Toomey strikes blow against, for hypocrisy
City councillor Tim Toomey called out some hypocrisy last week, noting that a zoning proposal by three of his peers had “absolutely no feedback from the community” – the same argument that had just caused a lengthy pile-on of the majority against councillors Dennis Carlone (who was out sick) and Nadeem Mazen for a zoning proposal about housing in Central Square.
“I would move that this also be defeated. You could use the same argument we just used on Policy Order No. 12,” Toomey said, before councillor Leland Cheung – a co-author with E. Denise Simmons and Marc McGovern – used his “charter right” to table the order until the next meeting.
If only Toomey had just as fine a sense for all hypocrisy.
Last month he revived a little-used procedural move that takes away councillors’ short-term rights to reconsider a vote or meeting’s worth of votes, locking in the initial results forever.
This move to block even the option for reconsideration followed a lost 4-4-0 vote about having the city manager review questions about recent License Commission controversies, taken on a week councillor Craig Kelley was away. It’s possible Kelley would have returned the next week and the motion might have passed, 5-4.
Toomey said his “reconsideration” maneuver March 16 wasn’t about that. “We’re always late. I’m trying to move things along here, get things done,” he said, asked why he’d suddenly revived the move.
Pushed further on whether a specific policy order inspired it, Toomey said, “No.”
And asked if he would be making the motion every week to ensure council actions kept moving along, he said, “I’ll try to.”
He hasn’t used it in the two chances he’s had since then.
But skip forward again a month, back to the meeting where Toomey called out fellow councillors’ hypocrisy about zoning proposals, and you’ll find him also trying to revote a Pearl Street reconstruction project that had been sent off to committee without a bike lane. He had been on the losing side and wanted the vote to be heard under “reconsideration.”
An email sent Friday reminded him of all of this and asked for clarity on his policy on reconsideration, which now seems to be that he doesn’t want it used unless he wants to use it – and asked again if there was something specific on the March 16 agenda he was trying to keep from being reconsidered. As of Monday night, he has not replied.
Of course these rules exist to be used. This isn’t a complaint about the law or its use so much as it is about a councillor falling back on a claim of procedural diligence and pure motives instead of standing up and being clear about why he’s choosing to act a certain way. (Toomey’s not the first or the only to do this.)
Or it’s an observation about a councillor looking pretty hypocritical just as he calls out his peers for hypocrisy.
If Toomey gets in touch to explain his behavior, these conclusions of apparent hypocrisy are open to reconsideration.
Let me add that it was not true that Councillors Carlone and Mazen did not talk to anyone in the neighborhood before submitting their policy order. In addition, whether or not you agree with the substance of their proposal, it is definitely true that it dealt with a matter that had been part of the public discussion for a long time.
Councillors Cheung, McGovern and Simmons, on the other hand, did not talk to anybody in the neighborhood before submitting their policy order. In fact, my neighbors and I were baffled by it and had absolutely no idea where it came from nor why it was there. As it turns out, it appears to have been an effort to pander to the building trades unions who were unhappy with a developer whose project was generally supported by the neighborhood. Since there was another union-supported policy order on the agenda as well, this gave the unions two to support instead of just one.
The icing on the cake, of course, is that part of last week’s meeting was devoted to the topic of civility, while at the same time we were reminded of what we’ve been missing since last term’s bullying participants left the council. But I bet we’ll have no clapping or cheering during public comment, nosireebob. Perhaps we can find a volunteer playground monitor to keep the discussion on the substance of what’s before the council rather than how much they want everyone to know how much they hate certain of their colleagues.
All of us sometimes act in ways we regret afterwards. I hope we never see a repeat of the shameful behavior of last week’s meeting and that there are some apologies, whether on or off the record. If these councillors put their minds to it, they could set an example for all of us in the remainder of this term.
Carlone and Mazen never approached the community and asking CRA leadership what to do next doesn’t count. They didn’t even have the stones to show up and defend such a sweeping zoning change. If Carlone really believed in the order it could have been tabled for when he was “well.” This “article” is just more Toomey slander on another gripe blog. If anyone should apologize it should be Carlone and Mazen for once again using Central Square as a pawn in their political campaigns. I look forward to a time when discussions can be about getting something done rather than posturing. I’m glad the seven at stood up for Central Square.
