Cambridge tried to get better racial and economic diversity among students. Now it has one of the most segregated schools in the state.

by James Vaznis, Boston Globe, January 5, 2025

Robert Peterkin, former Cambridge Superintendent of Schools

Dr. Robert S. Peterkin, a tireless defender of the rights of children and a brilliant educator, died in Boston, MA on December 23, 2024. Throughout a 50-year career, he was known as a towering intellect with a very engaging personal approach. He became a profound and positive influence in the lives of innumerable children and adults. Bob was a mentor, father figure, guide, sage, and friend to his students and colleagues. They say, “I wouldn’t be me without Bob”; “Bob gave new meaning to the word ‘support’”; “He would push us to meet challenges, believing that we would find our strengths, even when we didn’t know we could.” Bob started his career In Albany NY teaching emotionally disturbed children. He founded an alternative school for high school dropouts. He was selected as Boston’s first Black public-school Headmaster and served during the years of busing. During that time, he established The English High School as the integrated Magnet School for the Arts. Bob later served as a Boston Deputy Superintendent and then as Cambridge, MA Superintendent of Schools. Bob was appointed Superintendent of Schools in Milwaukee, WI and was the first African American in that role. He introduced numerous educational innovations such as local school level decision-making, a two-way bilingual school, a Waldorf school, and a school focused on learning for African American boys.

In 1991 Bob joined Harvard University as the Director of the Urban Superintendents Program (USP). He provided extensive high-quality training and experience for prospective urban school leaders. He especially focused on preparing women and persons of color for the Superintendency. For 20 years, he acted as professor, visionary, and indispensable mentor to superintendents throughout the United States. Dr. Peterkin did extensive educational consulting and acted as court-appointed expert in several cities. He also served on the boards of non-profit organizations directed at impacting the education of young people – B.E.L.L. Foundation, National Urban Alliance, TERC (Technical Education Research Centers), and Boston Youth Theater.

Robert S. Peterkin was born and raised in New York City. He was a life-long Yankees fan and jazz enthusiast. He graduated from the State University of New York at Albany and received a doctorate from the University of Massachusetts. While at Albany, he met the love of his life, Louise Bauer. They were married for 56 years until her passing earlier this year. All services will be private.

Remembering those we lost in 2024

We mourn the passing of any of our Cambridge friends and neighbors, but these are just a few of the more notable deaths this year in our Cambridge family. May their memory be a blessing.

Remembering those we lost in 2023
We mourn the passing of any of our Cambridge friends and neighbors, but these are just a few of the more notable deaths this year in our Cambridge family. May their memory be a blessing.

Remembering those we lost in 2022 (and late 2021)
We mourn the passing of any of our Cambridge friends and neighbors, but these are just a few of the more notable deaths this year in our Cambridge family. May their memory be a blessing.

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year - January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

There is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.

This is, of course, hogwash. For what it’s worth, I think there is great merit in having some form of “resident assemblies” or “ward committees” – even though I think that what was proposed by the Charter Review Committee was not only terrible but disempowering. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day. I will also note that some councillors are still considering proposing a change in the Charter to extend their terms from two years to four years (staggered terms) - even though they haven’t given even a moment of thought to what this means in terms of our PR elections or the need for a recall provision. Less accountability has some support because apparently having to seek reelection every two years (like every member of the United States House of Representatives and every member of the Massachusetts House and Senate) is just so inconvenient.

Here are a few things that stand out on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $29,388,181.96 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY24, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.
pulled by Siddiqui re: Free Cash balance and source of mitigation revenues; comments by Yi-An Huang, Taha Jennings; Siddiqui wants names of developers; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc.
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right - Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. [text of report]
pulled by Toner noting reasons he will be voting No; Sobrinho-Wheeler takes opposite view, naively noting that the Trust need not be funded and that this exists in Somerville and in Boston; Zusy supports intention of this but says cart is before the horse and that existing programs have not been evaluated and that additional funds and increased (already high) Linkage Fee may not be needed, petition is premature; Nolan supports motion w/explanation re: Nexus Study, agrees that existing programs should also be evaluated; JSW offers to have an additional committee meeting on this topic; Toner notes that such a meeting already pending; Home Rule Petition Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions.
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. - RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns - some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy - No)

Order #1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions on Nov 19, 2024. This public hearing was recessed and reconvened on Dec 4, 2024. It was again recessed. It reconvened and adjourned on Dec 19, 2024. [Nov 19, 2024 report] [Dec 4, 2024 report] [Dec 19, 2024 report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

These reports actually represent three separate meetings, though they are being lumped together because the first two meetings are technically recessed rather than adjourned. This is an unnecessary confusion.

