the developer seeking the variance.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a line item explanation accounting for every dollar given to the Cambridge Health Alliance, specifically to what department and for what project the money was given; said narration should be a dollar-to-dollar review.   Councillor Decker

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council whether the Cambridge Health Alliance is committed to maintaining women’s health services, specifically OB/GYN and access to midwife care, at the East Cambridge Neighborhood Health Clinic.   Councillor Decker

I love it. Note the phrase "line item explanation accounting for every dollar given to the Cambridge Health Alliance." I'm sure that both of these Orders are all about using this year's Budget hearings and process to leverage restoration of services at the Windsor Street Health Clinic - regardless whether such restorations make any fiscal or policy sense (which they might). -- Robert Winters 

Preview of April 7 City Council meeting:

The City Manager's Agenda this week consists primarily of routine appropriations of grants from state and federal sources. There's also a report on the decision of the Mass. Appellate Tax Board that telecommunication companies are now taxable on poles and wires. From the report: “... the City of Cambridge should benefit by approximately $900,000 to $950,000 in additional personal property taxes on poles and wires on public ways on the Verizon system alone. Since the case is still in the appeal process through FY08, the City of Cambridge cannot realize any of the potential tax revenue at this time. Although this represents a sizable increase in personal property taxes it still only represents a portion of the revenue which could be realized under the proposed Municipal Partnership Act, which would allow for taxation of other items currently exempt by Massachusetts General Law.”

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager for Community Development and the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a draft amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to provide for using square footage as an alternative way to calculate the required donation in order to provide units with more than two bedrooms to further the City Council goal to support family housing in Cambridge.   Councillor Maher and Vice Mayor Murphy

I have no comment on this Order except to ask: When did the phrase “square footage” become the new term for area or floor area? Should we measure the volume of a liquid in “gallonage” and the length of City Council meetings in “hourage”? -- Robert Winters 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the City Council Agenda - Monday, Oct 29, 2007 [Click for detailed agenda]

This week's agenda is something of a table-setter in the sense that there are a number of Planning Board reports and other reports on the City Manager's Agenda and items on Unfinished Business that make it likely that some matters may come to a vote this week and be recorded prior to next week's municipal election. Here's a sampler of agenda items:

City Mgr. #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-65, regarding the financial impacts of development delays for the North Point project. (see below)

It appears that the pieces are all falling into place for the North Point development to get back on track. The court-ordered sale of the interests of both parties has attracted multiple serious bidders and a sale is likely before the end of the year. With the state legislature on board with a new "filled tidelands" bill that will almost certainly be signed by the governor (who proposed it), things will likely be back on track, more or less, by next year.

City Mgr. #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-116, regarding a report on analyzing bicycle parking in the City with recommendations for additional parking.

This is good news for us cyclists. The City is installing or planning to install additional bicycle parking in and around the major squares of the city. Now if we can only cart away all the dead bikes that are clogging up the racks and keep City officials from harassing those who lock their bikes to parking meters, lampposts, etc., then life will be just peachy for two-wheelers.

City Mgr. #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board on the refiled Cott, et al petition to rezone the area bounded by Broadway, Lee Street, Harvard Street, and Hancock Street from a Residence C-1 designation to the Residence B designation.

Unfinished Bus. #17. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Sept 19, 2007 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Zoning Map for the area bordered by the centerlines of Broadway and Harvard, Hancock and Lee Streets from the existing Residence C-1 district designation to Residence B, a/k/a Re-filed Cott Petition. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 5, 2007. Petition expires Dec 18, 2007.

These two items suggest a possible vote on this Mid-Cambridge zoning petition on Election Eve. The Planning Board report recommends against adoption of the petition, but there's a municipal election coming up and there are three challengers (Janik, Seidel, Ward) who live within a block of the area affected by the petition. I expect some votes will be swayed as a result, but it seems unlikely that there will be the necessary 7 votes to pass the petition. However, stranger things have happened when an election is imminent.

City Mgr. #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to revisions to Chapter 8.24 of the Cambridge Municipal Code on Refuse and Litter. This ordinance has been further revised to reflect changes requested at the Sept 19th Ordinance Committee meeting.

Unfinished Bus. #14. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Sept 19, 2007 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code: Refuse and Litter. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 29, 2007.

City Mgr. #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to revisions to Chapter 13.16 of the Cambridge Municipal Code "Sewer System Regulations."

