Project of the Week — Local News Sources
If you have any additions or suggestions, let me know.

Random Thoughts - February 14, 2024

In addition to the romanticism of Valentine’s Day, this day also marks the day I moved to the Cambridge/Boston area - 46 years ago. While this means that I can never be a True Cantabrigian, my consolation is that many lifelong Cambridge residents have adopted me as a kind of lost cousin. In fact, my move to Cambridge happened on the first day that buses were running from New York to Boston after the Blizzard of ’78, so it’s always easy for me to remember when I first washed up on the shores of the People’s Republic.

I spent a couple of hours yesterday attending a Special City Council meeting called for the purpose of updating the City Council Goals that were most recently updated over 5 years ago in October 2017. It’s likely that the statement of Guiding Principles and City Council Goals will change little, though perhaps they’ll get a bit more specific than the rosy generalities issued in 2017.

I have to say that I have never enjoyed meetings like this where participants stumble about trying to say something relevant that might get the attention of the facilitator. I will add that these exercises often seem more like justifications for keeping “facilitation companies” going than actually producing anything useful. I might say the same thing of most “team building” exercises and virtually all “trainings” - online or in-person. Especially in the context of elected officials who are endlessly competing for credit or attention, the notion that you can train competition into collaboration seems a bit naive. They’ll either do it or they won’t.

That said, there were a few moments of wisdom, reality, and perhaps even redefinition. For example, at least one councillor noted the difference between City Council orders and committee work. This is something I appreciate – over the years I have come to view many policy orders as “drive-by orders” where some random idea is tossed into the public arena or perhaps lifted from some other municipality. Committee work used to be more like a serious detailed discussion that welcomed public participation. That hasn’t really been the case in recent years - unless you are one of the privileged few who function more like “10th councillors” thanks to your affiliation with a lobbying group that also endorses candidates in the municipal election. Everyone else just gets their two or three minutes to make a short statement before being terminated by the Chair. I liked it better when if you actually offered constructive ideas at a committee meeting you might actually be involved in a back-and-forth discussion with the councillors. Nowadays you just perform and exit - unless you are among the politically privileged.

One suggestion made at yesterday’s meeting was that the City Manager and staff should send out weekly general updates of current topics being worked on by City staff. City Manager Yi-An Huang welcomed the idea but also expressed concern about “granularity” as he noted that at any given time there are ~2000 employees working on different things. Was the suggestion to have “weeklies” really be just about getting updates on the usual “hot topics” like bike lanes, BEUDO, and plans for recently-acquired City properties? It was also not made clear if these “weeklies” would be just for councillors or if they would be publicly available. Also unanswered was how such a protocol might mesh with the current daily updates to which many of us are subscribed.

One suggestion was that there should be a 311 system - a single point of contact for resident complaints and inquiries. This brought two things to mind. First, this sounds a lot like SeeClickFix – which is supposed to be the place for residents and elected officials alike to report problems. There seemed to be some sense that this system may not be functioning as well as it should be, and that when there is no response or action the calls go to city councillors. My experience has been that some kinds of SeeClickFix reports get an almost immediate response, and others languish for months or even years. It doesn’t help that some people view SeeClickFix as just another social media outlet on which they can bitch and moan about things that often go well beyond what the City can or should do. The other thing that came to mind was the proposal from over 20 years ago to create an Ombudsman Office that would respond to resident requests. That proposal went down in flames when councillors realized that responding to such complaints was an essential part of their political existence and that transferring that responsibility would only hurt their role in providing “constituent services”. In short, councillors often benefit from the existence of a problem.

Yesterday’s facilitator suggested that city councillors should be asking questions more than making statements. The response from some councillors was that this really doesn’t work in the context of a City Council meeting where you have to wait your turn to be recognized by the Chair and where technically all remarks are made through the Chair. I would note that in committee meetings this kind of questioning and back-and-forth conversation at least used to be common (and useful). It was also pointed out that the Open Meeting Law actually thwarts this kind of questioning and collaboration.