162 Communications - overwhelming with the message “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0

According to State Representative Marjorie Decker (who I wish was my representative), legislative approval has now been completed and signed by the Governor, so this matter is now ready for ordination.

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This item is apparently also ready for ordination - though it could really use one important change.

Resolution #8. Condolence Resolution for Dr. Robert S. Peterkin.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Dec 11, 2024 for an update and discussion on Public Investment Planning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I suppose money used to grow on trees in Cambridge. Now we have fewer trees and more fiscal constraints. - RW

Comments?

Hidden Agenda - December 23, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

This week’s agenda is quite short, but perhaps the biggest item on the agenda was actually not on the original agenda at all - a Late Order containing proposed amendments to the two rather problematic zoning petitions now before the Ordinance Committee [Petition #1, Petition #2]. These petitions comprise perhaps the largest residential upzoning in the history of Cambridge zoning but are disguised under the innocuous banner of “allowing multi-family housing” citywide (or, as one of the local political advocacy organizations brands it, “ending exclusionary zoning”).

Here are the not-so-late agenda items of interest this week:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a legal opinion on the City Council’s ability to levy a tax or fine on store fronts and commercial properties that remain vacant for more than two years, including any applicable definitions of “vacancy” and relevant legal precedents, and provide such opinion no later than the February 17th City Council meeting.   Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes community scuttlebutt, Law Department never asked for legal opinion; Wilson wants to be added as cosponsor; McGovern recounts history; Siddiqui says she previously worked on this and that there was a legal memo on this (2018-19), says data on vacancies readily available; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants to also penalize residential vacancies; Simmons recounts some history on this; AW and MM added as sponsors 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I will only note here the rather absurd proposal from several years ago that would have levied fines equivalent to the entire assessed value of such properties over the cost of just two years (4.17% of the assessed value every month). Obvious regulatory takings were apparently not so obvious to the councillors who proposed this “remedy” back in February 2017. Something should absolutely be done about the many vacant storefronts, but hopefully something constructive and collaborative rather than hostile or legally absurd.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct Community Development Department (CDD) staff to draft proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance that would accomplish adding select HCA requirements into the ordinance so the city can waive the HCA requirement and that the City Manager is requested to ask the CDD staff to draft a zoning amendment to remove the repackaging prohibition.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that these amendments intended to align Cambridge ordinances with recent state law and to streamline process; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. Economic Development & University Relations Committee (cannabis policy issues, including the potential allowance for repackaging of products at local dispensaries, the 1800-foot minimum distance requirement between cannabis businesses, and the lack of zoning provisions for social consumption establishments that are now permitted under state law) - Committee Meeting - Dec 17, 2024. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)

Are there any cannabis retail locations in Cambridge that are not owned at least in part by politically connected people?

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Flexible Parking Corridor Zoning Petition. [Adopted as a City Council Zoning Petition and Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024; Expires Feb 19, 2025]
Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Municipal Ordinance. [Referred to Ordinance Committee Oct 21, 2024; Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Commercial Parking Space Permits Municipal Ordinance. [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0

These are the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Ordinances associated with accommodating parking displaced by the requirements of the (untouchable) Cycling Safety Ordinance (and dedicated bus lanes in some locations).

