The current City Council--which includes three new members--has adopted an explicit anti-Harvard stance, blasting the University for its real estate development and for its failure to implement a living wage of $10.25 per hour for all Harvard employees.

While leaders of both Harvard and Cambridge say they are committed to improving the relationship, communication between the two has degenerated into finger pointing and posturing, with each side blaming the other for the poor state of affairs.

No One in Charge

Harvard and Cambridge both charge that the other's decision-making process is decentralized and fragmented, making negotiations almost impossible.

Cambridge leaders criticize the University's "every tub on its own bottom" philosophy, in which each school and administrative department retains a great deal of autonomy.

They say that this decentralized system allows Harvard to evade responsibility and to avoid answering difficult questions.

"We wouldn't know who to speak to at Harvard and that's the most frustrating thing," says Kenneth E. Reeves '72, a member of the council. "No one is responsible and no one is in charge."

"The University has insulated itself from accountability from outside sources with its decentralized bureaucracy," Galluccio says.

But Grogan says it is Cambridge's form of government, not the University's, that is responsible for the poor relations.

"I think things are at a difficult point because of the inability of the government to make decisions," he says. "The city can't grind to a halt, the University can't grind to a halt. There are things the University has to do--renew its physical plant and invest in itself."

Cambridge is governed by a city council with nine members, each of whom is elected by a proportional voting system every two years. The mayor does not serve as a chief executive, functioning only as the chair of the council and the School Committee. An appointed city manager controls most of the day-to-day operations of the city.

The absence of a single strong executive, Grogan says, allows small groups of citizens to wield considerable power, especially during periods of economic upswing, when most residents are content and less likely to participate in the political process.

"This is a climate in which the government is very fragmented," he says. "People are not participating. That leaves the field to a very small group of people."

Grogan points to the existence of "professional meeting goers"--residents who attend every public municipal meeting and are able to hold great sway over city government and University development.

"They are people who enjoy being out at a meeting on weeknights and occasionally torturing institutions like the University," he says. "The phenomenon you end up engaging in is negotiating with yourself. You make all these changes with respect to a different group, they're happy, they disappear, and then there's a new group."

Grogan says if University administrators were able to negotiate with one set of city officials, they would be able to accomplish more for both Harvard and the city.