Cambridge, renowned for its academic brilliance and cultural diversity, stands at a crossroads in its governance. Since the adoption of a “Plan E” form of government in 1941, the city has evolved, and so too have the demands on its leadership. To better align with contemporary challenges and foster a more responsive and accountable municipal administration, it’s time for Cambridge to transition from Plan E to a strong-mayor system.
Cambridge adopted this novel form of government aimed at combining the strengths of city manager and city council systems. Under Plan E, the council serves as the legislative body while an appointed city manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure was envisioned to mitigate the risks of political patronage and enhance efficiency by having a professional administrator at the helm. At the time, Plan E was seen as a progressive and innovative approach to municipal governance, aligning with the prevailing thoughts on good government.
Plan E no longer serves Cambridge’s needs. Over the decades, Cambridge has undergone significant transformations, emerging as a hub for technology, innovation and cultural diversity. The governance structure outlined in Plan E has not evolved at the same pace. Several factors contribute to the argument that it no longer serves the city effectively:
Accountability and responsiveness: Plan E has created a separation between the elected council and appointed city manager that results in a lack of direct accountability to the electorate. The absence of a democratically elected executive figure often hampers the responsiveness of the city government to the rapidly changing needs of the community. An appointed city manager removes accountability to the electorate. Furthermore, a city manager cannot be directed or overruled by a council. The only option the council has is to fire the city manager, which, due to the enormous severance pay and difficulty in replacement, they are loath to do.
Decision-making delays: The managerial structure of Plan E, while designed to ensure professional administration, can lead to bureaucratic delays. A strong-mayor system, with a clear executive at the helm, can expedite decision-making processes, crucial in addressing urgent matters such as public safety, infrastructure and economic development.
Community engagement: Cambridge is known for its vibrant and engaged community. Plan E’s division of responsibilities has, at times, hindered effective community engagement. A strong-mayor form of government can enhance transparency and public participation by providing a singular executive figure to engage with residents and community organizations.
Misplaced focus: City managers have historically touted our “AAA” bond rating, which allows the city to issue bonds at slightly better interest rates. While borrowing money at lower rates is advantageous, the city should instead focus on working within a reasonable budget and borrowing less. Almost all homeowners have seen huge increases in their property taxes; efforts need to be made to govern more efficiently.
A strong mayor serves as chief executive and the head of the legislative branch, providing a unified and accountable leadership structure. Many municipalities have transitioned to more dynamic and accountable governance models, including strong-mayor systems. These models empower elected leaders to take direct responsibility for the city’s affairs, ensuring a more direct link between the government and its constituents.that could lead to increased accountability, more efficient decision-making and better community engagement.
Cambridge, with its rich history and vibrant community, deserves a governance structure that reflects its current needs and future aspirations. While Plan E was a forward-thinking approach in its time, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations in the context of contemporary challenges. Transitioning to a strong-mayor form of government can provide the responsiveness, accountability and efficiency required to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. As the city continues to evolve, so too should its governance, ensuring a brighter and more inclusive future for Cambridge and all of its residents.
Phillip Sego lives on Norfolk Street.
This essay includes information from Robert S. Katz, “Plan E Government in Cambridge: An Analysis of the First Ten Years” and John A. Smith, “The Evolution of City Manager Government in the United States.”
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.
Never get tired of people owning $1.5 million properties complaining about paying property taxes that are the lowest in the area (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/financedepartment/propertytaxnewsletters/FY24/fy24taxrateletter9_28_23_final.pdf).
More to the point, the previous City Manager at least spent a _lot_ of time talking about how his goal was to minimize residential property taxes as much as possible, and succeeded in doing so, given the comparison to other cities. Not to mention that e.g. Boston and Somerville both have a strong mayor system and homeowners there pay far more taxes than Cambridge homeowners do. So the fourth argument doesn’t make much sense.
I am still personally uncertain whether strong mayor or city manager makes more sense. The first argument is the most convincing of the four, since we have clear examples, but perhaps less convincing with the approach of the new City Manager.
