"They have not put the outreach in to thecommunity to get it done," Thompson says.

Also emerging in the debate is a dispute overthe impact of a proposed residency requirement onthe city's affirmative-action policies.

Sponsored by Councillor Timothy J. Toomey Jr.,the residency requirement would not apply tocurrent city employees, but would require futureemployees to move into Cambridge within one yearof being hired, The ordinance is intended to keepresidents in the city, where presumably they willspend money and also be more enthusiastic abouttheir work because of its direct impact.

But some residents fear that forcing employeesto live in the city will only shrink the pool oftalented minorities from which to draw.

They point out that many of the currentminority administrators were recruited from out oftown. Anderson, for example, served as policechief in Miami before coming to Cambridge in 1991.

"It will erode the ability of the city toattract top talent," says Councillor Francis H.Duehay '55, who opposes the idea. "I am in generalfavor of employees living in the society, but I'mnot in favor of requiring it.

Gardner feels the requirement would make hisjob harder. "Any restrictions you put on themanager's discretion makes it harder to ultimatelyhire who you want or the person you think would bebest for the job," he said. Lee, the historyteacher, says the proposed exemptions to therequirement would only be used to keep minoritiesout.

"If the conservatives were serious about thisresidency requirement, they would make Bob Healylive in the city," Lee says. "But they're notserious." Healy lives in Lowell.

Foxx agrees, saying the city has become tooexpensive to live in. "Under the currentconditions of the housing stock in Cambridge, whatthe residency requirement would do is effectivelycut out a large portion of the minority hiringpool," he says.

"It's a complicated issue," Ogletree says. "Onthe one hand, it is a powerful argument thatpeople who live in the city should have priorityin getting job opportunities, but...you don't wantto penalize citizens of color from [another] cityor county who are qualified for the job."

The NAACP and the Future

The platform advocated by the NAACP on May 1 isa paradox. It may provide the key to a morediverse city work force, but it has alreadyengendered enough opposition to make enactment ofany of its six points difficult, if notimpossible.

The plan calls for the reorganization of theaffirmative action office under the mayor and CityCouncil, not the city manager. It calls forGardner's reassignment and the appointment of anew personnel director, and the appointment of aminority deputy city manager.

Also proposed are a new study of managerialappointments; the setting-aside of a quota of cityconstruction for minority-owned firms, and anintern program for Cambridge Rindge and LatinSchool students to work in municipal departments.

"The trouble with Mr. Gomes is that he'sreports to the city manager," Thompson says. "Howmuch can he report is wrong with the city managerwhen he's reporting to the city manager?"

Right now, the NAACP is waiting to meet withthe city manager to discuss the six points. If thepast record of complaint and response holds true,however, the status quo is unlikely to change: thefundamental structure adopted in the 1991 plancalls for growth--but slowly and gradually.

"I don't take their criticism lightly," Gomessays. "If it's bending over backward and makingaccommodations, the city is willing to do that.