This year's Cambridge municipal election is distressingly quiet. But beneath the veneer of a routine campaign--one with no live, city-wide issues, one in which no top candidates have spoken out too loudly on anything, and one in which the incumbents are highly favored to retain their seats--Harvard University has a vital interest.

Politically right now, Cambridge is divided into two camps: the Cambridge Civic Association on the one hand, and the rest of the city, lumped together as "independents," on the other. Neither group is homogeneous, neither controls its candidates with the force of an organized political party, and neither is static. But both exist.

Basically, the CCA represents what can easily be termed the "better elements" of the Cambridge community, the intelligentsia. Non-partisan in scope, the CCA preaches a goal of "Good City Government for Cambridge." Ideally, this vague phrase should stand for the best in American democracy--that is, an honest, efficient, and just administration--an objective the CCA says Cambridge deserves. Practically speaking, however, the phrase means something negative: to keep the traditional bossism, favoritism, and power politics out of Cambridge's city government.

The essential tone of the entire CCA organization, platform, candidates, and campaign stems from Harvard. The University's influence, in the broadest sense of the word, is the influence behind the CCA. In no way does this mean the University supports the CCA financially; rather both Harvard and the members of the CCA have similar goals. This seems reasonable since the most significant faction within the CCA has some sort of Harvard connection.

Despite its tremendous public relations campaign to convince voters it is not dominated by Harvard, the CCA's tone and general attitude unmistakably corresponds with the University's. It disdains the demagogue, the smearer, the emotionally tinged campaign. Physically, the CCA accomplishes its goal through a proportional representation system of voting, where voters select their candidates in order of preference. Through the complicated counting process the CCA finds its elan vital--representation on the nine-man City Council and the six-man School Committee.

In a plurality rather than PR election, the CCA maintains, the Irish minority of 30% could control the two governing bodies. On occasions, another large ethnic group, the Italians, might gain some representation. But the numerous other subgroups within the city, particularly the greater-Harvard, greater-Brattle St. area of wealthy and upper middle classes, would have no say in City government. With PR, however, the CCA can organize support for a slate of candidates and elect some of them.

CCA membership includes many types of people: solid citizen businessman, who does not want his financial interests subverted by politicians who might try to squeeze more taxes for their own profit; the young, liberal Democrat, favoring a clean city government, free of the bad qualities of bossism; and natural minorities like Jews and Negroes who see the CCA as a road by which they can express and protect their interests.

In the mysteries and realities of city politics, the University carefully refrains from taking official stands. Any Harvard support for a particular candidate or issue immediately arouses deep antagonisms, especially among less privileged, less informed voters. Nonetheless, the University is by nature obligated to protect its own interests, which generally correspond to those of the CCA.

Hence, while the University administration officially remains neutral, tacit support goes to the CCA as a whole; individuals within Harvard provide overt support. Major public support must thus come from the individuals, lest it seems the institution is trying to control City Hall. If the Cambridge electorate feels Harvard is trying to control it, the University will never build a good working relationship.

University relations with the city, never sugary due to the large chunk of non-taxable land owned by Harvard, have their ups and downs. In the "up" periods, the two corporate bodies usually leave each other alone and no more. During such periods, the University's sun shines, its buildings rise, and its lawyers relax.

The "down" periods usually mean a hostile politician in the Mayor's chair, a politician who makes the going tough for the University, and then capitalizes on the natural jealousy of his constitutents for the rich college.

In a civic address last spring, President Pusey emphasized the complementary features of the University and the city. Harvard obviously has a deep interest in a healthy Cambridge, for any other climate could eventually be nothing but detrimental to the academic atmosphere. During the Program for Harvard College, Pusey said one goal of the fund-raising was "to attract to Cambridge a constellation of the world's great minds, making the banks of the Charles--from the research centers beyond M.I.T. at the southern extremity as far as Eliot House on the north--a world capital of knowledge and research." Without a flourishing city, this dream could not come true.

Thus during an "up" period in Harvard-Cambridge relations, a city administration sympathetic to the University ideal prevails. This is the general outlook Harvard tries, however subtly, to foster in Cambridge city government.

The CCA, representing the progressive, intellectual elements within the city, has played this linking role of political savvy with moral concern so important to the University. Because of its influence, no threats to turn the Yard into a parking lot or to run the proposed belt highway by Thayer Hall have carried much weight.

On the City Council, CCA-endorsed incumbents include former Mayor Joseph A. DeGuglielmo '29, former Mayor Edward A. Crane '35, Mrs. Pearl K. Wise, and Mrs. Cornelia B. Wheeler. Present Mayor Thomas M. McNamara often voted with these Councillors during his two-year term, frequently giving the CCA a slim majority on the Council. Yet solidarity among the CCA bloc is by no means assured, and is frequently non-existent.

