With campaign topics around transparency, forum has audience boos, shouts and gasps
City councillor Marc McGovern, center, on a panel at a Wednesday campaign forum near Porter Square. (Photo: Matt Rocha)
At many of this season’s Cambridge City Council candidate forums, councillor Marc McGovern has elicited applause for his stances on affordable housing, climate policy and other issues. At Wednesday’s forum, he got booed.
It was only the start of a relatively raucous event. Thanks to weak microphones and poor acoustics at Lesley’s University Hall near Porter Square, many audience members had a difficult time hearing candidates. To get the them to speak louder, audience members interrupted frequently and made odd hand gestures – in some cases, causing candidates to lose their trains of thought.
Someone shouted that the candidates ought to lick the microphone like an ice cream cone, implying that would be the appropriate distance at which to speak into the microphones. That comment elicited gasps from the crowd.
The forum’s moderator asked audience members to not heckle the candidates. It didn’t calm the event.
Candidate Dan Totten nearly got shouted off of the stage. In response to the question, “In 2050, how many people would you like to see living in Cambridge,” Totten said that he didn’t have a specific number in mind and instead started explaining his position on affordable housing. The audience erupted, berating Totten for not answering directly. When Totten persisted, the audience roared even louder, cutting him off before he could finish his answer. Only after the moderator stepped in could he finish his thought.
Of a half-dozen candidate forums so far, Wednesday’s forum had by far the rowdiest crowd – in none other have audience members so frequently and egregiously interrupted candidates. It reflects what many have called a particularly polarized election cycle in which online antagonism from two years ago has moved into the physical world. Election Commission staff have asked for more workplace security after increasing shows of aggression, and the city manager has agreed to put more police officers in polling places as needed.
In addition to sparring over bike lanes and housing, vandalism of candidate signs has returned. After criticism of two candidates’ social media accounts as endorsing hate speech, an event by a group endorsing them was picketed; police were called to escort in the attendees and watch over the action on the street.
An organizer of the forum worried about protests during its planning. But on Wednesday the disruption was part of the forum itself.
Transparency and community input
In other ways Wednesday’s event was an ordinary candidate exchange of ideas on housing, energy policy and bike lanes, with transparency emerging as a theme.
With a field of 24 candidates for the council, the forum was broken into three self-selected panels by sponsors the Porter Square Neighbors Association, Baldwin Neighborhood Council and Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods.
Councillor Patty Nolan, a member of the first panel, started the conversation on transparency in city government.“For any candidate, including me, look for and ask for the receipts.” She said in her opening statement. “I’m totally transparent. Look at my website, and you’ll see everything I’ve done.” She also emphasized her efforts to improve communication between the City Council and Cambridge residents.
Speakers who followed expanded the theme to communication and inclusion around projects that might dig up roads, add developments – or eliminate parking.
Throughout the election cycle, challenger Joan Pickett has argued that the council needs to include more voices in decision-making such as on Cycling Safety Ordinance bike lanes.
“How are we going to tackle this issue, which has been so divisive over the past several months?” Pickett asked. “I think the way to do it is an opportunity to bring people together and actually do a plan, actually sit and speak with each other.”
Adrienne Klein, another challenger, has similarly made transparency part of her campaign. On the urgent issue of installing power substations that the city will need to meet its Net Zero Action Plan, Klein said that the city must consult neighbors before siting the infrastructure, which can create an industrial buzzing noise.
“You need to make sure to focus on communication and transparency when you’re working with neighbors. That’s something that our city has been struggling to do, and I think we can do better,” Klein said.
During the second panel, the moderator asked candidates about plans to redesign parts of Massachusetts Avenue, including bike lanes. Many candidates said the council needed to consider community input before it makes further changes to road infrastructure. (A 14-member working group is holding public meetings that began with walking tours of the area; it has a tentative proposed design that keeps parking spaces on both sides of the avenue. Meetings to share the design and get input are planned.)