I must admit that I like these kinds of basic operations and infrastructure items. It's a lot more interesting and relevant than passing City Council orders on Burma, Iraq, Mongolia, or Mars.

On the Table #9. That the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee schedule a meeting to discuss with the new owners the impact on the 55 Magazine Street tenants of the recent sale of the building and their concern about their security as tenants and the new owners' plans for the building, especially any plans to convert the building to condominiums. [Charter Right exercised by Mayor Reeves on Order Number Forty-Seven of Sept 10, 2007. Placed on table on motion of Councillor Simmons on Sept 17, 2007.]

Though I doubt there will be any movement on this item, there is no doubt that it's a politically volatile item because of the close relations between some of the city councillors and the developers who are (apparently) trying to clear out this building and convert the apartments into condominiums.

Unfinished Bus. #12. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillors Michael A. Sullivan and Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on July 12, 2007 for the purpose of continuing to consider a proposed amendment to the Noise Ordinance to regulate leaf blowers. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Aug 13, 2007.

Yup, regulation of leaf blowers is a hot political item in the new "quality of life" political climate. I'll give a damn about leaf blowers right after the City Council and the Police Department do something about the cars with the obnoxious sound systems that cruise Broadway in front of my house and elsewhere in Cambridge.

Unfinished Bus. #15. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Sept 19, 2007 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate requirements for LEED standards for certain projects of 25,000 square feet or more. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 29, 2007. Petition expires Dec 18, 2007.

This one will look good on the last round of political literature and on Council candidate websites. [It's also a good idea.]

Unfinished Bus. #16. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Oct 3, 2007 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Section 2.125 entitled "Cambridge Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Commission. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 29, 2007.

I expect this piece of outright pandering to come to a vote. The part of this that doesn't sit well with me is the provision that creates a full time paid executive director position for this commission. [I'm told it's a part-time position, but the point still stands.] If anything, the City of Cambridge should be trimming down on its commissions and consolidating or eliminating inessential staff (like the proposed position).

Order #4. That the City Clerk and Assistant to the City Council arrange for a workshop on parliamentary procedure for the City Council at the beginning of the new Council term.   Councillor Simmons

My main recommendation for improving the way the City Council conducts its meetings is to require a "second" before any topic can come up for discussion at a meeting. This is how the School Committee and most deliberative bodies conduct their business. Requiring that any matter have at least two members before it can be discussed would cut down on much of the bullshit that councillors and the public have been subjected to over the last several years. Must I name names?

Order #8. That this City Council go on record requesting the Massachusetts legislature to pass and Governor Deval Patrick to sign into law, H. 2729, sponsored by Representative Byron Rushing, "An Act Relative to Investment in Companies Doing Business in Burma," which uses the Commonwealth's pension fund investments to promote democracy and human rights in Burma.   Councillor Decker

Please see above items regarding rubbish and sewer regulation.

Order #17. That the petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance (Section 5.40 Special Dimensional Regulations) by adding a new section to protect solar energy systems to be referred to the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee for a hearing and report.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Kelley

Order #19. Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding bicycle sheds.   Councillor Murphy

These are some interesting proposals regarding the prevention of new structures blocking light from reaching solar panels, and providing equity in the zoning code between garages that contain automobiles (which are not factored into floor-to-area ratios) and sheds that contain bicycles. The danger, of course, is that a builder may add on a structure for bicycles that is subsequently used for other purposes (no different than how garages are now used for other purposes or, even worse, rented out for cash).


September 24, 2007 City Council meeting notes 

June 18, 2007 City Council meeting notes 

April 9, 2007 City Council meeting notes 

January 8, 2007 City Council meeting notes 

December 18, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

December 4, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

November 20, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

October 30, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

October 16, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

September 25, 2006 City Council meeting notes 

August 7, 2006 Midsummer City Council meeting notes 

June 26, 2006 City Council notes 

June 19, 2006 City Council notes 

June 5, 2006 Council notes 


Research Assistants? I don't think so...

