Maher in control is, in at least one way, very good, but what’s with McGovern?
What does David Maher returning to the mayor’s seat mean for Cambridge? Well, he has solid experience, good relations across the city and his very election showed he arrives with a strong base of power in fellow longtime city councillor Tim Toomey and newly elected members Marc McGovern and vice mayor Dennis Benzan.
This is a coalition that can make a lot of decisive differences quickly. That’s not necessarily a good thing, since this is a council that’s moved the fastest with the worst judgment, failing to ask fairly obvious questions and, based on a lack of expressed regret, learning nothing from it. (There’s a whole spectrum of conspiracy out there about how purposeful that is.)
We can still dream that this term will end the acrimony of the past two years, when there was so much bickering and undercutting going on that council meetings played liked the worst of reality TV. It looks a little less likely when Marc McGovern unleashes a diatribe against politicians for, of all things, playing politics with an election: “The gamesmanship that’s going on here is embarrassing, and it’s unfortunate. For new councillors who ran a campaign based on doing things different and not being political to play this game is outrageous.”
Not really.
Especially for an experienced politician, it’s probably just as fair to imagine that councillors felt they were reflecting the will of their constituents in trying for a desired outcome rather than simply embracing another?
Did McGovern – in office for eight years on the School Committee – dream the dream of comity that much more fervently than the rest of us that he expected there to be no actual politics at work on the selection of mayor? No one wanted another 10-ballot, two-month process, but this was a disconcertingly violent show of anger in the pursuit of, you know, peace. It’s also at least the second time McGovern has expressed shocked fury at a process allowed for by the very rules these officials play by. Last year he irresponsibly said four or five councillors had “voted down” the schools budget when they actually just didn’t vote earlier than they had to.
Let’s hope McGovern, who’s usually as measured and affable as Maher himself, isn’t aiming to adopt Marjorie Decker’s hellfire-and-brimstone approach to governing now that she’s moved on to the state legislature – or that this isn’t his role in Maher’s coalition.
Instead, let’s reflect on Maher’s demonstrated skill as a leader, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill, and place faith in it resulting in a more reasoned, less embarrassing two years’ worth of meetings in City Hall. And let’s praise him for already bringing one monumental reform to the meetings he runs:
As demonstrated Tuesday overseeing the first School Committee business of the term, he’s put an end to his predecessor’s excruciating and endlessly distracting insistence on having each and every step in a conversation run formally via an address to the mayor. It’s astonishing what a relief it is to have Maher running meetings again.
Maher, at the very least, has more sophisticated ways of controlling the dialogue.
Bravo to Marc Levy for calling out McGovern early in his term. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Surprised to see the usually genial Tim Toomey playing along with this bullying and lambasting of other councilors. No wonder the populace wants to directly elect a mayor, like they do in REAL cities, not TOY cities like Cambridge.
I was there, and I think you missed several things. The most obvious of which is the overwhelming crowd approval at the admonishments by McGovern and Benzan at the way some members were conducting themselves. We, in the crowd, did not see either of their statements as a “diatribe”. It was clear to all of us not “in the know” that something fishy was going on, and we were glad that someone spoke up about it.
Also, many were very uncomfortable with the way Carlone and Mazen were clearly switching their votes under the direction of Leland Chung. It was embarrassing watching Chung, who obviously was expecting to be the next mayor, furiously gesturing to them as to what to do to ensure it. Do they not have minds of their own? Is this what we are to expect from them over the next two years?
I do have high hopes for this council under the helm of David Maher, but only if two of the newest members can cut the puppet strings that Chung has put on them and start thinking for themselves.
I didn’t miss it. I just don’t want another two years of yelling.
I’m not a fan of politics for the sake of politics either, but let’s not pretend that Leland Cheung is the only councillor in Cambridge to try to orchestrate a mayoralty. These sort of shenanigans happen every two years, and I don’t believe there are any angels among our incumbent councillors who have abstained.
So while McGovern has the moral high ground, let’s agree that the way Cheung most likely learned his electoral techniques is from watching more experienced councillors — including David Maher.
You don’t want yelling, but you’re okay with two councilors who seemingly can’t think for themselves and a puppet master who is more concerned with his own political advancement than what’s good for the city? I can tell you, there were many people who felt like yelling at that point, as was evidenced by the boos and hisses Cheung received when he tried to suspend the vote until he could make more deals to ensure his victory.