“I came on the council after the Cycling Safety Ordinance was passed, and one of the things I was most concerned about was the lack of engagement and involvement of the community,” councillor Paul Toner said. After joining, one of his first actions was to speak with neighbors and local businesses about the CSO.
Challengers Cathie Zusy and Frantz Pierre agreed with Toner about increasing transparency and community involvement.
Zusy said, “I’ll bring my research skills to the job and engage you, the community, to understand all angles of an issue,” while Pierre said, “It seems like when things are getting rolled out, we’re not receiving the information, and to me, it seems like it’s happening on purpose.”
Doug Brown, during the third panel, said he opposed just-passed changes to Affordable Housing Overlay zoning – which now allows buildings of 100 percent affordable housing to reach 15 stories in the city’s squares – because it eliminates oversight and, therefore, community involvement.
“I think neighbors and neighborhoods should have some level of input. I think that community input makes for better projects, not worse projects,” Brown said.
This post was updated Oct. 25. 2023, to add a video except of the forum from a Cambridge Community Television recording,
“Many candidates said the council needed to consider community input before it makes further changes to road infrastructure. (A 14-member working group is holding public meetings that began with walking tours of the area; it has a tentative proposed design that keeps parking spaces on both sides of the avenue. Meetings to share the design and get input are planned.)”
The journalistic and polite way of saying these people are full of it. We’ve had years of meetings and have years more to go.
So tired of this… tell me what you want to go do and I will decide whether to vote for you or not.
Anyone running for council on a platform of running processes or making sure everyone is heard does not have my vote. I have no idea what I am voting in that case. Plus, I don’t really need councilors to run a process we have plenty of city employees for that
Cowardice
I bet the people shouting down candidates who support affordable housing or bike lanes at this forum are the same ones who complain endlessly about not having enough “process,” whenever they are unhappy with an outcome.
I did not find the event as rowdy or technically glitchy as described here. I thought the audio was generally fine; there was one couple in the back that appeared hard-of-hearing and requested loudly on several occasions that the volume be increased (they were also the source of the ‘McGovern boo’). When the volume was increased, I found it uncomfortably loud.
In general, I thought the crowd was quite respectful and considerate, and the event was technically well-run. I fear the article gives a bit of an impression that the event needed ‘calming’ and was ‘rowdy’ and just wanted to chime in to say I perceived it differently.
I can only speak to the panel I was on, but I found the audience pretty respectful. They did engage if someone wasn’t speaking directly into the mic, but it became almost comical. I do recall hearing one person boo when I was introduced but overall I thought it was a positive forum. I was not there for the last panel, so I can’t comment on what happened with Dan Totten.
Did anyone ask about the globe or crimson articles about Siddiqui?
Like Mr Poirier, I found this to be an excellent, respectful event. I did not notice that McGovern was booed, so it can’t have been too bad, and audience members were trying to help candidates who were struggling with the microphones. The criticism with Totten was that he blatantly disregarded the rules–his lengthy discourse on affordable housing was in the portion of the discussion that called for a “one or two word answer”–he was the disrespectful one, not the audience. The Porter Square Neighborhood Association did a great job with this
For those interested, CCTV has posted the video of the forum here: https://vimeo.com/876518793
(I was curious and found the “boo” at 40:43, right after Councilor McGovern finished his intro.)
@q99, questions were submitted in advance and pre-selected by the organizers, with no live Q&A, so I doubt that question was asked since it would only target one candidate.
@Qwerty –
“I bet the people shouting down candidates who support affordable housing or bike lanes at this forum are the same ones who complain endlessly about not having enough “process,” whenever they are unhappy with an outcome.”
Guess you didn’t read the article. Pretty sure Totten is on the opposite side of those issues :-D
#votForTotten
This is a patently absurd question:
“In 2050, how many people would you like to see living in Cambridge?”
This ridiculous NIMBY gotcha question certainly calls into question the judgment of the moderator or whoever came up with that question. Asking about 2030 might be reasonable, but how is anyone supposed to answer for 27 years from now?!
