Councillors will consider whether to limit scope to what happens within the borders of Cambridge
Protesters seeking a Cambridge City Council cease-fire watch from the back of Sullivan Chamber in City Hall on Jan. 22. (Photo: Aldrich)
Acrimonious public debate over a Gaza cease-fire resolution dominated the first month of Cambridge City Council business, inspiring councillors to explore whether they should be hearing it at all – or if was time to eliminate “foreign policy resolutions” from the scope of council responsibilities or find a better process for handling them.
Councillors voted 9-0 on Monday to begin that conversation Thursday in a Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee hearing. The committee would make a recommendation to the full council, which would hold a final vote.
There are no recommendations in the order, just “a conversation at this time,” said the maker of the motion, councillor Burhan Azeem. But he said he “struggled” through the months of advocacy, organizing and disruption of meetings as public factions made their case to the council for or against a cease-fire resolution.
Some wanted Cambridge to make its collective voice heard to U.S. politicians with a more direct influence on foreign policy. Others criticized the council as an unqualified and irrelevant actor in the context of global crises.
“During all of January, this was the only thing that was really on my mind in terms of policy,” Azeem said. “This issue is very important – but should people be spending months on organizing to convince me versus to convince other people?”
Other approaches
While the conversation on foreign-policy resolutions was welcomed, not everyone was aboard with taking away an option for looking beyond Cambridge’s borders. There have been many such motions over the years that have passed quickly. “I don’t want to put in a rule that says we can never do this again because we had this experience over the last few months that was somewhat more problematic or somewhat more challenging,” vice mayor Marc McGovern said. “That’s not typically how it goes.”
The council could have a rule to always handle local issues first, said councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, but she opposed eliminating foreign-policy resolutions wholly. An idea supported by Azeem in January was to always have an order be refined in the Civic Unity Committee before coming to a council vote.
“Ninety percent of the people that I heard from were saying that they really elected us to do city business and that our expertise is not in foreign affairs,” councillor Joan Pickett said. “If you’re looking at what the community was saying – at least the community that reached out to me – they were saying that we really should be focusing our efforts on the city and the city business.”
Councillor Patty Nolan wanted to be sure that a resolution represented the city as a whole. “It’s really important to recognize we came to a 9-0 unanimous cease-fire because we did work to try to understand and have something that all of us could support,” she said. “We worked hard for something that wouldn’t have further split the city.”
In all, councillors discussed the idea for around 20 minutes before voting.
Public comment
Two residents gave public comment – and were divided.
“Internationally, you have no power,” Dan Eisner said. “It’s a waste of time and energy to exercise nonexistent power when that time and energy could be directed at something that is within your capacity to influence. Weighing in on foreign policy impedes your ability to do the job you were elected to do: improve the lives of Cambridge residents.”
Robert Bledsoe spoke a few minutes later against ending the council taking a stand on world affairs – a history that goes back to 1936, when it spoke against Nazism.
“In the ’80s, this council stood against apartheid. Did you change the government of South Africa? No,” Bledsoe said. “What you did do was shift the Overton window and our culture.”
The Overton window is a concept about the range of ideas that are politically acceptable at a given time and how the range can be moved.
The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee run by councillor Paul Toner will review and discuss possible amendments to how the City Council runs. It meets from 9 to 11 a.m. Thursday at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
This post was updated Feb. 14, 2024, to correct a word in Dan Eisner’s public comment.
This whole move strikes Bono as not only patently ludicrous, but also disingenuous. Will the Council take down the POW-MIA flag from atop City Hall, and remove those chairs from the entry foyer, a half century after the helicopters lifted off of the CIA safe house in Saigon? Will the Council reverse the designation of Cambridge as a “sanctuary city,” decades after the end of the civil war in El Salvador?? How many “sister cities” does Cambridge have official relationships with?? (Hint: A lot more than you think.) How will “foreign policy” actually be defined?? (Some of us already consider Boston a foreign country…) When the butcher of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, was feted at MIT’s Media Lab by then President Reif under cover of spring break, should the Council have remained completely silent?? The world research headquarters of the biggest drug company in the world is located just a few blocks from City Hall, Novartis. Should commercial real estate policies and practices in Cambridge be considered “foreign policy”?? The disruptive protests that seem to have provoked this ridiculous move – toward greater restrictions and censorship – would likely never have happened had the original policy order been given a fair hearing and an open debate. But no, the majority of the Council, in their infinite wisdom, thought they could get away with suppressing or ducking the issue of Israel’s genocidal onslaught in Gaza altogether.
And now this.
Bono wouldn’t be surprised to hear some imbecile declare that we absolutely have to do this now to, “save our democracy.” No criticism of Israel allowed. Not a peep out of the Cambridge City Council allowed about massive war crimes, ever…! (Stick only to those things the City Council never do anything at all about anyway – like, for example, rules for bicyclists that are actually enforced…) If the city councillors pushing this attack on democratic governance really care about wasting their, and everyone else’s, time, as Councillor Azeem claims, then why are they doing this?? They should just drop this ill-considered charade immediately. Spare us this ridiculous and offensive waste of time now. If you truly care about Cambridge, as you claim, there’s plenty to do.
(1) Designate a special room for debate about foreign policy issues.
(2) Soundproof that room.
(3) Let foreign policy advocates go into that room, then shut the door behind them and let them talk there as long as they want.
This is ridiculous, and it needs to end. City councillors should focus on city business.
To eliminate a discussion of foreign policy issues would be a deliberate failure on the part of the Council to impact federal and state legislative policy decisions that use our tax dollars in ways that may not benefit the residents of Cambridge. The City Council has the duty to bring state and federal tax dollars to Cambridge so that we can address human needs on a local level.
For example, the recent vote by Senators Markey and Warren to send $14 billion dollars to Israel for military uses deprives Cambridge of some $6,000,000 based on our population and federal tax receipts. The annual sending of nearly $4 billion to Israel costs Cambridge an estimated $1,700,000 annually.
The Cambridge City Council has the duty to speak out on these expenditures! To eliminate the opportunity to do so would be a failure of duty as elected representatives.
The fact that counselors are “considering” this is just adding more wasted time to the original colossal waste of time “Demanding a Ceasefire(TM)”.
If the important work of running a city is too boring for these counselors, they should seek other work. Activism, perhaps?
Cambridge is already involved in foreign affairs see its coordination on “Homeland security.” Those who act like this is outside of the scope of the city, simply want to depoliticize involvement in the US war machine. https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/02/16/attend-meetings-in-cambridge-from-feb-16-23-about-the-foundry-and-plans-at-margaret-fuller/comment-page-1/?unapproved=16942&moderation-hash=240e86c629b68fa1b07f3a3137693b7e#comment-16942