Not so sure this makes an effective case for moving to
a strong mayor, just as the Charter Review debates have failed to do.
The only significant item any city manager ignored was broad band, until the Council vetoed the Technology Budget. Certain Councilors have always tried to blame the city manger, but most delays were poorly written policy orders or process driven issues like the partnership with HEART, who’s weak leadership is unable to do what is necessary to secure a contract with the city.
Given the amount of funding and resources the city allocates directly to resident programs it’s hard to make the case our government is not responsive to its people. At recent meetings the CM cautioned that based on our current debt load and tax limits we may need to set stricter spending priorities going forward. I worry what type of person a strong mayor position would attract, tempted to control such a large budget. The very reason we moved to Plan E in the first place.
As for community engagement just look at all the boards, commissions, committees and neighborhood groups, as well as the number of public meetings we include in decision making. Good community engagement takes time, speeding up the decision making process would leave out many of those voices.
Currently our CM has checks and balances with a council who has direct decision making power accountable to our widely different communities, and we’ve been extremely successful for the last 40 + years. Those are the best reasons to keep our
manager/ council form of government in place.
I, a homeowner in Cambridge, have not seen these huge tax increases Phil speaks of.
Direct democracy is good, if we’re stuck with having to have a city manager we should at least be able to vote for them.
Some very good points…
This isn’t about taxes. While the city does lots of good things with our tax dollars, and I would like to see more funding for housing, transportation, more for maintenance, and more on programs for the unhoused. But again, this isn’t the point.
The point is that by hiring a city manager who reports ONLY to the council is not as democratic as the voters electing a mayor. It’s about accountability.
The comment about internet is interesting, and although I have (had) doubts as to whether this was a good decision or not, I saw that the CM simply ignored the council’s request for a study. In a true democracy, a mayor probably wouldn’t do that. They may push one way or another, but that wouldn’t be able to ignore the demand for a study.
Here’s the broadband study commissioned by DePasqualle after the Council voted down the city’s Technology budget.
It’s still under consideration
https://www.cambridgema.gov/en/news/2023/03/cityunveilsreportonmunicipalbroadbandfeasibility
Even if we transition to a directly elected Mayor with a Chief Administrative and Finance Officer, wouldn’t we still have to decide how to allocate authority between the two and between the Mayor and the Council?
If anything, Cambridge has too much community engagement, which is anti-democratic as it massively empowers a select few and blocks needed change in favor of sclerosis.
Qwerty: I think you may be confusing “community engagement” with Massachusetts’ Town Meeting form of government. In Plan A (strong mayor) and Plan E (our current form) the community is consulted for non-binding input. While this input is often quite helpful to the agencies and commissions, they’re under no obligation to take any of into account. In a Town Meeting form, the voters who show up have a chance to have a binding vote. I haven’t heard of anyone advocating for this in Cambridge.
Like others, I have mixed feelings about abandoning Plan E. One concern is that there have been mayors elected by the Council who I would not have wanted to have more power than they did as City Councillors. A professional City Manager has training and experience that a Council member does not have.
Regarding our low property tax rates and AAA bond rating, that’s a good thing, yet more important is how we spend the money. The former CM was, more or less by his own admission , a money guy. That was his background. The current CM has a broader outlook and presumably different priorities (besides money).
I appreciate the civil conversation here. It’s a tricky issue.
Phil. I get your point and appreciate it but have to pause to put things in more accurate context. Being a fourth generation Cambridge resident, my historical context goes back much further. EC was a huge industrial complex when Plan E was adopted. In fact, it was the largest industrial complex on the East Coast. So basing your opinion on the proliferation of industry is misplaced. Also, I am sure that if we go back a century you would have found the immigrant/foreign population in Cambridge far exceeds what you are finding today. In fact, those factories were “manned” by Italians, Portuguese, Irish and Polish almost exclusively, all foreign born. So, the ethnic diversity itself does not cut against Plan E either. There is a fascinating paper that explains Plan E as a way for the landed gentry to control the masses of workers who by their shear numbers could have swung any election. Whether that is true or not, I am not sure but certainly interesting. As others have expressed, there is not one City Councilor I would have wanted as Mayor if Mayor is truly the Manager and not merely a ceremonial figure head. Not one!!! Ironically I am not high on the latest city manager even through he is purportedly independent since he is not. He sees his job merely as a vehicle to carry out whatever the city council wants.
