‘Special regular’ meeting Friday morning highlights council’s struggle against time
City councillor Marc McGovern has said more than once that the current council can’t be blamed for the actions of past councils.
McGovern is correct: First-termers such as him are blameless when it comes to policies voted in the past, and can’t always be expected to vote on policies proposed, examined and debated before they took office. And there are four first-termers on this nine-member council, more turnover than in previous recent elections.
Terms last only two years, though, and what at first looks like a solid 24 months starts to look less substantial when you subtract two months of summer breaks each year, remember that for a couple of terms it took about two months to elect a mayor and that various meetings get subtracted for roundtables, holidays and special events, such as the National League of Cities Conference that will take the council’s March 9 meeting off its schedule. You can think of a 24-month term as including 52 Mondays, but last year there were 28 regular council meetings.
Now comes a winter that has eroded more meeting time with wave after wave of blizzards that shut down public transportation and made roads too dangerous for travel. Winter cancellations have already forced the refiling of a zoning proposal, and a hearing meant for late January has been bumped by at least a month. Climate change could make this the new normal.
Just as uncontrollable as the weather and even more unexpected was the death of Brian Murphy, assistant city manager for community development, in early February. The city has a deep, talented bench, but the loss of such a key, widely involved official could slow research, the writing of zoning and other work councillors need to see to make informed decisions.
“Special regular”
A combination of intended cancellations and surprise snowstorms has compelled the council to schedule a “special regular” meeting for 9 a.m. Friday, when the typical meeting is held at 5:30 p.m. Mondays (as one will be this coming Monday, unless a weekend storm becomes unexpectedly big and treacherous). The unusual Friday meeting has an agenda with 45 council orders, 10 items from the city manager and six committee reports, not to mention 25 resolutions (which are discussed occasionally), and a few of these items have the potential for lengthy public comment. Its scheduling was vital to keep Monday’s meeting from repeating what happened last time: It lasted more than six hours, albeit with more than two hours of public comment, and didn’t get through the full agenda.
There’s about five months until it’s officially municipal election season, and about eight months until Election Day.
The disappearing agenda
It may be unfair to blame this council for delaying a vote on a plastic bag ordinance that has been floating around for eight years, but we also know that we have some very long-serving councillors and at least as many persistent issues. Mayor David Maher* had a hand in putting off work on “linkage” fees that build affordable housing almost exactly a dozen years ago, and he hasn’t been off the council since. The loss of Cambridge’s middle class to rising housing prices has been cited as a crisis probably every year since rent control ended in 1994, and the issue of community benefits has been highlighted and forgotten repeatedly. Craig Kelley called four years ago for a process for appointing a city manager, but the council failed last time and may well be caught flat-footed if Richard C. Rossi declines a second contract.
There are 37 items on the city manager’s “awaiting report” list, dating back to April. In past years, this list has been wiped out entirely from one council to the next, and not because everything gets worked on – plenty of things just get thrown out and disappear. The list was wiped clear also when former city manager Robert W. Healy retired so Rossi could take over with a clean slate, as though he came in with an all-new staff and without having already served in the city for more than four decades.
Think different
If there continues to be significant turnover from term to term, if the clearing of orders from term to term goes on and especially if the weather stays so fiercely unreliable, the McGovern principle of a stand-alone two-year bloc has to be taken seriously by the councillors.
It means having a mayor and council committed to prioritizing work and seeing legislation pass before time runs out, and a body that sets goals and directs the city manager to respond in a timely way. In short, it means better time management.
It means having councillors who avoid asking the city manager for information they could research within their own office with the help of legislative aides – each has one, save for Kelley, and they should be as capable as any worker in the City Manager’s Office of researching certain topics.
On Friday’s agenda, first-termer Nadeem Mazen is calling for the city’s 40-plus boards and commissions to clarify their yearly goals and initiatives, but he exempts the council. That doesn’t come off well; it clashes with the McGovern principle and, on its surface, seems not very self-aware.
Pass an amendment in which the council must state its two-year goals and initiatives and, no matter what, this council will have accomplished something when it ends in December.
Actually, David Maher has been off the council for a time in the last dozen years. He lost in 2005 but replaced Michael Sullivan when he resigned to be Middlesex County Clerk of Courts (as I recall, there was talk of having him hold both offices, but he was persuaded that that was a bad idea).