When the facilitators displayed their distillation of apparent City Council priorities (presumably based on some kind of questionnaire), the results were both predictable and misleading. The same can be said of the periodic Resident Surveys conducted on behalf of the City. Affordable housing always tops the list but rarely, if ever, is there any clarification of what that actually means. In one sense, it’s likely that 100% of residents want their housing to be affordable, but does that mean that they want to be able to buy a home on the open market at an affordable price, or does it mean that they want the City to subsidize the purchase? The same goes even more significantly when it comes to renting an apartment. I believe most renters simply want to see more affordable rents, and not necessarily that they want the City to subsidize those rents, but you would never know that from the Resident Survey or from the councillors’ prioritization.

It is worth noting that many, perhaps most, things that residents care about are not directly addressable by city councillors, the City administration, or from any level of government. Kindness, mutual respect, neighborliness, and voluntarism form the glue of society and likely have more to do with the satisfaction of living in a town or city than anything that was ever woven into a City Council policy order.

I was especially impressed when Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan noted that a major portion of City expenditures are in infrastructure, yet there was not even a mention of this in the list of City Council priorities. Perhaps this serves to highlight the difference between the politics of being an elected councillor and the management by City administration. Indeed, one of the greatest problems with a popularly-elected mayor as CEO is that it almost guarantees a greater share of attention and resources toward popular concerns and a corresponding decrease in focus on matters like infrastructure and municipal finance. I hope our current group of councillors keep this in mind as they debate possible Charter changes. It is, in fact, this focus on such matters by City management that allows the elected councillors to focus on more visible populist concerns.

Mayor Simmons bemoaned the fact that DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was way down on the list of priorities, but stated that “this should be the lens through which we look at things.” It’s certainly one such lens, but fiscal responsibility, effective service delivery, responsiveness, and transparency are also pretty good lenses through which to look at and evaluate what we do as a city.

There was an interesting back-and-forth about the Envision plan and how it is often quoted or ignored depending on what you want or don’t want. There also continues to be a lot of misinterpretation of the goals and metrics in that report - especially in the area of housing.

Regarding Central Square, City Manager Huang stated that many of the goals contained in past studies have already been implemented - noting, in particular, bike lanes and outdoor dining. In fact, there is little mention of bike lanes in these past studies (perhaps due to how long ago the studies were produced), and much of the outdoor dining came about not from past studies but as an emergency response to the Covid epidemic as a means of helping some local businesses to economically survive. Indeed, the only significant new developments in Central Square happened independently of past studies, e.g. the Mass & Main (Normandy/Twining) zoning petition. It is my understanding that some new zoning proposals may be forthcoming based, in part, on some of the considerations of the C2 Study (from over a decade ago), but we’ll have to see where that road leads. – Robert Winters

Comments?

Having Recently Secured World Peace, the Cambridge City Council Presents its February 12, 2024 Agenda

Here’s my first pass at the Feb 12 Agenda. Please note that the City Council will also meet the following morning (Tues, Feb 13) at 8:30am at City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway for a Goal-Setting Session.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO) Economic Impact Report. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Azeem, Pickett, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Simmons, Iram Farooq, Yi-An Huang, Owen O’Riordan; Placed on File 9-0

Not surprisingly, even though this report makes it abundantly clear that results are inconclusive due to insufficient data, partisans on either side are already drawing conclusions in their respective mailing lists and blog posts. Critical thinking in Cambridge is in short supply.