No one should be making decisions based on random speculation about Cambridge’s population that far into the future, and this Trumpist notion—that we should stop building affordable housing, put up a wall around Cambridge, and not let anyone else move here—is gross.
I don’t even know whether I’ll vote for Dan Totten, but it’s ridiculous to ask him or any other candidate how many people should be living in Cambridge in 2050. He was right not to provide a specific answer.
This article highly distorts the event by highlighting two brief moments, early problems with the sound and not reporting on much of substance
You can watch the event and judge for yourself, both the event and the candidates
Here is the link:
https://vimeo.com/channels/1858001
The two brief moments
—one participant who quickly shouted “boo” at Marc McGovern and was then asked not to repeat this.
—And a few moments when the crowd asked one candidate to answer a lightning round as put, “with one or two words” 21 of the other 22 participants found they were able to do this, though most expressed that it was challenging.
And yes, there were some problems with the sound, but they were resolved.
I found the audience to be respectful of the candidates and only spoke up when they were unable to hear a response. I thought that the evening Q&A was run very well and [most] candidates did a great job. In the case of little Danny Totten, I feel that he was not dressed appropriately for this event and that he was often smug and arrogant in his answers. I tried telling him after the event that this is not the place for him to be combative if he is trying to earn a seat and his response was “don’t vote for me”. Danny may be a very bright individual but he lacks the character and maturity that a councilor should have.
The complete forum is on line at CCTV along with others if you missed any. I find this clip embedded in this article confirmation that this particular candidate doesn’t like to follow rules, gets self-absorbed and self-righteous, and has been known to disrupt by get on a blow horn to protest at other organization’s events. If you do not agree with him, he will mow you over. I do not find this a fitting character for a councilor who needs to be level, objective, collaborative and respectful. His 6-year “training” under his former boss and councilor who is not running speaks a continuation of that councilor’s behavior which has been known to be disruptive and contrary. I do not want a continuation of that.
To clarify: my answer to the question of future population is that I think we should build as much affordable housing as possible, including through AHO and inclusionary! Sorry that doesn’t fit neatly into a single word, but 2050 is extremely far out and I couldn’t in good conscience just make up a number on the spot…especially when the question was clearly rooted in NIMBY concerns, as was pointed out by several commenters above.
I find it almost comical that Danny Totten still cannot answer a question (see above) that 23 candidates could and did. I really do feel that its a question of maturity as Danny’s resume would suggest he is capable if he wanted to. Even his response above is that of a petulant child. Do we really want a councilor that avoids questions and then argues the fact that he should be able to? No, we do not.
Totten should not b a candidate for city council.
When they say affordable housing do they mean 20% of the building or 100%???
I think the author of this article attended a different event than I did.
There were a few audio problems at the start, but no where near as much as the selected clip suggests.
Instead go to this link:
https://vimeo.com/channels/1858001
The forum was not raucaus; it was occasionally lively, but generally attentive.
I think one person booed Marc McGovern, and was asked to stop.
Dan Totten showed his disrespect for the audience and the forum presenters by trying to give a grandstanding speech (repeatedly) to a lightning round question, specifically calling for a one to two word answer.
Rather than diss the question he and you should realize that we were asking the audience to think realistically about how the city will/must grow over the next 30+ years. I know it sobered me to think about what that meant, for housing, infrastructure, etc.
A number of the questions were not just for the candidates to answer, but for the audience to ponder as well, for example the question about where to put the 3-4 power substations necessary for the kind of building growth we will need to house all the additional people who will live here by shear population projection.
A sobering question, I found, for all of us.
Many of the questions came from a place of “what is the plan that we can all buy into?” rather than the dismissive NIMBY.
Respectfully, the article and many of the comments here seem dismissive of views not in agreement with their own, an attitude we have too much of in Cambridge.
WE CANNOT allow a council seat to be filled by little Danny Totten.