There’s no doubt that this is a fractious election season in Cambridge. With all that divides us, I hope we can agree that voting and civic participation is crucial. That’s why we need to scrutinize how often each candidate has voted in municipal elections and what degree of engagement they have had in our city. More than a few current candidates have spotty records on both fronts.
Hao Wang has never voted in a municipal election in Cambridge, despite living here for 25 years and despite being registered since 2008. John Hanratty has lived here for decades but has voted only twice in the past 20 years. Carrie Pasquarello, Federico Muchnik and Ayesha Wilson all claim long residency but have voted sporadically at best. All of the candidates listed above were endorsed by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition. (Why didn’t CCC factor voting into its endorsement decisions?)
Some of these same candidates have had no civic engagement whatsoever in Cambridge. That doesn’t seem to bother CCC and Cambridge Voters for Good Government, a new group that also endorsed Wang and Pasquarello, lauding their international credentials (which are also quite thin).
Voting is not hard or time consuming, and there are many voting options available. To me, it is disqualifying for a candidate to have a sparse voting history. Some candidates have robust voting records. I don’t support all of them, but I respect that they take civic responsibility seriously. There are also some younger candidates such as Sumbul Siddiqui who lived away from Cambridge for college and graduate school and voted where they lived. That is to be applauded and not penalized.
While it takes guts to run for office, it is an act of hubris if a candidate has not fulfilled the basic duties of citizenship.
Bliss Austin Spooner, Avon Hill Street
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Bliss: The CCC selection committee chose candidates based on their ongoing civic and professional work regarding key issues of interest and importance to city residents as a whole. CCC is also committed to building a larger voter base here to counter Cambridge’s historically low turnout. We believe that Dr. Wang and the other CCC candidates will bring a variety of new voters to the polls this year – including some who have long lived here but have not recently voted in our elections. You can find short overviews of the significant work our candidates have done at CCCoalition.org. We also do important civic work throughout the year (in between elections) and one can sign up for our newsletter at the same site. You will find on our site links to key data on core local issues from transit and the environment to housing, planning, and schools. If there are other questions, please let us know!
neither rfk or hillary hung out in new york state long before going to the u.s. senate…but why should we expect you to grasp that? you’re a local…embrace it, in between your sermons and dog whistles.
I think if you’re looking for reasons not to vote for any candidate you’ll likely find something; participation in our own sad municipal system isn’t a benchmark I care about. I look at what people have done professionally and, if they’re an incumbent, how they’ve spent their time on the council. Carrie and Hao are both very accomplished professionally and more than qualify. I do not know much if anything about John. Federico has written his odd Carlone-esque take on the AHO and at best is confusing. Wilson has been on the school committee and her commitment is clear. Sumbul, whom you give a pass to, has some other concerning issues related to a globe article that should probably be addressed before we give her a pass because she voted locally. Voting isn’t hard but it sure does feel meaningless sometimes in Cambridge. Our system of voting all but guarantees at least one insane person get elected (likely at least two this go around). That someone didn’t want to participate in the chaos isn’t disqualifying it’s a sign they’re human.
p.s….and please don’t connect me to some art teacher, activist wannabe! got no interest in their foolishness. doubtful political attention and shelf-life for that crew.
So Spooner starts with bemoaning “all that divides us”, and then immediately shifts to personal attacks? Our politics would be less “fractious” if we all focused on the issues and how to improve our city. Wang, Hanratty, and the others mentioned all have great issues-oriented platforms on their websites that describe how we can make this a better city for all. These are a much better read than the mud slinging here
I didn’t know there was a litmus test for civic engagement. At what point is it permissible and when does it expire? There may be extenuating circumstances for particular people, but why not applaud their willingness to get involved now, when we most need it? I suspect, given the demographics, that more groups, seeing more diversity, will feel compelled and encouraged to vote because they see someone they identify with.
In your voting survey, have you delved into the voting records of the other younger fresh faces who chances are, have lapses in their practice? Or are you just looking at one civic group in particular for political purposes?
I think it is great that there are more potential voters out there and those who have decided to throw their hats in the ring. There is no deadline when to get involved. And, BTW- many newly minted citizens know more about the constitution than naturally-born. Those from here, in several cases, have lived in Europe for several years. Did your cursory investigation realize that? Encourage civic engagement, don’t shame it.