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Community Safety Department Update. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; introduction of CSD staff by Liz Speakman, description of start-up of the new department, collaboration with CPD, CFD; ready to launch in March; Toner asks about how large staff will eventually be; Toner asks about liability in the event of mistakes; City Manager notes significance of rapidly-evolving situations; responders not being sent into dangerous situations; opportunities to free up police officers; Nolan comments include H.E.A.R.T., asks about CSD staff members who were let go; Simmons and City Manager make clear that personnel questions are not appropriate for City Council; McGovern expresses concern about CSD collaboration with CPD, CFD; Speakman explains that theirs is not a “co-response model” and protocols for when responders may feel unsafe in a given situation; response via 911 and hope for an alternative for direct access; Sobrinho-Wheeler (ah-ah-ah) asks about background skills of staff, Speakman explains some of the training; JSW desperately trying to inject H.E.A.R.T. into discussion; City Manager notes that H.E.A.R.T. not doing emergency response, City has tried hard to work with them, calls it a challenge how City might work with H.E.A.R.T., only submitted their proposal 2 months ago and without an operational budget, suggestion that they focus on how to use the ARPA money previously allocated; McGovern asks what happens to ARPA money if H.E.A.R.T. does not spend it; Manager notes that funds must be drawn down by the end of the year and that funds could be re-allocated to other programs; Siddiqui says allocated money can continue for additional 2 years; Manager says that ARPA money must be allocated and spent by Dec 31, 2024; Wilson comments, wants to support H.E.A.R.T.; Toner asks if H.E.A.R.T. has done same training, Speakman assumes so but cannot speak for them; Azeem says badges and uniforms can yield respect, Speakman says there are multiple perspectives on this; Placed on File 9-0

I enjoy looking back at past promotional materials from the “H.E.A.R.T” advocates - just to remind myself of their unwavering disdain for police and policing, and the fact that their entire proposal amounts to little more than overt political patronage coupled with the continuing disregard by some councillors of the Charter prohibition against dictating who should be hired by the City administration. Our new Community Safety Department and their quest for alternatives to traditional police response continues to be challenged by this political interference.

Charter Right #1. Foreign Policy in Council. [Charter Right – Siddiqui, Jan 29, 2024]
Siddiqui says she wants to “speak my truth”, would not support an outright ban on foreign policy issues; notes many people who spoke on Ceasefire resolution who had never spoken before [but this may largely be due to their not living in Cambridge]; Azeem notes that Cambridge is an attractive target for activists to press their issue that relates little to Cambridge or not at all; Pickett notes many emails that say focus should be on municipal affairs; McGovern notes that Ceasefire issue took up a lot of time but that this is not the norm, notes that that resolution was sent to our elected officials (reps, senators, president) and that this is appropriate; Toner notes that we all have our own opinions and that the city is divided on this issue - not eager to be hearing from people all around the country; Nolan says it’s important to take this up in committee, but how do we represent the people of the city and not just the super-organized groups; Wilson calls this resolution unique [really?]; Siddiqui says she heard opposite of Pickett in emails; Simmons makes distinction between the message and the messenger - the disruptive nature of “by all means necessary” - people in City Hall visibly shaken; Toner notes that Thursday meeting will be on various issues and not just this issue; Order Adopted and Referred to Gov't. Ops. 9-0

This would merely refer the discussion to the Government Operations Committee, and there’s no real explanation for why Ms. Siddiqui chose to exercise her charter right to delay this referral.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to commence the process of drafting updated district maps and development processes, along with the zoning language and relevant ordinances to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
taken up early by Nolan; Azeem briefly describes the order; McGovern comments; Nolan asks if target dates are achievable noting timeline for Alewife; City Manager speaks optimistically about how this could mesh with Central Square Lots Study; suggests Feb 26 or Mar 4 for first update; Siddiqui asks when Lots Study will come back to City Council; O’Riordan estimates 4-6 weeks; Toner wants more community input but notes all the past Central Square studies; McGovern notes that this is not only about heights and densities. desire that it should be exciting and lively; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Feb 6, 2024 to discuss the potential for business corridors and squares to promote urban scale, mixed use development in which the provisions of innovation space subsidizes the delivery of housing and ground-floor retail. [text of report]
comments by Toner, Wilson; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I am generally suspicious of matters like this one, but there’s no question that added development in Central Square - both residential and commercial - makes a lot more sense than anything the previous City Council supported and ordained. I hope that a serious and honest dive into the economics of such development is part of the upcoming discussion.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to facilitate the participation in a public hearing(s) and or working session(s) to address Racial and Gender Disparities in City contracting and procurement.   Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
taken up early by Wilson; Wilson calls results of the study “disgraceful” to the Black community, blames “systemic racism”; Siddiqui says civil rights lawyers are now scrutinizing City practices; Manager says City has been contacted by Lawyers for Civil Rights but that they are misreading the report especially in regard to public companies such as Staples, notes that such companies can submit lower bids and provide faster delivery; City is now wrestling with the report; Siddiqui suggests we can be “intentional” [but it’s not at all clear how that relates to being “legal”]; Nolan says only 1% going to women and BIPOC-owned companies; Toner will schedule a committee meeting on this topic; Simmons recalls “Buy Cambridge” initiative and how money was directed to BIPOC-owned companies during Covid, need to talk to people in departments about how they choose contracts; Order Adopted 9-0

