But Vellucci is also one of the most outspoken councillors, and at first it seems hard to reconcile his influence with the number of people and causes he has publicly attacked.
His technique is quite simple: he attacks, but avoids offending. His assaults on Harvard, for instance, are amusing, but not alienating. He intends them to be harmless, and, as he admits in private, doesn't believe most of what he says.
Stupid and senseless? Of course not Vellucci's verbal fireworks win him headlines (sometimes big, sometimes small, but the important thing is that there are headlines). They net him votes from people who "think someone should go out after Harvard" or who just admire Vellucci's spirit. And they gain him noteriety (better than anonymity) in the Harvard-Brattle St. community.
The Vellucci style can be more subtle, however. When the City Council recently questioned members of the Cambridge Housing Authority on alleged poor conditions in some of the projects, Vellucci jumped into the offense. He did so, first because he likes to hear himself talk, and, second because many of the people in his "district" live in projects.
Vellucci himself has lived in a housing project, and he would certainly like to see them better. But he played it cool. The first thing he established was that the real villains were the subordinates of the Housing Authority, not the bosses. He thus served to protect his friends (he was an army buddy of the executive director of the Housing Authority, for example.) Even then he wasn't too keen on attacking anyone.
He diverted the discussion and his final argument was something no one could disagree with and something that would not disturb the Housing Authority: the dangers of leaky gas-pipes which could cause explosions and fires. (A few days before an explosion in Montreal had killed more than a score.) He sought no sweeping or permanent changes.
Vellucci possessed the instinctive ability to play both sides of the fence. He has a flair for grasping interesting issues and exploiting them. Like most other councillors, he has his own entourage of friends and informants to supplement his knowledge of what's going on in Cambridge.
But, if he values his political independence, in at least one sense Vellucci is a servant. His strong vote-getting area--his "district"--is the predominantly Italian community in East Cambridge, and he is its weathervane. Two years ago the City proposed an urban renewal project for the year. The local residents strongly objected; so did Vellucci. Now, a new plan devised with cooperation of a representative local neighborhood group, has been worked out. It has Vellucci's support. If it ever loses that support, you can bet it will also have lost the neighborhood's endorsement.
Vellucci works hard for his area: He brags that every street in East Cambridge has been reaved and credits himself with many other improvements. The list of weekly Council orders invariably includes many of his requests for new street signs, side walks, and stop lights.
After all, Al Vellucci is nothing more than the old ward "boss." Most civic texts frown on bosses. The boss, the theory runs, sacrifices the general interest to the very particular needs of his own district. And there is al- ways, the implication that the "boss" or the machine is easily corrupted.
Much of what Vellucci does is instinctive, but if he were to defend his system, he would say that the "general interest" ignores--and probably works against--the interests of his constituents. He would say that he understands best what his own area's interests are. And, perhaps if he had a few words with somebody at Harvard, he might become academic and