Two legislative replays of sorts got delays Monday in Cambridge and will reappear on next week’s City Council agenda: reviewing ways voters might elect a mayor directly, rather than having councillors choose one from among their nine members; and undoing increases in fees for residential parking permits before they go into effect.
In each case, a councillor used their “charter right” to stop debate until the next meeting. (A third policy order, about shutting down the ShotSpotter gunfire-detection technology, also got charter-righted.)
The mayoral election order was put on hold by councillor E. Denise Simmons, who said she wanted “to be careful about how we proceed,” as the charter-reform process where it was last discussed was not good at “reaching out to residents who are not always able to attend multiple meetings.”
Those procedural issues seemed slight in comparison to the one raised by first-term councillor Tim Flaherty. Despite assurances by the order’s author and co-sponsors that it asked only for a discussion of options, Flaherty said he knew what was really going on.
“I see it as step one in a process to eliminate our form of government,” Flaherty said.
Cambridge has what’s known as a Plan E government, with a relatively weak council and largely ceremonial mayor. They pass laws and ask for prioritization of their goals by a city manager they hire. That city manager oversees the day-to-day business of Cambridge and City Hall.
Despite the weak-mayor structure, battles for the gavel can be fierce and come with lots of behind-the-scenes negotiation and plenty of public drama. Though these intracouncil elections have been handled since 2016 at the end of January swearing-in ceremonies, it hasn’t always been so fast: In the two terms before that, it took up to 10 ballots and dragged on into February. Even when an election finishes on the first day, it can still take multiple ballots.
“It really should be a different method than what we have,” councillor Patty Nolan said. “It’s been described as messy. I would say the technical term is icky – and really, really destructive to the start of the term” when colleagues should be bonding.
Charter reform
The idea of direct election of mayors was discussed during a long charter-reform process that culminated last year, when voters adopted changes proposed in the first overhaul of the Plan E charter in 80 years. But mayoral elections didn’t get into the package of reforms that voters saw. “It was never fully discussed during our charter review because there had not been consensus, or enough consensus, from the Charter Review Commission,” said Nolan, whose work in 2020 led to the commission being formed.
The council debated reforms suggested by the commission, shaping the package that was sent to the state Legislature for it to approve or reject. With a thumbs-up from Beacon Hill, charter reform appeared on the Nov. 14 ballot and won 73 percent of the vote.
Part of the reforms was that Cambridge wouldn’t wait another 80 years, and would instead look at charter updates every decade.
To councillor Cathie Zusy, that made the return of mayoral elections a distraction from other work. “I don’t understand why we’re talking about this,” Zusy said. “I thought we were good for 10 years.”
But there’s no prohibition against the council initiating charter changes anytime between those 10-year reviews, or of voters initiating charter changes, city solicitor Megan Bayer said, and more councillors felt the discussion was needed. Councillors Marc McGovern said the election drama in his first term was so bad that the working relationship of those nine members “never recovered.”
“The four of us who sponsor this may have very different ideas as to how to move forward or to move forward at all, but let’s have the conversation,” McGovern said, “because what we’re doing now is just messy, and I’d like to think there’s a better way.”
Residential parking permits
Just as the ideas about future mayor’s powers and roles were too numerous to discuss tidily on Monday, so too were there proliferating ideas about residential parking permits, which councillors voted on in March. Drivers could be asked to pay $75 for their next resident parking permit, up from $25, councillors agreed 7-2, but no resident is forced to pay that. The proposal allows for anyone to check a hardship box – no proof is needed – and pay $25 instead. A blanket exemption for seniors would end, and as a result senior drivers will pay $25, up from nothing. But the cost for visitor parking permits are unchanged at $25, and permits for people with disabilities would still be free.
Her order to reconsider was based on hardship, Simmons said, because “for many seniors who live on a fixed income,” even $25 is too much. “I have people come into my office who have their monthly expenses worked out to the penny.”
A series of amendments was proposed by McGovern and discussion followed of other ways to structure exemptions. “I wonder if we’re trying to get too clever with it,” vice mayor Burhan Azeem mused.
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler seemed to agree. “I don’t think we’re going to work out the policy language on the floor here,” he said. “Hopefully we can get it right by next week. Sorry, I’m just going to exercise my charter right.”
About The Author