The entire CCA effort, though, is directed to electing a mayor this January. No matter which CCA candidates win Council positions, the Association's most important task as a unit comes in selecting the Mayor, for he sets the government's tone, and, more practically, casts deciding votes on both the Council and School Committee.

Political foreshadowings indicate all four CCA-endorsed incumbents will win re-election. The CCA hopes to supplant one of the five present independents, several of whom trailed the ticket two years ago. The Association's leading candidate for this fifth slot is Edward T. Sullivan, elected with CCA support to the School Committee in 1957.

This task is hardly simple. Sullivan is a labor leader whose convincing personality and name hopefully will win him support from districts normally unsympathetic to the Brattle St. campaigners. Yet perhaps his greatest advantage, the name Sullivan, might lead to such confusion that voters will pick the wrong man entirely.

This possibility exists since one Council incumbent, former Mayor Edward J. Sullivan, is vacating his seat. It is conceded, however, that his brother, amiable former Rep. Walter J. Sullivan, will take the seat, and perhaps even top the ticket. This group of Sullivanites have consistently led the anti-Harvard, anti-CCA factions of the city.

As if to prove the point, Walter J.'s principle campaign posters say: "Make no mistake. Vote for Walter J. Sullivan." The CCA's long-standing pressure to push voters away from choosing strictly the Sullivan name might backfire this year. In this election the CCA has endorsed two Sullivans, Edward T. for Council and Charles M. for School Committee.

After conceding one seat to Walter J. Sullivan, then, this leaves four seats held by independents to which the CCA hopes to elect one of its five non-incumbent candidates.

Mayor McNamara, though finishing well down the 1957 ticket, also seems guaranteed re-election, simply through his position and prestige as Mayor. When he won two years ago, McNamara was a true independent, aligned neither with the CCA nor with the Sullivanites. This neutrality paved the way for his election as Mayor. His voting record as a frequent ally of the CCA bloc may hurt him in some districts, yet be a distinct help to him elsewhere.

Alfred E. Velucci, self-styled bearer of the Italian voter's burden, has all but publicly announced his candidacy for Mayor. This same Velucci however--Harvard's most volatile attacker--trailed the ticket last time and barely won re-election. At recent City Council meetings, Velucci has received informal ribbing about his precarious position. His strong Portuguese vote may be pre-empted this year by CCA-endorsed Manuel Rogers, although if Rogers is eliminated early from the count, his second place votes would presumably go to Velucci. Two minor Italian candidates have reportedly joined the race simply to take first-place votes from Velucci and DeGuglielmo; how much this may hinder Velucci is difficult to judge.

Incumbent Charles A. Watson has jumped off and on the CCA bandwagon during his several terms on the Council. At present, he is making loud noises in his opposition to the inner belt route highway that city consultants advised run through the Cambridgeport area from the B.U. Bridge up Brookline Ave.

Watson lives in this section, and hence is couting on strong support from his neighborhood because of his vigorous stand. This boils down to a straight play for votes since Watson can scarcely claim to influence the State highway department in its choice of a route.

John D. Lynch, the oldest member of the Council, has been around so many years that sheer momentum will probably elect him. A formerly CCA-endorsed candidate (he has since bolted), Lynch is noted for his reactionary stands on fluoridation, Communism, and spending. Some observers think Lynch has the least chance among the incumbents to gain re-election, because, they say, many of his supporters are dying off.

By necessity then, the CCA must try for the post of one of these weaker Councillors, without endangering its own incumbents at the same time.

The prognosis for the City Council heavily favors the incumbents, plus Walter J. Sullivan. This prediction seems inevitable, from the consideration of recent history. Cambridge voting simply follows personality, name, ethnic background, and familiarity, rather than issues. Since the incumbents have remained in the public eye, some of them for years and all of them at least more than the new candidates, they must be favored.

This prediction is further enhanced by the current issueless campaign, when large groups of citizens are not aroused to vote as they were two years ago. At that time a School Committee issue concerning 17 controversial appointments stirred the CCA virtually to demand that the education of the city's children not be subject to personal political feuds. In 1957, there at least was an issue of the "ins" versus the "outs."

Why, one might wonder, are 31 candidates vying for nine City Council posts in an issueless campaign? This large group includes the perenial outs--usually old men from a small, ethnically-tight community within the city--and several new-comers.

One such newcomer is Bernard Goldberg, a young CCA-endorsed attorney. His problem, he says, is the lack of publicity. To win, Goldberg states he first needs a basic minimum of at least 1,500 first place votes to keep him in the count. He reasons logically enough that unless he can stay in the count after the obvious stragglers have been eliminated, he cannot possibly benefit from any second, third, or fourth choice votes he may pick up from being on the CCA slate.