It’s worth taking a look at the October 2023 Disparity Study Report (warning - it’s 379 pages), but the Executive Summary is just 15 pages and contains all the essentials.

Order #4. That the City Solicitor in collaboration with the Commissioner of Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Community Development Department and the Police Department research rules and regulations governing the use of Electric Micromobility Devices and what, if any, authority Cambridge has to introduce its own regulations of these Devices including speed and location of use, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner.   Councillor Pickett, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
taken up early by Wilson; Pickett notes need for streets to be safe for everyone, need for clarity on how these devices are used, state allows municipalities to regulate e-bikes appropriately, but not necessarily other micromobility devices, expect mid-March response from Law Department; Toner notes that City Council is not trying to limit options for people, but also capabilities of some of these devices, need for updated rules of the road; Nolan notes need to understand the limits of our legal authority; Wilson expresses need for safety for all; Manager says speed limit for e-bikes is 18mph; Azeem notes that he owns an e-bike and cannot get speed up to 15mph; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Charter Review Committee held their final meeting on Jan 23, 2024 to review and discuss the Final Report. [all agendas, minutes, and video links]
Nolan thanks committee; notes goals, says current Charter no longer a permitted form [that’s not true]; lauds committee’s outreach [really?]; Nolan wants whole Council to be involved in evaluating the recommendations, and ensuing process, suggests having this go before voters in a special election; Minutes Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication from Kathleen Born, Charter Review Committee Chair, transmitting the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee.
pulled by Toner; Motion #1 to refer to Solicitor, Election Commission, others; Nolan, Azeem, Siddiqui wants this referred to committee of the whole rather than just Gov't Ops.; Pickett notes this will be a lengthy process; Wilson thanks committee for their volunteer time, wants a structure for this discussion; (2) Motion #2 to refer to Gov. Ops.: Charter Right - Simmons; Motion #1 amended 9-0; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Toner Motion #1: That the City Manager direct the Solicitors Office, Election Commission and any other department deemed necessary, to review the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee and its proposals and provide written feedback on the legality and practicality of the proposals in advance of future discussion.
Adopted 9-0

Toner Motion #2: To refer the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee to the Government Rules, Operations and Claims Committee.
Charter Right - Simmons

And so it begins. I will have a lot to say about this in the coming months. – Robert Winters

Comments?

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Danehy Park Improvements Plan Working Group

Feb 13, 2024 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang seeks volunteers to serve on a new Working Group to help guide the Danehy Park Improvements Plan Project.

Working Group members will have two general responsibilities:

• Serve as community representatives to help guide the City Manager and staff on key issues related to the design of improvements to Danehy Park;
• Help communicate the process and design of the project back to the larger community.

Danehy Park is 30 years old and needs a fresh look. The City of Cambridge has contracted with a landscape consultant team to plan the next 10-20 years of improvements to the park. The goal is for Danehy Park to be an exceptional public park that residents of Cambridge will continue to be proud of and cherish. The Capital Improvement Plan will identify improvements for Danehy Park that:

• complement the essential natural, historic, and visual character of the site;
• are based on a strong public engagement process that prioritizes outreach to traditionally underrepresented groups. In addition to the Working Group, there will be a community engagement process for additional public participation;
• provide access to and protect the plants and animals of Danehy Park;
• address future flooding and heat impacts due to climate change;
• allow people of all ages, backgrounds and interests to relax, play, exercise and connect with other people in the park;
• judge the condition and quality of the parks features and systems; and
• propose a series of distinct projects and phased improvements to the park.