May 2, 2006 – The Cambridge City Council voted 8-1 on May 1 in favor of giving themselves personal “research assistants.” Only Councillor Craig Kelley had the fortitude to raise any questions about the proposal. So it appears the proposal will sail through the Budget Hearings with barely a raised eyebrow. While I have raised the issue of the genesis of this proposal, the question of its merits and its implementation have not been addressed here. So, here are some observations, questions, and suggestions for our elected officials, City administration, and residents to consider:

1. There was a time when our elected officials enlisted citizens to assist them in research matters relating to public policy. Cambridge is perhaps the best city in the United States in which to find experts in almost any matter that the City Council (or School Committee) may need to better understand. There is a wealth of evidence over the last 65 years showing how citizens have worked with elected officials in the development of public policy. If the City Council feels burdened by the research needs of its committees, there is an enormous pool of talent available at no cost. Currently, the City Council makes very little use of this very available resource.

2. There was a time when councillors collaborated much more than they currently do in committee work and in the development of policies. A well-functioning City Council committee should delegate responsibilities so that each member masters certain facets of the tasks at hand and shares this knowledge with the rest of the committee. In effect, councillors serve as staff to each other. I would argue that it is better that elected officials educate themselves.

3. Are these jobs going to be publicly posted with a job description? Who will be doing the actual hiring? If Councillor Smith wants to hire Mr. Jones as personal staff, will the mayor have veto power over the hire? Does the Personnel Department have a role to play here or are these to be political hires? None of these details have been discussed publicly and they are important.

4. If these “research assistants” are to be hired, there should be policies and safeguards to ensure that they are not working on behalf of any councillor's political campaign. Otherwise, this proposal will have the effect of using taxpayer dollars to support the political campaigns of incumbent councillors. In fact, maybe it's time to consider a similar disqualification for staff in the Mayor's Office. A founding principle of Plan E government is the elimination of political patronage in favor of responsible, professional government. Some of us still believe in this ideal. At the very least, strong guidelines should be established for what is and is not permissible.

5. The existence of this proposal within the budget of the Mayor's Office is very strange indeed since it involves personnel for councillors, not the mayor. Should we not infer from this that the consensus of the councillors is that the City Council staff is not up to the task? If the job of councillor has changed so much, should there not be some discussion of revamping the Office of the City Council to better match the needs of the councillors? Why are these tasks being outsourced?

6. Some councillors have recently stated that the filing of City Council orders requesting information through the City Manager is not enough and that councillors would be better served by having their own staff to get this information. This strikes me as contrary to the intent of the Plan E Charter which dictates that all matters involving City personnel be directed through the Manager. One can easily imagine a scenario where each councillor has his or her personal staff contact City department heads for information rather than filing an Order as a body to get a common response. If the consensus is that the City Manager is being obstructive or extraordinarily slow in responding, shouldn't the City Council take more forceful action in holding the Manager accountable?

7. If the term “research assistant” is meant to be factual, then perhaps these RAs should be topic-specific so that we can have people who have some background or aptitude for the tasks at hand. If, for example, research in energy-related matters is what is needed, then someone with that knowledge would be ideal. Is any such protocol being discussed to ensure that the councillors and the taxpayers will get the best quality research for their tax dollars? I would hope that matters like scheduling and event planning will be handled by the City Council Office rather than by “research assistants.”

8. Several councillors have complained that e-mail has had a dramatic effect on the responsibilities of a city councillor due to the time consumption associated with responding to these messages. I don't doubt this. However, there are efficiencies that can make such tasks much easier. For example, if each councillor receives 100 e-mail messages on a particular topic, then rather than making 100 shallow replies, I would advise responding to ALL of the issues of substance raised by residents in a single, comprehensive message sent (using blind-carbon-copy) to all of the people who sent messages. Those of us in academics have been doing this for years. It's much more effective to craft comprehensive messages sent to the whole class rather than many nearly identical messages sent to individual students. There are MANY ways to be more effective in e-mail communication. Then again, if individual responses are seen as more valuable in securing potential votes in the next election, that's a choice each councillor must make on his or her own - independent of taxpayer-supported staff.