The author is right that there is hubris in being so disengaged that you don’t even vote for the seat you want. But it’s worse that these candidates aren’t even doing their homework to get informed on the issues. Most have not engaged at all over the last two years. It’s not just a CCC issue, Joe McGuirk is another example, he lost 2 years ago, but I have not seen him at a single city council meeting or hearing. What makes us think he’ll be successful or actually understands how to make policy? Ayesha is on both ABC and CCC’s slates, how is that even possible given their housing policies, other than being either completely uninformed or intentionally obtuse?
I also haven’t heard Hao, Carrie, or Federico speak at a single city council over the last 2 years. Cathie has only been involved where it affects her direct work or while running, and John and Joan are singularly focused on bike lanes, but have never put forward any solutions, only lawsuits and misinformation.
How are people supposed to really know where they stand on policing or housing policy or climate change? Anyone can say nice things on a shiny postcard about how they want to do the right thing, but it’s fair to ask why they didn’t get informed or show us what they stand for.
I think the mistake folks are making is assuming the current council is informed and knows what they’re doing. With few exceptions the last two years has taught me it’s about the surface never the substance with this crew. Does a vote for something like BEUDO mean one supports climate change initiatives? It’s unworkable and won’t achieve any meaningful reduction in green house gas emissions from the largest producers in the city; but if I support it I’m an environmentalist ? The AHO 2.0 isn’t really going to produce much housing and certainly won’t “level the playing field” betwixt affordable and market development but does a vote for that mean I’m pro-housing and against means you hate affordable homes? I’ve found over the years many many city councilors don’t understand all of the issues and rarely understand them in any in-depth way. Most are pretty humble about that and reach out and learn on the job. I dont know why anyone would take issue with that. What candidates have a satisfactory local election voting record? Typically anyone hyper engaged (myself included) should be regarded with much suspicion.
Somehow talking about candidates’ public voting records and civic engagement is a “personal attack” now. Amazing.
>> regarding key issues of interest and importance to city residents as a whole
Like the bike lanes the majority of the city wants to keep and expand?
Cambridgegent, I have definitely heard Carrie and Joan and Federico and Hao at important public meetings. Guess you missed them. Many write in rather than speaking and that makes more sense most of the time since the 2-minute snapshot is not conducive to relaying a coherent point. Not sure how anyone can allege Cathie Zusy is not an engaged citizen. Perhaps you need to take a walk down to Magazine Beach or St. Augustine and thank her. Truth is CCC and CV4GG have really great and diverse candidates who bring a skill set and background we can only dream of. Truth is I think of myself as a very engaged citizen and overwhelmingly I have not voted for school committee. I have no kids. Not important for me to weigh in since I do not have a problem and leave it to those more knowledgeable. With city council, there are so many pols who faithfully vote within our city whom I never want to see grace Sullivan Chambers again.
Dr. Blier, I do have a question. Some people will vote against bike lanes and new housing without knowing, due to your group’s deceptive postcards (e.g.: using NIMBY dog whistles like “holistic,” which sound vaguely appealing). Isn’t that anti-democratic?
The CCC endorses NIMBY candidates who are more concerned about protecting what they have than helping others. That is the opposite of good governance.
John Hanratty in particular is a problem. He sends out disinformation and bogus reports to defend his ability to park wherever he likes.
People need protection, John Hanratty. Protecting people is good governance. Looking out for yourself and the privilege of a small group at the expense of the safety of others is not.
I am referring to the thoroughly and completely debunked Cambridge Streets for All “study”. That was either mendacity or incompetence. Either way, not someone who should be in office.
🙋@bliss, thanks for your concerns. I appreciate many readers pointed out the obvious flaws in your letter.
Please let me do some fact-checking for you. “Civic engagement” refers to “any individual or group activity addressing issues of public concern.” I worked for the NYS government for almost eight years, first as a deputy commissioner for the country’s most extensive mental health agency, then as the CIO for the country’s most comprehensive public higher education system. This experience is squarely civic engagement. In the past three-plus years, my work with a nonprofit in NYC fighting homelessness, mental health crises, and drug abuse also qualifies as civic engagement.
Despite you subject candidates whom you disapprove of to your biased political purity test, I will not question the legitimacy of any of my fellow candidates with less experience. I will not doubt your right to work in health and human services just because I spent more years in the industry than you.
Cheers.
Hao Wang for Cambridge
https://haoforcambridge.com
Excellent letter Bliss. Voting in municipal elections is important and it is concerning that so many candidates running for office didn’t bother.