In a city whose political landscape has remained virtually unaltered for 20 years, any kind of change seems unlikely.
But a new political era is unfolding in the city of Cambridge.
The one-term-old liberal majority on the City Council is beginning to exercise its power in City Hall. As a consequence, the level of antagonism and friction between political factions in the city is approaching a volatile pitch.
Cambridge, observers say, is in flux.
And it is a time of flux, citizens and politicians say, that will be shaped by the vicissitudes of backdoor meetings, patronage politicking and party-line discord.
The Progressive Cambridge Civic Association (CCA)-backed councillors have held a majority in City Hall since 1990. But their first term in power wan relatively free from overt partisan politics. Since CCA councillors won a second majority in the 1991 election, they have done far more than appoint like-minded officials.
Progressives say the last election has given them the mandate to alter the way power flows in the city by pursuing their mission of bringing open, responsive and progressive government to Cambridge.
But Independent councillors believe it is more a question of political retribution. The CCA is engaging in its own brand of political favoritism, they maintain. And some Independents allege that the liberal councilors are looking to bolster their power with fundamental changes in the city's form of government.
There are 28823 Democrats and 3396 Republicans in the city of Cambridge. One would not expect to find partisan politics in a city where nearly everyone affiliated with a political party is a Democrat.
But historically in Cambridge the Democratic City Council has broken into two political camps.
For the past 20 years, a City Council majority of Independents--mostly conservative Democrats--has been a fixture in Cambridge politics. The long-time Independent councillors built a political foundation in City Hall, appointing supporters to posts throughout the political hierarchy.
But in 1989, the CCA--progressive "good government" Democrats--managed to oust the Independents for the first time since 1969.
Since last year's election the Independents have been reeling in the wake of victory of the CCA-backed majority. The Independent councillors have lost struggle after struggle with the new majority, including their recent failure to lobby the necessary five-vote support to re-appoint the city clerk.
But despite their losses, the Independents have maintained a foothold in City Hall due to the wealth of politically sympathetic employees whom they hired over the course of their 20-year hegemony on the council.
And it is this foothold, both politicos and citizens say, that is under dispute as a subject for change for the CCA and as the Independents last bulwark of power.
"The CCA wants to go in a different direction," says city activist Gladys P. Gifford. "And unless they have people who support their views, it can't happen."
Last month, CCA councillors came under fire for their decision not to re-appoint City Clerk Joseph E. Connarton. The CCA councillors expressed praise for the clerk, whom they called efficient and responsible, but did not back the employee when his contract came up for renewal.
"The CCA-endorsed office holders CCA councillors say their action was anecessary step to improve the efficiency of theclerk's office. But the unexpected release of Connarton angeredmany city residents. Cantabrigians packed the CityCouncil's meeting chamber, balcony and stairwellat the first regular meeting after Cannarton wasdismissed. Independent councillors contend that the moveheralded the first of many firings the majoritywill make to install CCA-loyal employees. "This is probably the beginning of housecleaning [for the CCA majority]," says fourth termCity Councilor William H. Walsh, an Independent."I have a persistent feeling that there will beothers to come." And the others that will follow Connarton, bothCCA and Independent supporters contend, areCambridge's politically eminent--vestiges of atime when Independents dominated City Hall. "I get a feeling that [CCA councillors] aregetting a lot of pressure from their constituentsto clean house and put people in who reflect theirviews," Gifford says. But observers wonder whether a move to oustthose installed by the previous majority would behouse cleaning or common-sense politics. SomeCambridge residents hypothesize that, based on theconsistent 5-4 partyline votes during the pastterm, the CCA will attempt to expunge any employeehaving even a remote association with theIndependents. Others, however, say such a move would betypical of any new government. Just as the Weldadministration replaced the cabinet members of theDukakis administration, the CCA majority isreplacing the employees of the precedingIndependent majority. "House cleaning is not the way I would describeit," says CCA-endorsed Councillor Alice K. Wolf. CCA supporters charge that Cambridge'sgovernment has been riddled with nepotism by yearsof Independent majorities. And that, they say mustchange. John R. Moot '43, treasurer for the CCA, saysthe reason Councillor Sheila T. Russell slammedthe CCA for dismissing the clerk is becauseConnarton gave Russell's daughter a job in hisoffice. That is precisely the type of "patronagepolitics" Moot says the CCA is fighting. But far from pursuing noble "good government"reforms, according to Independents, the CCAcouncillors are merely purgingIndependent-associated workers from City Hall. The city charter gives the council control overonly three appointments, the city clerk, the cityauditor and the city manager. Other city