In summary, I am not questioning whether or not some changes in staffing are warranted. I am, however, asking that any such changes be done in the best interest of taxpayers and that City funds are never used to either directly or indirectly support the reelection efforts of elected officials. - RW, May 3, 2006


Punching Out Your Cake and Having it Too – a chronology of the proposal for personal Council staff
(posted April 28, 2006)

Jan 1998 - The vote for who was to be mayor went on for several weeks as Ken Reeves held out until there were 4 other votes for Katherine Triantafillou, an outcome sincerely supported by at most two councillors (Reeves and Triantafillou). The would-be mayor rounded up her supporters for the coronation. A congratulatory cake was ordered. As the vote occurred and there were momentarily 5 votes on the table for Triantafillou (Born, Davis, Duehay, Reeves, Triantafillou), Councillors Galluccio and Russell changed their votes to Duehay. Councillors Born, Davis, and Duehay then changed their votes to Duehay and Mayor Duehay was elected. Councillor Galluccio was then elected vice-mayor. Meanwhile, in the room next to the Council chamber, Alice Wolf aide and Triantafillou supporter Marjorie Decker exploded in anger and punched out the cake, police were called, and a grudge began that remains to this day.

Feb 1998 - Mayor Duehay made good on the deal by hiring Galluccio campaign worker Terry Smith to work in the Mayor's Office "to assist the mayor and vice mayor". This marked the first time (to my knowledge) that any councillor other than the mayor received personal staff (except for a brief experiment with interns some years earlier). Resentment grew among other councillors about the special treatment one councillor received in exchange for delivering the mayor's job.

1999 - Frank Duehay and Sheila Russell announced they would not seek reelection. Jim Braude, David Maher, and Marjorie Decker were subsequently elected to the City Council as incumbent Katherine Triantafillou was defeated, principally as a result of Marjorie Decker winning her seat.

2000 - After 1½ months without electing a mayor, Anthony Galluccio was able to secure 6 votes to become mayor (Braude, Davis, Galluccio, Maher, Sullivan, Toomey). David Maher was elected vice-mayor. Terry Smith became chief of staff of the Mayor's Office. David Maher did not request any personal staff. Kathy Born suggested during the Budget hearings that the idea of personal staff for councillors be referred to the Government Operations Committee. Ken Reeves said at this time, "I don't believe the vice-mayor needs the extra staffing and not us." Note that this was a reference to the previous administration (Duehay-Galluccio).

Around this time, the Government Operations Committee met to discuss the proposal for personal staff. The estimates given for City Council staff were: (1) $390,250 for a low-level, bare bones proposal; (2) $157,450 for 8 part-time staff with no benefits; (3) $72,300 for one legislative research assistant. Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi said personal staff was tried briefly about 10 years earlier with interns. Michael Sullivan voiced concern about keeping in touch personally with his constituents and wondered how he would find enough things for this person to do. Most of the councillors spoke in support of giving themselves personal staff. Kathy Born said that if she found her job to be too much, she could hire her own staff person, only she would have to pay for it out of after-tax money, unlike an employee of a business. She suggested higher Council pay with the option of paying for a staff person out of this additional pay. The option would remain for a councillor to act as a “full-time councillor” without staff. Jim Braude said that a councillor could lend his or her campaign the money for the staff person.

One week later, the City Manager proposed a 23% pay raise for city councillors and a change in the ordinance to allow for automatic increases so that they would never again have to vote to raise their own pay. The pay raise was approved and the question of personal staff disappeared for the rest of the Council term.

2001 - Kathy Born and Jim Braude chose not to seek reelection. Brian Murphy and Denise Simmons were elected to the City Council.

2002 - Michael Sullivan was elected mayor on Inauguration Day. Henrietta Davis was elected vice-mayor. Unlike the previous term, Henrietta Davis did request and receive personal staff as vice-mayor when Garrett Simonsen, Davis' election campaign manager, was hired to the Mayor's Office staff as her assistant. Indications are that he served more than just the vice-mayor.

2004 - Michael Sullivan was again elected mayor, only this time Marjorie Decker was elected vice-mayor. Garrett Simonsen became chief of staff of the Mayor's Office. Sullivan hired Kristin Franks (who had been Decker's campaign manager) as “assistant to the mayor and vice-mayor” but the indications were that she was working almost exclusively for Decker. By summer, Franks was gone and Nicole Bukowski, another Decker campaign worker, was hired as exclusive staff to Decker. For the remainder of the Council term, Bukowski waited hand and foot on Decker - and resentment among other councillors grew for the remainder of the Council term.

Late 2005 - Craig Kelley was elected to the City Council and incumbent David Maher was defeated. Speculation immediately began about who would be the next mayor. Some councillors reported that a plan was being discussed to give certain councillors personal staff as part of the vote-trading for electing the mayor.

