Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
There’s been a lot of discussion this election about the usual Cambridge City Council issues: housing, transit, climate, and the budget. But one topic that hasn’t gotten as much attention is the set of ballot questions that ask voters to approve changes to Cambridge’s city charter. That’s understandable. These questions are, for the most part, modest and uncontroversial, but they’re still worth understanding.
Cambridge’s last full charter was adopted by voters in 1940. That means this year’s updates are the first big round of revisions in almost 100 years. The process began after voters approved a ballot question in 2021 that required a full review of the charter every ten years and authorized the creation of a Charter Review Committee. That question passed overwhelmingly, about 73 percent of voters supported it.
The review committee met for over a year, holding hearings, gathering public input, and consulting with city staff about what changes were legally and practically possible. Their recommendations went to the City Council, which debated, refined, and approved the language that now appears on this year’s ballot. The City Council’s overall approach was careful and incremental. The goal was to make straightforward improvements while leaving room for future updates as the community gains experience with the new process.
Who Chairs the School Committee
Under the current system, Cambridge’s mayor, who is chosen by the City Council from among its members, not directly elected by voters, also serves as chair of the School Committee. There are advantages to this setup. The mayor is full-time and has access to additional staff support and typically hires an education liaison. That capacity can help keep the schools and the broader city government coordinated.
But the arrangement also has drawbacks. City Council elections are mostly focused on issues like housing, transportation, and public safety, not on education policy. The councillor who becomes mayor is often chosen for their ability to run fair meetings and work well with colleagues, not necessarily for their expertise in school governance.
The proposed change would let the School Committee elect its own chair from among its seven members (six elected directly, plus the mayor). The mayor would still play an important role, given their full-time status and staff capacity, but this adjustment would allow the School Committee itself to choose a leader who’s most focused on education priorities.
Updating Our Election Rules
Another proposed change addresses how votes are transferred in Cambridge’s ranked-choice elections. Today, if a candidate has more votes than needed to win, their “surplus” ballots are redistributed randomly. That randomness can sometimes make the outcome dependent on which ballots happen to be drawn, especially in close races such as the 2023 School Committee election.
The new charter would allow more deterministic tabulation methods, such as partial transfers, to make outcomes clearer and more consistent. This isn’t a change to our proportional representation system itself, it’s simply an improvement to how votes are counted in close contests.
Modernizing and Adding Feedback into the Charter
Beyond those headline items, the proposed charter language is cleaner and more modern. It removes outdated phrasing, clarifies ambiguous sections, and brings the document in line with current law and practice.
It also codifies several reforms that the City Council and voters have already approved in recent years, such as requiring an annual review of the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Auditor. It would codify greater council approval of boards and commissions and allow for public input into priorities for hiring for new department heads, who often have a lot of impact on city priorities.
Finally, the new charter creates structured timelines for the budget process. This gives both the Council and the public more time to review and comment on the city’s spending plan before it’s finalized and in time to make adjustments. This will hopefully combat the common tension between city staff, city council and the public.
Why It Matters
This year’s ballot questions are the product of years of community effort, from the 2021 ballot initiative to the long months of review and debate that followed. These charter updates are not sweeping reforms, but they are meaningful improvements that make our government more accountable, more transparent, and a little more democratic.
Burhan Azeem is a Cambridge City Councillor.
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.
For anyone in Cambridge who bothered to pay attention or tried to participate in this prolonged, but fake “process,” it was – like so much government-run “community engagement” in Cambridge – rigged from the start. In, at least, two important ways: First, rather than choose the albeit potentially more onerous, but far more democratic, community-led process, a group of four City Councillors hand-picked the individuals to be appointed – not elected – to the Charter Review body. (Control, Control, Control.) A cursory examination of those who were appointed reveals the number who were eager to “participate” (and were appointed) because they represent vested interests in “business-as-usual” – like the current configuration of the so-called “Affordable Housing Trust” – and were committed to blocking ANY reform that might risk a meaningful “shift of power.” Hence, when a straw vote on an “elected strong mayor” hinted at real change, the forces of reaction rallied. Save Our Democracy.
Vote NO.
The Charter Review process in Cambridge was not “rigged.” It was established by a unanimous City Council vote, held dozens of public meetings, and incorporated broad resident input over more than a year.
Appointing a balanced review committee, rather than electing specialized volunteers, is standard for complex policy work that requires deliberation, not campaigning.
The committee thoroughly examined every proposal, including an elected mayor, and recommended reforms that make the city more transparent and accountable while preserving an open, representative council structure.
Calling the outcome “fake” ignores the genuine diversity of participation and viewpoints throughout the process.
What truly threatens democracy are baseless conspiracy theories meant to block any change.
Vote YES.
I will be voting for the charter update. I think the school committee should be able to chose its own leader. And I agree it’s important that vote tabulations should give the same result each time. I think it’s good for the Council to have more say about who the Manager appoints to committees.