And obviously there is campaigning among the councilors prior to the vote for mayor. I’m not so naïve as to believe they all walk in there, having spoken to no one, to vote their conscience. But there were only a handful of councilors who actually refrained from the manipulation, having made their choice as to who they thought was best for the city, and sticking to it. The others played a pathetic and sadistic game, with Simmons as their pawn, continuing to put her on the spot after she requested she not be considered TWICE. I know for a fact, that after the proceedings, she was quite shaken, although she handled it beautifully.
I don’t know if McGovern has the moral high ground or not, but he put a voice to what many of us were thinking, and for that I thank him. At some point, you’re desperate for someone to call bs on what is going on, and I’m glad he did just that.
To excuse Cheung’s behavior because he learned it from watching someone else? First of all, I have never seen Maher behave in such a undignified way, have such obvious control over his colleges, nor have a public tantrum. Secondly, isn’t that a bit like excusing an adult child’s behavior because his parents were no good? I’d like to think that we can expect more from the people we elect.
As an aside, I find myself wondering how things would be different had Minka retained her seat, and one of the new councilors, particularly the ones who seem too weak to stand up to their bully, had not been elected.
Since you ask, here are some detailed accounts of Maher manipulating a public meeting and how we know he was just basically doing it because he wanted to and could: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/06/15/school-committee-motions-shock-but-end-flawed-policy/ and https://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/11/04/who-not-to-vote-for-this-year/.
If we want Cheung to stop, then ideally everyone would stop, and I’m trying to be realistic (if resigned) in saying that politicians are going to act like politicians. This is how the sausage gets made. I’m not happy about it, but the problem with unilateral disarmament is that it leaves the other guy with all the weapons. And if you have a purpose or goals in office, you could reasonably worry that leaving the other guy with all the weapons means your purpose and goals (and those of the people who voted for you) will go unfulfilled.
And that’s pretty much the whole point. No one likes a conspiracy except when they’re a part of it, and they don’t see it as a conspiracy then — they see it as a coalition. Everyone’s the good guy of their own story, and the opponent is always the bad guy. How can you be so sure that the “puppet master” — who, for whatever reason, got one hell of a lot of No. 1 votes, signifying the strongest voter base in the city and the strongest claim to having a “mandate” in office – is only concerned with political advancement? Isn’t it just as reasonable to think he might want to do good things for the city, and feels his agenda is better for the city than David Maher’s? If not, how do you know?
I’m not sure why you think Carlone and Mazen can’t think for themselves. Of course they can. But they probably went in as a coalition with a plan and tried to follow the plan. Politicians do this pretty much every working day of their lives: Build a coalition and/or wheel and deal to get the votes to achieve a goal important to them.
Again, that’s not how it works in my ideal world, or apparently yours. But this isn’t our ideal world.
Sounds like Maher was a much more effective puppet master than Cheung in that he kept his rigid coalition of McGovern and Toomey on their strings. In fact, Maher, McGovern, and Toomey were the only three that DIDN’t change their votes at some point in the process.
Let’s not forget that Benzan also moved to suspend the voting and wait another week to decide. And then withdrew. Indecisive? Trying to manipulate the system? Or maybe confused about what is best when there is an ugly 4-1-4 split. Let’s remember that at one point Maher had only three votes.
If Simmons decided to be offended rather than flattered that she was not the most favored but at least the least disliked, that’s her choice. In the end, she was the one who chose to let the city down by not accepting the Mayorship that was offered to her on a silver platter, though tentatively. She must be getting too tired to do this “politician” stuff. She must figure this is her last term and why bother.
It also bodes badly that the final vote split along the lines of councilors-who-were-born-in-Cambridge and councilors-who-weren’t. (And the only councilors who voted across that divide were the ones not born in Cambridge!) Let’s hope we’re not going backward to the ugly town-gown split that kept this city mired down for decades. I sure hope Benzan doesn’t participate in that because he’s the only born-in-Cambridge councilor who has broad support across the city from native and non-native Cantabrigians. At least he did on election day. We’ll see how often he votes with the Maher-McGovern-Toomey coalition and tries to freeze out those not born here who dare to call themselves Cambridge residents.