Early 2006 - Ken Reeves was elected mayor and Tim Toomey vice-mayor. In a surprising turn of events, Bukowski continued to serve out of the Mayor's Office as personal staff to Councillor Decker - clearly a part of the deal to make Reeves mayor. Rumors circulated that there was a plan to assign some councillors additional committee chairs as justification for getting personal staff. When the committee chairs were announced, Councillor Decker (who, along with Councillor Galluccio, has maintained the worst record of committee attendance during her time on the Council) was surprisingly given four committees to chair. In contrast, Henrietta Davis (who has always been at or near the top in committee attendance) was given only one. This was seen by some as a way to justify Decker keeping her personal aide in exchange for her vote for mayor.

April 2006 - Ken Reeves submitted a budget for the Mayor's Office that is 54.3% higher than the previous year. The cause for the increase is a proposal for personal staff for all the remaining councillors at a recurring annual cost of about a quarter-million dollars. There was no public indication of any kind that such an extravagant plan was in the works. An order is on the May 1 City Council agenda (after the budget was already submitted on April 24 including the increase) formally calling for the major staff increase. The order is co-sponsored by Reeves, Toomey, Decker, Galluccio, Sullivan, and Davis. It is expected that, like every person hired to date as staff for the vice-mayor (and most of those on the mayor's staff), all of the new “research assistants” will be affiliated with the election campaigns of the officials they will serve. Curiously, these patronage hires will be occurring at a time when there are fewer major issues before the Council and when an unprecedented number of councillors are either serving in other elected positions or seeking election to other positions now or in the near future. - RW, April 28, 2006

April 27, 2006 Cambridge Chronicle story on the Council staff proposal 

April 27, 2006 Cambridge Chronicle story on the submitted FY07 Budget 


April 24, 2006 – Bottom Line: Cambridge Budget Changes from FY06 (adopted) to FY07 (proposed)

The Annual Budget for the City of Cambridge becomes available today. The overall increase in the operating budget bottom line is 4.4%, but this change is certainly not uniform across City departments and divisions. Leading the way in extravagance is, not surprisingly, the Mayor's Office budget which is proposed to increase a whopping 54.3%. Clearly political patronage is alive and well in at least one facet of Cambridge city government. Will the courageous councillors even pull this budget at next week's Finance Committee hearing (Wed, May 3 starting at 10:00am)  in order to inquire of the Mayor how he's spending the public's dime? Or will they play “go along to get along?”

My guess is that the councillors either don't pull this budget or they lob softballs at Hizzoner. What we really need is a complete accounting of every person now employed in the Mayor's Office - what they do, who they serve, what they're paid. The City Council can't increase any budget, but it only takes 5 votes to decrease a department's budget. Is anyone counting to five?

Apr 24 Addendum: Tonight I picked up a copy of the FY07 Budget Book from the City Manager's Office. Upon reading the section on the budget of the Mayor's Office, the mystery of the mammoth budget increase has now been solved! – and it's far worse than I suspected. The plan is to give each of the seven councillors their own personal "research assistants" for 30 hours per week (not including the Mayor and Vice-Mayor who utilize existing staff). Absolutely incredible. Cost to the taxpayers - approximately $240,000. Several years ago when several councillors expressed a desire for personal staff, the matter went before the Government Operation Committee and was the subject of several hearings. The resolution was that there would be no personal staff and the City Manager (who opposed the proposal for personal aides at that time) recommended a 23% increase in pay for councillors and an ordinance change that future increases would no longer require a vote. Now the councillors want to eat their cake and have it too.

This time around, the matter of personal assistants (inevitably political positions) is being slipped through as part of the Mayor's Office budget. Indications are that this is yet another facet of the deal that elected the current mayor - and funded by the taxpayers. Equally disturbing is that this is in the budget submitted to the City Council by the City Manager, so the only way to prevent this waste is for 5 city councillors to vote against the budget of the Mayor's Office in its current form. Are there 5 city councillors who are willing to take a stand? As the primary beneficiaries of this waste, I doubt it.

From this voter's perspective, after the May 3 hearing there will just two kinds of city councillors - those who vote in favor of the Mayor's Office budget as proposed and those who vote against this unnecessary and wasteful proposal. – RW


April 3, 2006 at City Hall – Another Monday, another lackluster meeting....