Let me look at the single 11-word sentence Mr. Barrett uses to address this article (“This ‘article’ is just more Toomey slander on another gripe blog.”):
1. I don’t understand it – it seems to include words strung together with no thought to what they mean or how they work together (“more Toomey slander on another gripe blog”?).
2. I don’t understand why “article” is in quotes. Is this not “a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine or other publication”? (That’s from a dictionary.)
3. Mr. Barrett doesn’t seem to know what “slander” is.
4. He doesn’t seem to have read the article or to have anything of substance to say about it or its topic. That suggests he should hold off on commenting until he can clear this low bar.
That leaves three words out of the 11 that aren’t off-point or misused: “This,” “is” and “Toomey.” I would really prefer to see a higher than 27 percent standard of relevance and rationality in the comments. Aim higher, Mr. Barrett.
Levy if you don’t like what I have to say just erase it like you used to do. Your internet muscles are flexing way too hard for you to be taken seriously. If you like we can test that courage face to face. Libel…slander…either way it’s just more cambridgeday horse $hit
I don’t think I’ve ever erased a comment. Can you remind me what you’re talking about?
I also don’t understand your second or third sentences.
Also, your fourth sentence underlines that you don’t understand what libel or slander is.
Councillors Carlone and Mazen did indeed communicate with the “community” about their P.O. They are both connected to long emails lists of supporters and other interested parties. They did not communicate only with the Cambridge Residents Alliance leadership. I doubt if there is anyway Mr. Barrett can verify that assumption. It seems more prudent not to make sweeping statements for which one does not have all the facts.- “Carlone and Mazen never approached the community” is a statement I would not venture to make because I can’t expect to know what was said to each and every Cambridge resident by any particular person. You know what they say “when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. ass u me. Get it? Carlone would have shown up, however, he was really sick with the bug that has been going around. I know how bad it was because I was felled by it, too. I had to get antibiotics finally. The bug lasts 3 weeks. Councillor Mazen was in Washington, D.C. However, the unprofessional attacks on two absent councillors is a black mark on the members of the council who participated. I was always taught not to talk about someone behind their backs. And that is what this amounts to. It is a sign of cowardice and shame on the councillors who spoke the loudest. One has to question what is meant by sticking up for Central Square. It is, of course, one person’s opinion. Since there has been no public discussion of the C2 report and since the city is dragging its feet on any planning for a citywide master plan, there is no general consensus on the future of Central Square. There are individuals who will benefit nicely in $$$ should Central Square be zoned for 120, 140, 160 foot towers of ugly steel panels or reflective glass. Some of those individuals may own property in the Central Square area and would profit one way or another should development take off with a roar while trampling on the quality of life of Cambridge residents. It would add to the public discussion if some individuals did not make sweeping assumptions, did not call their fellow Cantabridgians names, had an open mind and a willingness to discuss various viewpoints with other neighbors and with grass root groups such as the Cambridge Residents Alliance and others. It is sad to see the animosity created by some individuals who think they know what is best for A Better life in Cambridge. It would be great if everyone could temper their words and try to be more gracious, more open minded, more respectful of others, and for heaven’s sake, SHOW SOME BREEDING. Didn’t these folks mothers ever tell them to be nice and watch their tongues? Let’s try to be more tolerant of each other’s viewpoints and needs. Let’s try to keep the dialogue open and non-aggressive. Cool it, guys.
Mr. Barrett has already told us that he proofreads nothing and that we are not allowed to ask him to make sense. That is too bad. I am certain that he would have something worthwhile to add to the conversation if he were less disrespectful of the rest of us. At some point, perhaps he will want to be a positive role model for his children and he will use comment threads as a way to show them how to be contributing members of a community instead of an incoherent insult machine.
A point that has not been mentioned regarding Councillor Benzan’s comment that Councillor Carlone had not discussed his proposal with him in advance: the fact is that Councillor Benzan may need an appointments secretary because Councillor Carlone had set up a meeting with Councillor Benzan and reps from CDD to discuss his proposal. Benzan never showed and never called ahead to say he could not make it. To be charitable, perhaps he forgot to make note of the scheduled meeting?