MIghtyMouse: A more accurate context…
Cambridge adopted Plan E after experiencing significant corruption on the part of the administration of a strong mayor. The transition was the birth of the CCA, created as a ‘good government’ reaction to the corruption. For decades after, the CCA leaders discussed (ad nauseum) the negative unintended nuances of Plan E.
We could debate that forever, the takeaway is that a “professional city manager” definitely solved some problems, but created many others, the least of which is the subversion of representative democracy.
Andy Zucker: In Plan A, a strong mayor isn’t prohibited from hiring a professional manager to run the daily municipal functions. I believe that’s the norm. It would just relegate the important/policy decisions to an *elected* official.
Phil, you may want to read this: http://rwinters.com/docs/which_peoples_republic.htm
I understand the CCA insistence that Plan E was born out of corruption and aimed to cure, there is another really fascinating and plausible argument that it developed to control the masses of immigrant and black voters.
http://rwinters.com/docs/which_peoples_republic.htm
I’m also not convinced. On the two biggest issues over the last few years–cycling and affordable housing–there was extensive debate during the council campaigns, with voters speaking with a pretty clear voice on both issues. It’s hard to argue that residents’ views aren’t reflected in the city’s actions.
I’m continually amazed at the difference between how low our property taxes are relative to the amount of new school construction.
Perhaps a strong mayor would have made more progress on municipal broadband, but I’m not bothered about that since I think it’s not a great investment of city resources.
Plan E has, and continues, to work well for the City, and I’m strongly in favor of keeping it. The following is the text of my thoughts on the matter that I sent to the Charter Review Committee during their deliberations:
As you know (and probably the rest of the universe does, too), Cambridge has a very vocal, highly visible, very progressive cohort, which is well-represented on the City Council. But despite their thinking so, that cohort does not represent the entire spectrum of city residents, and may not actually even represent the majority of the citizenry beyond the core that votes in city elections.
Many of the progressive policies and ideas are laudable, but the vigorous pursuit of them is very often not clearly thought-through. The result is that unintended consequences seem to frequently crop up as these policies are implemented. It is also not unusual for proponents to dismiss or disregard known downsides of some substantial initiatives because of their view that the ends justify any means.
Separately, but related, the two-year term for Councillors means that the Council make-up changes frequently. So though there is relative consistency over multiple terms, single-issue groups are able to disproportionately influence and staff the Council.
For these reasons, and because the Manager typically serves over many election cycles, I believe we need a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road Manager who can keep her/his eye on the overall picture and trends, and can temper some of the more aggressive initiatives while advancing City and Council objectives. To put it another way, we need the Manager to be a voice of reason, balancing desires and goals with practical realities and the overall health of the city.
I believe that the City has been fortunate in this regard over at least the past four City Managers, and with the current Manager.
For these reasons, I strongly believe that the current balance between the Council and the Manager is best for the City, and should be retained in the revised Charter that you are working on.
Additionally, I think the two-year Councillor term also benefits the City in that the voters have regular opportunity to register their support or lack of it for members of the Council. While reasonable arguments can be made for four-year terms, including staggered incumbencies, that is a long time for the City to endure special-interest packing of the Council, or ineffectual members.
amazing to me that The public schools have yet to become a priority in these conversations. Generally speaking there is no arguing that City Government has been responsive to the values of residents. The biggest and most glaring challenge is the achievement gap and performance of our public schools. The lack of focus on that issue in these conversations demonstrates the bigger problem which is not the “ form “ of Government. Until we want the ball on that issue we cant begin to tackle it. If we are truly a progressive responsive city we will out public education first and not just in spending.