You make some excellent points about the importance of better time management (maybe should some councillors pare down their outside commitments?) and the more effective use of paid council aides. Councilor Kelley’s decision not to have an aide may be penny-wise pound-foolish in that respect. Goal setting would certainly help focus their limited time on the issues of highest priority.
There should be a restraining order placed on councilors that exceed a reasonable amount of policy orders each year. Right now I’d say all but a few are in violation of where I’d set the limit.
Maybe two years terms are too short? All I see and hear are lofty goals without meaningful benchmarks of achievement, opining on what our world view ought to be, whether or not the city staff should personally monitor our water meters while we are on vacation, and other miscellaneous nonsense mimicking talking points heard abroad. I guess in like of what this council has achieved longer terms are a tough sell.
Further the “McGovern Principle” is absolute nonsense. First term-ers should damn well be held accountable for their inaction on items left on the table from previous councils; unless you live in a box under the sea and inside a balloon without wifi. These new four should have been hot to the hit the ground, instead we’ve spent out time either ignoring past action, playing catch up, or forcing a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense that has no hope of gaining traction. Its almost like if you don’t do anything you can’t be blamed for staying the course you had no say in. Nonsense.
Patrick,
I think my comments may be a bit misunderstood here. I am not saying that this council isn’t responsible for what has been held over from a previous council. In fact, (since I know you are very concerned about C2), I said that this council is to blame for not making a decision on those recommendations, that includes me even though I wasn’t there when the report initially came in.
When I say that we can’t be blamed for past council mistakes, nor can we take credit for past council successes, is when people say “this council…” and then go on to reference a decision from 6 years ago. That is not fair. As far as things held over from previous councils then, yes, we do have responsibility for that. As far as the plastic bag ordinance that is referenced, I actually tried to move it forward last April, but it got held up when councilors who voted in favor of it last term, backed off and sent it back for revisions.
I do think there is a perception, both by elected officials, as well as some in the public, that the more policy orders you file the harder you’re working. That is not really true IMO. I would rather file fewer orders that are meaningful then a bunch that create needless work and go nowhere.
Councilor,
I have no candle in my window for C2. Its abandonment is not merely the product of new councilors unwillingness to the carry the torch of their predecessors, the remaining council members lack of interest contributed greatly as well. I also blame myself and others who didn’t fight hard enough, and relied on “the process”. I won’t make that mistake again. However, the council, new and old, decided it was easier to let it appear the radicals had won and we launch off into the “Master Planning” process, as a way to deny multiple property owners increased, though uncontrolled, development rights and alleviated the council from having to make a decision. Win + Win = Win. I would have been happy to have you guys take it up in the first few months last year and say, “Man this is horrible, I vote no.” than what actually took place. Taking it up now that the council has undermined its legitimacy would be a fools errand or a clever scheme to block Twining/Normandy; whose project is a direct result of city inaction. You may be able to resurrect it as a partition of the “Master Plan” but to do so would mean a moratorium on meaningful development in Central until the “Master Plan” is finished. Its not hard to care about Central Square…its really easy, but to bring it into this century you have to fight, and fight hard. However my concern is more global, with respect to how the council utilizes city resources; not just the money continually wasted through the hiring of consultants and the formation of committees whose work is merely thrown on to the heap (kind of like that last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark), but also the reckless waste of city staff as a resource. Every policy order creates a ripple, and passes from the Manager down to whomever is responsible for providing a response. When you stack on orders (and I’ve heard several councilors remark how useless orders ultimately are talk about adding insult to injury), you set in motion a stream of accountability/waste. Its easy to say, “well I’m waiting for a city response.” when asked why nothing has been achieved. I personally don’t buy it, and neither should anyone else. Our city staff can only handle so much, and rightfully so. When you and your council brothers and sister keep adding to the heap you wear the will of those accountable down to a nub, just as sure as you’re throwing money into a trash bin. I’m personally sick of watching it happen year after year. Our city staff is a valuable resource and they deserve much more respect than they are afforded. Whether it be Leland’s attempt to break records with the most orders in a year or Nadeem’s relentless beating of the dead horse that surrounds the alleged mystique of special permit review, or the councils general reluctance to do A..N..Y..T..H..I..N..G…I’ve had it. So in this municipal I’ll judge and vote based on who I actually think can work together, respects the managers time, and uses the city staff as an actual resource and not a wall onto which he/she shovels their latest flight of fancy in hope that it stick.