The Working Group will be made up of 10-15 members, representing a diverse set of interests. This will help ensure that multiple perspectives are heard and that there is appropriate representation reporting back to the larger community. The Working Group will include residents, institutional representatives, and a variety of people that currently use Danehy Park. It is anticipated that the group will meet six to eight times between April 2024 and December 2024. Meetings of the Working Group will be open to the public.

Individuals who want to shape the future of Danehy Park and want to collaborate with City of Cambridge staff to realize the goals above are encouraged to apply. The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Working group members should 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.

Persons interested in applying can do so through the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply and select “Danehy Park Improvements Working Group” in the list of Current Vacancies. A letter of interest can be submitted during the online application process.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, March 11, 2024.

Members Sought to fill Cambridge Library Board of Trustees Vacancy

Feb 12, 2024 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking to fill a vacancy on the Board of Trustees for the Cambridge Public Library.

Library trustees are volunteer community representatives, library advocates, and leaders in the establishment of goals and policies for the Cambridge Public Library system. Trustees are a vital link between the library staff and the community and work to ensure the quality of library services, collections, and programs, and to make certain that the library reflects and is relevant to the community.

Trustees are appointed by the City Manager following City Council confirmation to serve a 3-year term. Board members are expected to attend monthly board meetings, committee and community meetings, appropriate continuing education workshops or conferences, and library programs as their schedules allow. Monthly meetings are usually held on the first Tuesday of the month at 5pm, virtually and in-person in the Cambridge Public Library Board Room, 449 Broadway.

Ideal candidates will have an interest in and passion for public libraries and an understanding of the importance of the public library as a center of information, culture, recreation, and life-long learning in the community. Candidates should also have knowledge of the community, including an awareness of diverse social and economic conditions, needs and interests of all groups. Strong verbal and written communication skills, including public speaking skills are required. Trustees work productively as a team. It is also important for candidates to understand how the role of the public library is evolving and how information technology and societal changes inform the library’s future.

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.

Applications can be submitted to the City Manager’s Office 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. For more information about the role of Library Trustees, contact Maria McCauley, Director of Libraries at mmccauley@cambridgema.gov.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, March 18, 2024.

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board

Feb 12, 2024 – The City of Cambridge is seeking members to serve on the Planning Board. All Cambridge residents are invited to apply.

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 to 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 of Cambridge’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 Cambridge City Council. The Planning Board reviews about 10-15 proposed zoning amendments each year;
• Making recommendations to the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) on some cases. The BZA is a different board that grants some special permits and variances.
• Discussing other City of Cambridge 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; and
• 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 must complete a 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 of Cambridge 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. 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.

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 2025. For remote meetings, Planning Board members must 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.

Planning Board members receive $6,000 per year as a stipend. This stipend is meant to offset the annual out-of-pocket costs that members might 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 Cambridgema.gov/apply and selecting “Planning Board” in the list of Current Vacancies. 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 18, 2024.

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

Cambridge Municipal Election News

Who has been raising and spending money? [Feb 2, 2022 - present]
(source - Mass. Office of Campaign and Political Finance)
Note: Expenditures last updated Jan 31, 2024.
Note: You may have to “Clear Cache” in order to refresh some of the embedded charts/tables for campaign finance.

