Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
Recently, many Cantabrigians attended the No Kings rally in an effort to have our collective voices heard by an administration bent on suppressing everything from university policy to discourse in the public square. Unfortunately, as a previous writer has pointed out, Cambridge seems poised to take on its own authoritarian posture. I have mentioned the same during public comment, that the council has moved so far left as to reappear on the right.
Specifically, revisions to the City Charter are poised to remove the right to public comment, substituting said right with platitudes and niceties. No resident of Cambridge should tolerate any rollback of public discourse, especially in the current environment, whether real or implied.
If the city council would prefer a more efficient meeting structure, or would rather not deal with public opinion, I would suggest they cease pursuit of divisive policy that raises the hackles of public opposition, continuing to pit neighbor versus neighbor. What the current federal administration should make clear is that suppression of the public voice is anathema to what we stand for in Cambridge — and yet, that seems to be what we’re poised to do.
I urge you to vote No on City Charter changes for no other reason than we should not tolerate suppression of public dissent, period. No other issue is more important than the preservation of our right to expression of our opinion to our government, be that federal or local. We should be able to stand together on this one issue, at the very least. Vote No to this change, and make your voice heard (hopefully, not for the last time).
Joseph X. Adiletta, Walker Street, Cambridge
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.
No, it does not. This is more disinformation and scare-mongering.
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* expanding participation beyond the narrow in-person public comment model.
It includes hybrid meetings, online consultations, and citizen-initiated petitions. This are tools that are far more inclusive than the current limited guarantee of three-minute remarks at Council sessions. Small wonder some people with extra time on their hands oppose it.
It takes some real pretzel logic to turn these modernizations for inclusion into “suppression”.
There’s nothing in the proposed charter that suppresses public comment. Residents resistant to change often complain that comment at meetings is discouraged or made inconvenient, but the use of Zoom and the steep increase in the number of comments at many meetings since 2020 show that these claims are false.
Neither is there any sign of authoritarianism in the new charter. Although some feel that their comment is not heard unless their wishes are enacted into law, allowing small hyper-local groups greater weight than majority opinions or actions of fairly elected officials and properly appointed staff works against equity, effectiveness and democracy.
The argument presented mischaracterizes the purpose and scope of the charter review process.
Cambridge’s charter discussions are not efforts to limit public participation but to modernize procedures and ensure the efficient functioning of local government.
No proposal under consideration eliminates the right to public comment. At issue are improvements to meeting organization intended to make civic engagement more accessible and coherent. To equate these adjustments with authoritarianism is both inaccurate and inflammatory.
Cambridge has long upheld one of the strongest traditions of open discourse in the nation, and refining how that discourse is structured serves to reinforce, not restrict, democratic governance.
Why was this significant change to the charter NOT mentioned in any way in the synopsis information that was mailed to the voters who vote by mail?
It’s wild to hear people call the charter reform “authoritarian suppression.” That’s just not true.
The reform simply updates how city government works, modernizing its structure, clarifying roles, and improving how elections are run.
It actually gives residents more ways to participate, not fewer, by adding options beyond speaking at council meetings.
It also boosts transparency through clearer financial reviews, public petitions, and citizen-led initiatives and referendums.
Calling this “suppression” flips reality on its head. This reform opens up the process and makes sure future adjustments can happen more easily.
Vote YES—it strengthens public involvement, not weakens it.
Let’s be honest: some of the loudest opponents have spent years trying to block city decisions.
This change would finally make that kind of obstruction harder to pull off.
You can lie all you’d like, that doesn’t make you right.
This was the old language:
Except in the cases of executive sessions authorized by section twenty-three A of chapter thirty-nine, all meetings of the city council shall be open to the press and to the public, and 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.
This is the new language:
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.
1/2
Specific language requiring public comments at meetings has been stripped from the charter, period. That’s a fact.
The new language clearly opens the door for disengagement from the public. You may not THINK that’s going to happen. You may not WANT it to happen.
However, it’s clear that very specific “as of right” opportunity to provide feedback to the council has been stripped from the charter. That’s irrefutable.
And there’s really no other way to interpret this change other than a desire to suppress the public voice.
2/2