employees are appointed and fired bythe city manager. But the council can exertinfluence over whom the city manager chooses tohire and dismiss. And council observers point to a slew of cityemployees whom the CCA majority would like to seefired for political reasons--ranging from officeworkers to City Manager Robert W. Healy himself. "They planned to fire the whole group," saysBarbara J. Pilgrim, referring to the posts held byIndependent party backers. Pilgrim, a member ofthe Small Property Owners Association--anorganization that is traditionally associated withthe Independent platform of anti-rentcontrol--adds, "And Healy is definitely on theirhit list." According to Walsh, Healy is only one ofseveral names on the CCA's "hit list." The list,Walsh contends, includes many Healy appointeessuch as Assistant City Manager for CommunityDevelopment Michael H. Rosenberg and CitySolicitor Russell B. Highley. "I know [Councillor] Jonathan Myers wants Healyto leave," Walsh alleges. "And I know that [theCCA majority] wanted Rosenberg and the citysolicitor to leave as well." Healy, however, says he feels that there is noreason to believe his job will be in jeopardy whenhis contract expires in 1993, a council electionyear. Having brought the city fiscal health sincehe took over the post in 1983, the pro-developmentcity manager says he has the accomplishmentsbehind him to maintain his post. "Nobody has indicated to me any effort to makeany change," Healy says. But Connarton had also said that he was unawareof his firing until Reeves notified him of thespecial City Council meeting the day before thevote was taken. "Last term, they re-elected all thecouncillors," Russell says. "Now that they've gottheir feet wet, they'll start making changes." These changes, according to Russell, are theCCA's own brand of patronage politicking. Russellsays that according to a memo she received fromCCA-backed Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55, thetemporary replacement for Administrative Assistantto the City Council Sandra Albano will be aDorchester woman whose only qualification ishaving been a secretary for the private law firmof Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72. Neither Reeves nor Duehay could be reached forcomment. Giving pink slips to Independent-friendly civilservants is only one maneuver the CCA will use toaccomplish their political agenda, Independentsallege. Walsh and Russell say there is an active efforton behalf of the liberal political organization tochange the city's from of government. The two Independent councillors say that theCCA majority will attempt to increase the power ofthe mayor while weakening the position of the citymanager. Both the CCA their supporters and theirendorsed slate, however, deny that they plan toattempt any such political change. "I haven't heard any rumors," says BarbaraAckermann, a panelist on the local cabletelevision show Cambridge Inside Out and aformer CCA-endorsed mayor. "In the past, it'salways been the Independents who want a charterchange." The CCA itself evolved from the associationwhich originally advocated the strong city managerstyle of government in 1940. The CCA's Leslie also denies that his group isinterested in altering the charter and says thathe'd "be delighted to talk to Walsh's sourcesother than his own imagination." But Wolf does not entirely dismiss thepossibility of a change in the city's charter. Shesays the strong mayor-strong city managerdiscussion crops up every few years and that nowmay be an opportune time for the debate to beresumed. "There's a change in the environment," saysWolf. "A change in the economic environment, achange in what the people expect from thegovernment and it may be appropriate that the Cityof Cambridge evaluate itself." The citizens of Cambridge should not count onsuch any radical change coming out of City Hallany time soon, say politicians from both factions.According to Alfred E. Vellucci, a formerIndependent mayor who supports many CCA-causes,changing the city's charter is a long andcomplicated process. And because of the CCA's stronghold, members ofboth political camps are also wondering if therole of the city manager will alter. Walsh contends that Healy will have to changehis traditionally more Independent stance in orderto keep his post. Gifford also speculates that Healy might try toformulate policies more agreeable to the CCAmajority because he "sees the writing on thewall." But even if Healy and other employees perceivedto be pro-Independent remain, the city shouldexpect to see a noticeable metamorphosis of theCambridge political landscape. Citizens of all political persuasions say thenon-party party-lines are being drawn deeper anddeeper. Consequently, the adjustment from a20-year Independent lock on City Hall to a CCAmajority will require concomitant changes. "I would think that they [would be] strivingfor peace," says Vellucci. "But they are actuallydividing themselves." And the polarity caused by the tension betweenthe progressive and conservative Democrats inCambridge is likely to continue. Gifford, as wellas members of the CCA, says that she would besurprised if the CCA does not keep is majority inthe next election--unless the demographics ofCambridge change dramatically by the next electionyear. The increasing partisanship and uncertainpolitical future must appear alien to Cambridge--aone-party city whose charter declares that therewill be no partisanship. "The city is definitely divided along partylines," says Pilgrim. "Cambridge could be such abeautiful city--we could have so much to go for ifwe could only cross the two-party line."
Read more in News
CORRECTION
