Cambridge’s City Council is considering calls for more power as it refreshes the 80-year-old document that determines how city government functions, including the ability to increase budget line items, taking the city’s Law Department under its purview and away from the city manager and having mayors be elected directly by resident vote.
City councillors would also get four-year terms instead of the current two-year terms and approve more personnel decisions by the city manager under proposals to be heard at a “special committee of the whole” meeting coming 11 a.m. Monday, the result of 17 months of work by a Charter Review Committee tasked by the council in 2022 with recommending changes. That committee’s final report numbered more than 350 pages and covered everything from councillor term lengths to resident assemblies. After a council process, the state Legislature gets a say – and then any changes that make it through those processes would be approved or rejected by residents during municipal elections.
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25503770-2025-01-27-special-committee-of-the-whole-full-agenda-4162/?embed=1
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25503772-law-dept-response-to-cc-charter-questions-for-1/?embed=1
A response to the council’s proposals through city solicitor Megan Bayer was posted and sent to councillors Friday, incorporating the thoughts of staff from the Law Department, Election Commission, Finance Department and other city departments.
Here are ideas under consideration by the council Monday as proposed by councillors Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, Patty Nolan, Ayesha Wilson and Burhan Azeem and some responses.
Proposal: Give the City Council the power to increase parts of the annual budget by up to 10 percent compared with what is initially proposed by the city manager – in addition to the council’s current power to decrease parts of the budget – and as long as the overall budget total proposed by the city manager remained the same.
Councillors’ explanation: This is similar to powers held by Boston’s city council and Cambridge’s own School Committee and addresses a problem that the council’s “current ability to reduce parts of the budget is ineffective without the ability to also increase funding in other sections.” It would reduce the likelihood of the council rejecting a proposed budget altogether, “which would cause instability and potential staff layoffs” – something that has not happened in recent memory.
City response: This approach would “would fundamentally change how the city’s budget process works, with significant impacts to the city’s financial stability, ability to support council priorities and accountability,” and the council lacks the staff and capacity to handle the responsibility “or to weigh the trade-offs that come from reducing one department’s budget to increase funding in another area,” considering that the city manager is in charge of running the city on a day-to-basis.
Proposal: The council would have hiring and firing power over the city solicitor, who provides legal advice and runs the Law Department; the council already hires and fires city clerks and city auditors, while the city manager makes all other appointments and departmental personnel decisions.
Councillors’ explanation: Other cities such as Malden have the same structure in place because “the head of the city’s law department should be selected by the body tasked with drafting Cambridge’s municipal laws,” considering the person’s “important role in representing city residents and staff.” The person “should be chosen by the branch of government directly elected by voters.”
City response: The change risks politicizing the role of the city solicitor and misses that the appointee also has significant responsibilities over legal administration, employment and labor matters, litigation and contracts – matters that lie with the manager, not the council.
Proposal: City councillors should approve the city manager’s department head appointments.
Councillors’ explanation: The process would be similar to how the council approves appointments to boards and commissioners.
City response: “This proposal would undermine the executive authority and accountability of the city manager, make the hiring of department heads more political and make it harder for the city to recruit and hire the best candidates.”
Proposal: Let voters elect their mayor via ranked-choice voting from among City Council candidates who would declare on the ballot whether they are also interested. The powers of that elected mayor would stay the same.
Councillors’ explanation: The current system, in which councillors elect a mayor from among themselves, is confusing, and “having a mayor who is popularly elected – similar to mayors in surrounding communities – would strengthen the mayor’s position in representing Cambridge and speaking on behalf of residents in regional forums.” It would also also oblige candidates to make clear how they would follow through with the obligation to lead the School Committee.
City response: Adding an extra ballot for the role would slow election counts – already very slow in Cambridge – and be at least as confusing to voters as the current approach: “Situations could arise where a candidate wins the mayoral race but does not win a seat on the City Council, or where a City Council candidate receives the highest number of votes for councillor but does not win the mayoral race.”
Proposal: City Council terms would be extended to four years. Elections would still occur every two years, with five Council seats and the mayor up for election in one cycle, and four seats up for election two years later.
Councillors’ explanation: “Two-year terms provide insufficient time for councillors and city staff to accomplish the work of city government before campaign season begins again.”
City response: The move could jeopardize the city’s ranked-choice voting system. Staggering council seats creates different vote quotas for each cycle, leading to a less representative council, a high likelihood for civil rights lawsuits against the city and implications for the School Committee.
The meeting of the City Council is at 11 a.m. Monday at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
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.
There’s some good here and some bad.
Popularly elected mayor? As ex officio chair of the school committee it makes sense to have public input on the role.
Longer terms? Sorry, I want the council to remain accountable.
The proposed term changes are the worst idea of the bunch. This could lead to a situation where a losing candidate in a 4-seat year receives more votes than a winning candidate in a 5-seat year.
Worse still,the reduction in open seat count raises the floor of support necessary for a candidate to get elected. This change would reduce minority voting power.
I understand the rationale for moving to 4-year terms, but I don’t understand the argument for staggering terms. Was one offered? It seems the City’s objection is only to the staggering, and not the longer terms.
I’d be interested in hearing what the thinking is behind staggering them.
Agreed, cantrabrigand and Jess. I’m not sure I really like having longer terms either. How much does the 2 year cycle impact the council?
The biggest problem with the voting system, IMO, is that elections are on odd years. Turnout is pretty low (34% in 2023) compared to 63% in the 2024 presidential election and 52% in the 2022 gubernatorial. This is pretty predictable — voting every year is annoying and not many are plugged in to city politics. Is there an effort toward changing this? Seems like it would be the biggest boost for democracy.
There should be term limits to offset the power of incumbency in an electorate where turnout is low.
All of these should be a no go. However I agree with JDevs, if you’re going to consider longer terms you just have term limits. Historically we get 2-3 insane city councilors every term … the damage over the course of time with 4 year terms creates some real potential harm that’ll be much harder to undo.
Nine at large councilors means that there is very little accountability.
This city has 11 wards. One councilor for each ward. Each voter in a ward votes for the one candidate running in that ward who they think will do the best job. One woman, one vote.
agree with Patrick Barrett. 4 years will be harder to hold councilors accountable. We have now several powerful pushy councilors who ride roughshod over others. 4 yrs gives them more time to create damage. congress is 2 yrs isn’t it? many municipalities are only 2 yrs. It gives more opportunity to more people.