Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writers.
On November 4th, Cambridge voters will decide whether to amend our City Charter — the document that defines how our city is governed. While a few of the proposed changes have merit, most would move Cambridge away from its long tradition of professional, accountable, and non-partisan management. The risks far outweigh the benefits.
The charter review process was long and expensive but so mired in disagreements that the committee never reached consensus. The final version now before voters was written by the City Council after the committee failed to agree on recommendations. We believe the process itself was deeply flawed: members were hand-picked by Councillors with strong stakes in the outcome, discussions quickly became politicized, and the two-thirds majority required for adoption was never achieved. As a result, major structural questions — such as whether to restore neighborhood representation or adopt a “strong mayor” system — were dismissed without meaningful debate.
Problematic parts of the proposed City Charter
1. Public participation would be significantly weakened. Cambridge should be expanding public voice, not restricting it. Our current City Charter states, “the rules of the city council shall provide that citizens and employees of the city shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meeting in regard to any matter considered thereat.” The new proposed charter removes this guarantee and substitutes platitudes, ballot initiatives and referenda. We think some of the language of the proposed new charter is simply boilerplate: “The city shall treat public engagement as an integral part of effective and trusted governance. The city shall treat engagement as a multi-channel endeavor including, but not limited to, face-to-face meetings, virtual interactions and other online communications. The departments of city government shall encourage collaboration in public engagement efforts with other government jurisdictions and authorities, anchor institutions, community-based organizations, civic groups, and individual residents.” Public comment at meetings is nowhere to be found.
2. The nomination calendar for City Council and School Committee candidates would move up by several days — for no clear reason. If this change passes, nomination papers would be available beginning sometime between June 22 and June 28 and be due sometime between July 20 and July 26, all pegged to a specific amount of time before election day instead of the current July 1-31 window. That shift would create unnecessary confusion and potentially limit civic participation.
3. The City Council would gain new authority to confirm appointments to nearly all multi-member bodies. While the Council has previously confirmed some appointments, this expansion across more than fifty boards, commissions, committees and other bodies — from zoning and transportation to libraries and aging services — risks turning civic appointments into political rewards. Cambridge deserves qualified, independent appointees, not patronage. However, if any member leaves before term end, the City Manager names the replacement without City Council confirmation.
Together, these changes could do real harm: eroding the city’s professional standards, discouraging civic participation, and concentrating power in the hands of elected officials.
And, some positives worth noting
1. The Mayor will no longer be required to chair the School Committee. This is a welcome clarification that avoids potential conflicts of interest between the Council and the schools.
2. The Election Commission gains clearer authority over how votes are redistributed under Proportional Representation. This modernization could improve administrative efficiency and accuracy.
3. Any departmental reorganization must include a public hearing. This maintains transparency and public oversight of internal restructuring.
These are sound ideas — but they do not outweigh the serious structural problems embedded in the rest of the proposal. There are also a number of typos in the proposed Charter that further proofreading would have alleviated.
Voters have a simple yes/no option on the charter.
Our Recommendation: Vote NO
Cambridge thrives when professional management and citizen participation work hand in hand; the proposed charter changes undermine both. While a few updates are reasonable, the overall package concentrates too much power in the City Council, weakens professional oversight, and curtails public involvement.
The writers represent the Cambridge Citizens Coalition.
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.
Before Plan E we had representation in our neighborhoods by people who lived in those neighborhoods. There was a city councilor in each ward, plus two councilors from the common council, which served as a check on the city council. Now all our councilors are at large, with nobody except citizens, with limited power, to take care of our neighborhoods. A councilor who lives in Cambridgeport makes decisions for North Cambridge and can ignore all objections. This is not democracy.
the proposed updates—such as new sections on finances, budgeting, and election procedures—are redundant because these practices are already followed through ordinances or policies. Additionally, the new charter is said to blur the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, which could degrade decision-making quality. Thus, a NO vote ensures the continuation of a proven governance system without risking unintended consequences from the extensive codification and changes in the draft charter.