City Council Campaign Finance - Sorted by Receipts

2023 Cambridge Candidate Pages     Calendar of 2023 Election-related events

City Council Campaign Finance - Sorted by Expenditures

Periodic OCPF Bank Reports

Union Contributions to Candidates - Incumbency Protection

School Committee Campaign Finance

Cost per #1 Vote - City Council 2023	Cost per #1 Vote - School Committee 2023

City Council Committee Assignments: 2024-2025

Here’s a suggestion that I offered once upon a time that everyone thought was a good idea but which was never implemented:

Create a separate web page for each of the City Council committees that clearly shows a record of actions taken, links to videos and minutes of past meetings, what initiatives the committee is currently addressing, any relevent documents and presentations, and a mechanism for public comment and suggestions.

The Inaugural Protest, the Jan 8 Protest, and Future Disruptions - Time to Amend the Rules

We have a problem. Unless the City Council wishes to run and hide in Zoom every week for the foreseeable future, there needs to be some changes in the City Council Rules governing the conduct of the meeting and, in particular, Public Comment. There have been many times over the last few years when the number of people who have signed up numbered in the hundreds - with many of them calling in from locations scattered across the country whenever a national or foreign policy matter appeared on the City Council agenda (and even when it did not, such as at the most recent January 8 meeting). In part because Cambridge is seen as an attractive stage for conducting these kinds of demonstrations, it is not impossible to imagine a situation where a national campaign could orchestrate call-ins from thousands of people from all around the country or the world. In-person public comment provides a natural limit on how many people may sign up to speak, but there is effectively no limit when people can literally phone it in.

I propose that every speaker provide a real name and address in order to be eligible to speak, and that only actual Cambridge residents and those with business before the City Council have a right to give public comment. I would give the Mayor discretion to allow other non-residents to speak - as long as their number is relatively small. Failure to make such a rules change will continue to hinder the ability of residents to give public comment - as they may be limited to a minute or less if the number of speakers is too high.

There will also have to be some constraints on demonstrations within and near the Sullivan Chamber. It is perfectly OK for the City of Cambridge to regulate “time, place, and manner”. One such method is to establish a “free speech zone” outside of City Hall. What our city councillors need to understand is that failure to limit these demonstrations actually restricts the free speech of residents with legitimate reasons to offer public comment on matters on the City Council Agenda. - RW

RULE 24C. Public Comment.
1. Regular Business Meetings

a. Under the provisions of Chapter 43, Section 98 of the General Laws, Tercentenary Edition, individuals, and employees of the City shall have reasonable opportunity to be heard at any meeting of the City Council in regard to any matter considered thereat. Opportunities for individuals and employees of the City to be heard at all regular meetings, except for roundtable/working meetings, shall be provided directly after the reading of the record, if requested by the City Council (submission of the record of the previous meeting). Members of the public may comment upon items in the following categories of business: Motions for Reconsideration, City Manager’s Consent Agenda, Unfinished Business from preceding meetings, Applications and Petitions requiring approval or referral by the City Council, Consent Resolutions, Consent Policy Orders and Resolutions relating to policy analysis or development, Committee Reports, Roundtable/Working Meeting Minutes, Communications and Reports from Other City Officers. Each speaker shall limit their comments to no more than three minutes. In the event there are 20 or more speakers signed up, the amount of time allocated would be two minutes. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers.

b. Procedure: An individual may sign up to speak before the City Council on-line via the City’s website from 9:00am on the Friday before the meeting until 6:00pm the day of the meeting or via telephone to the City Council office on the day of the meeting from 9:00am to 5:00pm. On the day of the meeting, between 5:00pm and 6:00pm, a computer terminal will be available to the public in the City Council Office for on-line signup until 6:00pm on the day of the meeting. There will be in-person assistance for those who need help signing up. The individual should indicate on the signup sheet their name, address, and which item(s) they are planning to address. Individuals will be heard in the order that they signed up whether they are participating in person or remotely.

2. Roundtable/working meetings.

Public comment shall not take place at roundtable/working meetings of the City Council, where no matter being discussed may be finally considered, in that no votes may be taken. Written comments will be accepted and made part of the record of the roundtable/working meeting. The opportunity for the public to make oral comments on items discussed at roundtable/working meetings shall be at the regular meeting at which the item may be considered for action by the City Council.