I have looked over the links you posted. I do not read the Cambridge Day regularly, but was brought here by a link shared on social media. I had no preconceived notions about this paper upon arriving here. I have no dog in the fight in the political wranglings in this city. I simply care about the welfare of my city and the people in it. I call things like I see them and I will, and do, criticize any and every elected official as my conscience warrants.
Mr. Levy, with all due respect, I am starting to suspect that I may be the only one in this discussion without a personal agenda. I am aware of the issues in the articles that you linked, and I have to say, there is a certain spin in them that seems consistent with the one you wrote here. I understand the vehemence displayed by the other commenter, who is quite obviously against Maher, McGovern and Toomey, and perhaps even simply a Cheung supporter, but I am confused by the tone of you, the journalist. Are these all opinion pieces? The links did not indicate whether or not they were.
It is clear to me that we will have to agree to disagree on what happened on inauguration day, as we are obviously coming from two different perspectives. How about we agree that we both want is best for this city and leave it at that?
Sounds good to me, Beth.
I understand that the WordPress theme I’m using doesn’t identify individual stories as “news” or “opinion,” which is unfortunate and should be corrected. I can’t make promises about how soon I’ll be able to make that happen, although I will certainly add it to the (long) list of improvements I’d like to see.
“School Committee motions shock, but end flawed policy” is news. It may have some perspective or analysis in it (I haven’t read it in a long time), but it presents the facts of what happened.
I think “Who not to vote for this year” cannot be mistaken for anything but an opinion piece in that it starts with the statement of an opinion – in the headline – and aims to persuade the reader of why the people named in the essay are unworthy of your vote (in 2011).
Like many people, if I have a “personal agenda” it comes out of the things I see and learn about. And what I have learned is that Cheung and Maher are both politicians, and that they do some things I agree with and some things I disagree with, and they do those things in some ways I like and some ways I don’t. I believe that both do things because they think they’re the “right” things to do. Neither is evil. They’re just people. (And politicians.) So I report what they do, with context as I see it necessary, and when they do things I don’t like, I might write about that – and when they do things I do like, I write about that too. So it’s hooray for Maher for running meetings like an adult, for instance (in this very piece) and boo to Cheung for voting against transcripts for council meetings (in https://www.cambridgeday.com/2014/01/05/council-was-wrong-to-reject-transcripts-but-at-least-we-have-our-five-hour-videos/). Both are opinion pieces and identified as such on the homepage.
And I’d like to point out that I showed you those articles specifically because you said you hadn’t seen Maher act in an “undignified” way. The stories gave an example of Maher behaving like a politician – your complaint against Cheung. It was basically what you were asking to see, wasn’t it? So you can’t exactly turn around and announce that you’ve somehow discerned “spin” in them.
You can search for “Maher” on the site and also read scads of articles in which he’s just cited as doing stuff like any other city councillor.
Dear Beth,
You say you have no “personal agenda” but only want what’s best for the city. So what, specifically, do you think is best for the city? Whatever it is, that’s your personal agenda, and like everyone else who pays attention to Cambridge politics, you’ll vote for and support those whose agenda is closest to yours, even if you only agree with them 60% of the time. You may criticize every elected official as your conscience warrants (and I criticized Maher, McGovern, Toomey, and Benzan in this case because my conscience warranted it and because others have only criticized the four dissenting voters), but in the end, if you voted (as every responsible adult should do), you voted for some and not for others. I’m guessing you did not vote for the four councilors who didn’t vote for Maher.
There were far more people who watched the proceedings on t.v. than the select few who were able to take time off from work to attend a 10:00 a.m. so-called “public” meeting to make the most important decision the council ever makes, which is choosing the mayor. (What’s wrong with 5:30, when most working people can actually attend?)
If you’re an independent thinker, you won’t make up your mind about whose “at fault” based on the reactions of other people in the crowd. You’ll decide for yourself.
And why are Mazen and Carlone puppets and not McGovern and Toomey? Because Maher didn’t have to look at them to ensure they would keep supporting him? Maybe he’s just a better puppeteer and a ventriloguist who doesn’t appear to move his mouth when his puppets speak “independently.”
Chris