As for the aforementioned Late Order:

Late Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct Community Development to prepare updated Multi Family Housing Zoning language and report back to the Ordinance Committee, not later than January 16, 2025.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Toner; Toner notes misinformation over recent days, clarifies procedure of late order, notes that this ordinance is not yet done and additional committee meetings prior to Feb 10 final vote deadline, notes that he would prefer to focus first on (undefined) “corridors”; McGovern offers his own explanation, notes that this is purely procedural in that Council cannot order departments to do anything except through the City Manager via a City Council order and that there are more meetings pending, objects to suggestion that City Council is not listening, characterizes putting back minuscule setbacks as “putting them back in”, suggests that many people favor original proposed ordinance changes; Burhan “phone it in” Azeem says he’s trying to “lower the temperature”; Siddiqui says intent is not to do anything without transparency, objects to “misinformation”; Zusy says she will vote against these amendments, not that amendments are misguided, that people are OK with added heights in squares and (undefined) “corridors”, concerns about allowing massive development as-of-right w/o special permits, loss of open space and other environmental consequences, questionable stated need (76 projects in process now 5,301 units with 987 affordable - mostly in East Cambridge), all housing nonprofits now have multiple projects in process, lack of any urban design plan, unintended consequences; Nolan expresses excitement over proposed zoning changes with reservations about middle-income housing, insatiable demand for market-rate housing, concerns about effect on solar power arrays, notes that many people are unaware of proposed changes, just having meetings does not imply that people are being made aware of proposed changes, hope that Planning Board can have a meeting on this to offer their perspective; Wilson says she supports an amendment to require 3 floors of inclusionary housing for any new 6-story building under this ordinance (plus 3 stories for an AHO project), acknowledges lack of community engagement; Order Adopted, Referred to CDD 8-1 (Zusy-No)

It seems that the current political modus operandus in Cambridge is to propose something outrageous and then scale it back somewhat to merely excessive so that you can claim that a happy compromise has been reached. I still have some serious questions about the data and goals underlying much of these proposed changes. - RW

Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again – Redress of Grievances (posted Jan 26, 2023)

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

Cambridge City Manager Seeks Members for New Broadway Safety Improvement Project Working Group

Nov 19, 2024 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking volunteers to serve on a Broadway Safety Improvement Project Working Group.

The City of Cambridge is installing separated bike lanes on Broadway between Quincy Street and Portland Street. This project will:

• Change the Street’s Layout. With quick-build materials, the City of Cambridge will incorporate new pavement markings, traffic signs, and flex posts. Separated bike lanes will be installed along the curb, providing a safer space for cyclists, separated from moving traffic by white flex posts or other physical barriers.
• Create Traffic Calming Measures. Street improvements will help slow down traffic, making Broadway safer for all users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
• Reduce Parking. This project will reduce on-street parking. We expect to maintain about 25% of the current spaces. We’ll work closely with businesses and residents to determine the best use for the remaining parking and loading areas.

These changes will help us meet the requirements of the Cambridge Cycling Safety Ordinance; support our Vision Zero goal to eliminate crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries; and bring us closer to realizing the Cambridge Bicycle Network Vision.

The Broadway Safety Improvement Project Working group will be responsible for advising on the design and implementation of safety improvements on Broadway, including the installation of the separated bike lanes.

Individuals who are excited about shaping the future of Broadway and want to work collaboratively to accomplish the goals above are encouraged to apply. The Working Group will include residents, business owners, institutional representatives, and a variety of people who use the corridor to live, work, walk, bike, drive, or take the bus.

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.

The Working Group is expected to be made up of 12-15 members, representing a diverse set of interests along the Broadway corridor. It is anticipated that the group will meet 8 to 10 times over a 1.5-year period between Spring 2025 and Fall 2026, though exact meeting dates have not been yet established. Working Group meetings will be open to the public.

Applications to serve on the Working Group can be submitted using the City of Cambridge’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply. The application deadline is Monday, December 30, 2024. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process. For more information, contact Andreas Wolfe, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department at awolfe@cambridgema.gov.

Volunteer Opportunities - Cambridge Boards & Commissions (click for details)

Cambridge Housing Authority Board of Commissioners - deadline Mon, Jan 27, 2025

Cambridge Climate Committee - deadline Mon, Jan 13, 2025

Broadway Safety Improvement Project Working Group - deadline Mon, Dec 30, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024

Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024

Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024

Cambridge Historical Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024

Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) - deadline Mon, Dec 2, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Cambridge Kiosk Advisory Committee - deadline Mon, Dec 9, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Transit Advisory Committee - deadline Oct 15, 2024 (but apparently still open)