When the agenda is thin, posturing is often the rule on Monday Night Live. There will be plenty of opportunity to address all matters small and smaller this week. There's a state grant for low-income heating assistance on which councillors can show us how much they care, two appropriations for the planting of street trees in which we may get to hear which trees and flowers the mayor likes, etc., etc.

OK, there are a couple of items that are a tiny bit substantial, such as the Planning Board reports on two pending zoning petitions. There are also several financial maneuvers reported from the School Department. One bookkeeping measure will move $450,000 to the School Debt Stabilization Fund. Another moves $1.1 million in surplus funds to be used for a variety of computer-related expenses, including the purchase of laptop computers for all school principals, assistant principals, and deans ($60,000) and the School Committee members and secretary ($16,000). I wonder what they'll do if a member already has a computer. Can they take cash instead?

The item on the Manager's Agenda that grabbed my attention concerns something I'll get to look at from my front window. This is a request for an "aerial easement" at a building now in the process of being turned from apartments into (I'm sure) high-priced condos. The developers of the property have apparently closed off the existing 2nd means of egress from several apartments (in order to maximize their value, no doubt) and are now turning to the City to permit them to build fire escapes out over the narrow sidewalk. This is reminiscent of my next-door commercial neighbor who absorbed his 2nd egress and back yard into his commercial space and turned the alley next to me into an all-purpose egress and commercial and residential rubbish area (which is often piled so high that egress is impossible).

This is the new Cambridge. Condo developers buy up an apartment building and put their noisy HVAC systems and powered vents in locations that maximize the value of their investments and the luxury of their potential buyers while dumping the means to that end on the surrounding neighbors. Now it's trading in exits for private decks while dangling the exits out over the public way - with the City's blessing.

The only other item of interest to me is Order #12 from Councillors Kelley and Toomey. This asks the Manager to meet with appropriate department heads to see if they have any ideas about how to "minimize bothersome vehicular noise" as the warm weather approaches. Presumably, this concerns the so-called "boom cars" which cruise up and down streets (like Broadway) with overpowering bass speakers harassing everyone within earshot. I expect the City Council, the City Manager, and the Police Department to do nothing, though I'm sure the City Council will hold hearings leading nowhere. The matter of noisy leaf blowers, on the other hand, will be fully addressed. – RW

March 6, 2006 City Council agenda    HTML    PDF 

There are no real highlights on the agenda, except maybe the following Resolution:

41. Congratulations to David R. Slavitt on his publication entitled “Blue State Blues” which is about the November 4, 2004 election for state representative in the Twenty-sixth Middlesex district.   Vice Mayor Toomey

Note that in the referenced election, Mr. Slavitt's competition for the seat was Timothy Toomey.

Blue State Blues – How a Cranky Conservative Launched a Campaign and Found Himself the Liberal Candidate (and Still Lost)  –  by David R. Slavitt

“Here is an inside view of running for office that is purely ingenuous, with no agenda other than reporting the details of the process as accurately and entertainingly as possible. What Slavitt has accomplished here is not only valuable, but unique; this book is wise, and brave, and hilarious.” – Daniel Mark Epstein, author of Lincoln and Whitman


Mon, Feb 27 City Council meeting: The most significant item on the agenda was the extension of City Manager Robert Healy's contract to 2009. The vote was 8-0-1 (with Councillor Kelley voting “Present”). Public comment was nearly unanimous in opposition to the Manager's contract extension at the Council meeting and at the Government Operations Committee meeting the previous week. This only served to reinforce how non-representative public comment has become. It is very clear that the elected councillors have a far better sense of the general public than do the various neighborhood groups or outspoken activists.

On a related note, City Manager's Agenda #19 was a communication relative to the three Triple A ratings from the nation's major credit rating agencies. Though some dismiss this as unimportant, it's probably the best indication of how those outside Cambridge assess its fiscal management. This translates into the flexibility of elected officials and the administration to support a wide range of initiatives in areas like human services, housing, and the maintenance and improvement of the city's infrastructure.

The City Council will also adopted several changes to its Rules in order to increase the number of members and co-chairs on some Council subcommittees in accordance with recent appointments by Mayor Reeves.

Check out the Feb 27 meeting agenda. 


Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

The nine Nazgûl arose as Sauron's most powerful servants in the Second Age of Middle-earth. It is said that three of the Nine were originally "Great Lords" of Númenor. They were all powerful mortal Men to whom Sauron each gave nine Rings of Power. These proved to be their undoing:

"Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thralldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness wen