These first place votes must come through Goldberg's initiative, after which he can probably gain seconds from surplus votes of other CCA candidates who reach the quota. Goldberg is optimistic, but within limitations. He thinks he might win "if things go well," i.e., if he gets votes from where he thinks his support lies, if he gets enough first place votes, and then if the seconds come through. Being on the CCA slate helps, Goldberg feels, since his name gets widespread publicity from a source outside his own office.

Basically though, all signs indicate the election will be routine and issueless. One possible debate, centering about fluordidation of the city's water supply, has been muffled because of the obvious emotional tinges such an argument would bring into the campaign. An active fluoridation wrangle would become an unsettling factor for all candidates; all else, even personality, might become subordinate. Hence, the issue has been kept reasonably quiet.

Urban renewal, vigorously favored by the CCA and past darling child of some candidates, has now bogged down because of the indecison concerning the belt highway route. Until authorities decide the route of the proposed road, urban renewal cannot be planned in the areas where is is needed most. Nearly all the incumbents support urban renewal as a worthwhile venture, but some, particularly Velucci, have voted against some specific renewal proposals.

Another new CCA candidate, Richard E. McLaughlin, has, in his advertisements, tried to create an issue on the loss of industries from Cambridge. Harvard has a particular interest in this issue, since a continued decline in the number of industries would leave the city government with very little valuable property on which to collect taxes. According to a recent study, 15 firms have left Cambridge in the past two years, nine of them going to Route 128. This meant a loss of some 1,750 to 3,800 employees now working in outlying districts. At this late date, though, it is quite doubtful that McLaughlin can raise many eyebrows or arouse much enthusiasm, despite the importance of this problem to the city's general development.

The School Committee campaign, as noted, lacks the fiery activity which sparked the election two years ago. A general tone of educational philosophy rather than any specific struggles lies at stake in this contest.

As in the past few years, the key to the direction of the School Committee is the Mayor's deciding vote. "We're not going to have a good School Committee unless we have a good Council, because it's all in the Mayor's hands," says William S. Barnes, assistant Dean of the Law School and CCA-backed candidate for the Committee. Thus, if the CCA really wants to implement its plank in both the Council and the School Committee, it must unite to win the mayoralty election.

For the past two years, the School Committee has been split even--three to three--between CCA and independents. The three CCA Committeemen, Judson T. Shaplin '42, associate Dean of the Graduate School of Education, Mrs. Catherine T. Ogden, and Edward T. Sullivan, had a fluctuating working majority. On many issues Mayor McNamara and Committeeman Daniel J. Hayes (another true independent who aligns himself with no group) made possible decisive majorities for the CCA's policies.

The general philosophy motivating CCA members of the School Committee is heavily infused with the University spirit. Shaplin is himself a professional educator and administrator, but has resigned this year, with the common knowledge that he asked Barnes to run in his stead. Barnes has his Harvard connection plus a wide background in taxes and budgeting, both of which points he is emphasizing.

Barnes said he has not encountered nearly the animosity he expected before he started to campaign, feeling that people do not mind a Harvard man on the School Committee. Cambridge is an improving city, Barnes believes, and everytime a new apartment house rises, the city comes closer to its ideal. That ideal, according to Barnes, is an educationally-oriented town, one in which "most of the population is engaged on the fore-front of learning and action." With the proximity of Harvard and M.I.T., Cambridge should be scientifically oriented.

Envisioning this type of city, Barnes feels the new Cambridge deserves an outstanding public school system. The CCA supports such programs as Harvard assistance in teaching foreign languages in the grammar schools, M.I.T. aid with physics, or Harvard instructors in voluntary high school Russian courses. Should an anti-CCA Mayor win the chair and put independent forces in charge of the School Committee, Barnes thinks their probably consequent actions would be detrimental to an outstanding school system.

The CCA hopes also to re-elect Mrs. Ogden and is placing its chief hopes to gain more seats with Charles M. Sullivan (presumably to replace Edward T.) and with Gustave M. Solomons, who barely lost in 1957.

In its approach to the School Committee, the CCA hopes to prevent the "family night raids" on the integrity of the system, as took place in 1957. The School Committee campaign has basically the same philosophy motivating it as does the Council--an elimination of what the CCA considers bad influences on good government. In turn, this CCA philosophy finds its roots in the overall tone the University attempts to create within the community.

Beyond the problem of good government rests the the one of town-gown relations. Over the past two years, the city administration's trend to throwing fewer bombs at Harvard faces a crossroads. If the University's public relations campaign, its planning office, and its good-will ambassadors continue to meet Cambridge halfway, then it hopefully can expect similar overtures from the city. The crucial test will soon lie with the new Council and Mayor to see what they do with Cambridge's oldest most famous, and certainly very valuable institution -- Harvard. Tuesday's election could make a great difference along this line.Councillor JOSEPH A. DeGUGLIELMO '29 (right) confers with JUDSON T. SHAPLIN '42, former member of the School Committee.