Translation: Please keep letting wealthy homeowners block progress. We want the power, not your elected representatives.
The proposed City Charter is a thoughtful modernization shaped by extensive public input and committee work. Calling the result “illegitimate” ignores that it came from the very process elected officials were charged to conduct.
The in-person public comment model being defended has long favored those with the time and means to attend weekday meetings (wealthier people). The new structure invites broader input through modern, inclusive channels, not just three-minute monologues at Council sessions.
Expanding Council confirmation powers doesn’t create “patronage”. It strengthens democratic oversight by *elected representatives*.
This is a modernization effort that aligns Cambridge governance with 21st-century expectations for access, accountability, and shared authority.
No wonder some people oppose it.
They want a directly elected Mayor because they can’t win under the current system. Today in Cambridge councilors get elected by turning out their constituencies, not by running to the middle of the road. Blier and Hoffman want a directly elected Mayor because it would be a first-past-the-post seat. That person wants to capture a plurality to win. Thus, they’d be more likely to cave to the Neighborhood Defenders.
The council wants to confirm the members of boards and commissions because these bodies wield tremendous power and have zero accountability.
Two familiar opponents of any change in Cambridge are trying to block reform again.
The new City Charter updates an 85-year-old document through an inclusive, public-driven process.
It keeps public comment while expanding participation through broader outreach and citizen initiatives.
Requiring City Council confirmation of board appointments adds transparency and accountability, and letting the School Committee elect its own chair removes conflicts of interest.
This reform preserves professional management while strengthening oversight and public voice.
A “No” vote protects outdated governance that limits leadership and excludes citizens, and leaves power in the hands a few obstructionist minded people.
Vote “Yes” for a clear, democratic, and responsive Cambridge government built for the 21st century.
Public comment is not “three-minute monologues” but rather the opportunity for members of the public to address both the governmental body and the general public. Public comment is what gave people staying in shelters during the early days of Covid an opportunity to address all of us and explain their living conditions and what they need. Perhaps that is what Frank means by “wealthier people”, but not me. In fact, this is the means by which we have since heard from many other people who don’t have Frank’s privilege. I doubt I am the only person who has been educated, and moved, by their testimony.
If “broader input” prevents us from hearing what our fellow residents, rich and poor and everything in between, have to say, then I do not find it broad. I find it the definition of privilege. We should be able to stand in front of our elected and unelected government officials and say our piece (actually or metaphorically) if we want to call this a democracy.
I want to try to be glass half full here. While the proposed charter is not explicit about public comment as it exists today, it’s instead explicit that there’s more than one way to engage and be engaged by the public.
It’s not unusual for complaints about things the city does to come with complaints that people weren’t sufficiently informed or listened to. If the charter states that “the city shall treat engagement as a multi-channel endeavor,” I think that gives us more to stand on to press for change in this area.
I see a lot of opportunity for the council as a body to tell the story of what they’re doing; not leaving it to lengthy meeting packets, not leaving it to councillors as individuals to figure out. It stands out that multifamily zoning passed with so many votes while remaining such a contested topic. Here’s hoping that this new definition of engagement can be a starting point for the council to rethink how they do things.
Of course these authors oppose the charter. The reforms would make it harder for a small group to keep blocking progress that benefits everyone.
These same voices have fought affordable housing, safer park renovations, and even the restoration of a historic home.
It’s hard to take their talk of “democracy” seriously when they consistently work against projects advanced by elected councilors chosen through a democratic process.
They claim to support causes of environmentalists, preservationists, and now defenders of democracy.
But their record shows only one consistent cause: stopping any development at all, no matter how high rents climb or how much others struggle to stay here.
Vote YES. Let’s move past the politics of obstruction and build a city that includes and works for everyone.
This is super informational. Thank you.
Wasn’t sure how to vote, but now that I know the CCC is against it, I’ll be voting in favor.