A popular police leader leaves much as he arrived: in a bubble, protected from displays of free speech
The City Council’s respect for free speech has long been a bit dodgy, easily sacrificed for what members think constitutes a well-run meeting. The rule against carrying signs in Sullivan Chamber isn’t great from a civil liberties point of view, and might be shocking to people who think of Cambridge as the ultimate in progressivism. There’s also the demand to speak to items only on the agenda unless, in practical terms, you’re a local eccentric named Peter Valentine. And there’s an injunction that members speak only about the question under debate and “avoid personalities,” while public commenters must limit themselves to specific agenda items “and shall not engage in personal or rude remarks.”
“Rude” is a subjective standard, and the rules around the “personal” or “personalities” are nonsense. It’s clear that the idea is not to avoid talking about personalities, but not to say anything bad – at least, nothing bad about the personalities with Cambridge officials’ stamp of approval.
We saw it in action Monday, when a resolution honoring departing police commissioner Branville G. Bard Jr. was heard with plenty of hagiography to go around: the “sacrifice” that he made to move to Cambridge from Philadelphia for a job, his being “a real role model” who was “committed to transparency” and so on. Then councillor Quinton Zondervan tried to speak about his perceptions of a public servant’s limitations and the controversy surrounding his upcoming role.
“I’m happy to thank commissioner Bard for his service. And while we didn’t always get along, particularly toward the end of his tenure, it was never personal for me and I appreciate him a lot as a person. Where we disagreed was on the role of policing in our society. And unfortunately, I do have trouble wishing him great success as he enters his exciting next chapter, because it’s to create a brand-new police department at Johns Hopkins University,” said Zondervan, an advocate for defunding police departments by moving their functions elsewhere.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui interrupted Zondervan to say it was “just not appropriate for you to talk about where you disagree with him,” since the resolution wished Bard well. “I don’t know where your manners are.” Councillor E. Denise Simmons thanked the mayor for shutting down Zondervan, while councillor Marc McGovern uttered his criticism of criticism loudly into his Zoom microphone: “Outrageous.”
It’s not a bad thing for city councillors and the police commissioner to get along, but the relationship between Bard and the council is reflective of the back-slapping that defines much of how the city runs. A lot can get forgiven in Cambridge, and it seems to matter not one whit to most of the councillors that, for instance, Bard’s response to them about military-grade gear in his department was disingenuous, to say the least. Bard, the “role model,” joined in a License Commission vote that led to a court case that is still being litigated in which he identified a remark about making a job complaint as being tantamount to physical threats and “witness intimidation.” He was not transparent and refused to answer for his actions to the media, an approach signaled from his appointment onward: He was the sole candidate identified by City Manager Louis A. DePasquale for the role and was introduced to the public at a “forum” at which he read a speech and gave prepared answers to canned questions before disappearing quickly afterward.
Zondervan’s critiques, and mine, aren’t going to do anything to impede Bard’s career trajectory. Bard’s statement as he was hired by Johns Hopkins suggested the importance of the “individual constitutional rights of the citizenry” and promised that “we do not have to choose between being safer and sacrificing civil liberties,” though the ACLU found that his commission vote “appears to raise serious free speech issues.” The Johns Hopkins’ press release also praised an online Procedural Justice Dashboard that is yet to be finished.
Clearly, Bard does enough right that these breaks in the narrative are unimportant. And he’s liked and admired enough that his friends on the council don’t want to be bummed out by criticism about the guy at an otherwise nice moment.
If that doesn’t exactly sound like a robust democracy, well, just refer back to our national profile as a bastion for radical lefties and let’s say no more about it.
After Bard’s introductory “forum” in June 2017 – the one with prewritten responses and no questions or interactions with the public or media – the city manager came up to me and asked what I’d thought of the event. I shrugged and said I’d thought it was “kinda bullshit.”
It was the first and last time DePasquale initiated a conversation with me. In Cambridge, the officials are happy to listen to you so long as you’re saying what they want to hear.
well said, marc. come november other nothing-burgers should come off the menu.
Marc speaks the truth as always, and we should listen very carefully to what he is saying, because it points directly to how the city of Cambridge is NOT ruled by a democratic government. A government that ONLY wants positive comments about our leaders and their actions.
On Jan.6, 2021 the City Council’s Public Safety Committee held a hearing on the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) inventory list, which includes military equipment. There were two hours of citizen comments were all but one supported the opinion of NOT militarizing the CPD. I was one of those who spoke. This is what the “minutes of the meeting” written by the city described my comment.
“…expressed concerns about Commissioner Bard’s description of the types of weapons in the possession of the CPD.” A censured, totally misleading, out of context description of my comments.
Here are the points I made at the taped meeting:
Bard lied to the council and to the citizens of Cambridge by saying, “The CPD does not have any military equipment at all.” But then we find out that they do indeed have assault rifles, sniper rifles, and a huge armored vehicle that you would see in a war zone.This vehicle was brought out to intimidate protestors at a Black Lives Matter rally.
Then Bard changed his answer and admits that the military equipment he said does not exist, does in fact exist, but that it is necessary because Cambridge residents have access to similar equipment. Is there an arms race going on between the CPD and Cambridge citizens?
But then, maybe Bard didn’t lie because he doesn’t consider this weaponry to be military. I looked up “assault rifle” online and the definition is: Assault weapon is a rapid-fire, magazine-fed rifle designed for military use. The NRA does not agree with this definition which makes them agree with Bard.
The City Manager is responsible for overseeing the CPD. He is also a discredit to the city because since 1990 there has been a municipal code of inventory of the CPD which requires that the CPD produce an annual list of their equipment, which has NEVER been done.
Shame on Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui for shutting down Zondervan’s comments at the Public Safety Committee, with the added ridiculous comment, “Where are your manners?” And shame on Councillor Simmons for thanking her. Both have checked into the silence of any but good comments concerning the city. What they are doing is advancing Cambridge as a city in a bubble protected from displays of free speech.
Watch who Louis appoints next. He didn’t want any comments on his sole
candidate last time and he won’t want it next time either.
Oh, and who’s going to be the next city manager? The one standing behind Louis waiting his turn.
OK, I admit it. Even as this plays out almost weekly, I am surprised every time by the obsequiousness of Siddiqui, Simmons, and McGovern toward the people who should be reporting to them
The lack of transparency and the continued over investiture of power in the City Manager’s office and its regular contempt for the regulations in the city and at times the laws of the state, as well as the PR manipulation of public events by the Mayor and certain members of the City Council to hide the controversies and problems in the city continue to stifle the rights of the citizens and the city council members they disagree with to be given voice.
This bodes well for how the Council will handle the confirmation of Manager appointments to Boards and Commissions.