The Cambridge City Council debated on Monday whether or not to change the system for electing the mayor and vice mayor for the city, leading to a heated discussion over the role of the city's leader.

Councillors Jim Braude and Timothy P. Toomey, Jr. sponsored an

order to allow the popular election of the mayor by the citizens of Cambridge. Under the current system, the mayor and vice mayor are both elected by a majority of the council at the beginning of each two-year session, months after people go to the polls in November to vote for the rest of the council.

Braude and Toomey proposed allowing council candidates to choose

to run for mayor on the November ballot. Cambridge residents would then

vote separately from those choices, with the highest vote-getter becoming

mayor, and the second highest becoming the vice mayor.

Several residents spoke in favor of the measure, saying it would end an often torturous process in which political bickering and personal

alliances decide who becomes mayor. Last year, the council elected Anthony

D. Galluccio in mid-February, in a seven hour meeting that produced

repeated vote changes by councillors.

"It would give us the opportunity when the new council is elected to

eliminate the two months of finagling and arguing for a new mayor so that

the business of the city can get done," Cambridge resident Lucy Conant

said.

Resident John R. Serwecinski also said that changing the system would

allow people to have more say in their city's government.

"Trust people to make the right choice," Serweciski said. "Competition

always benefits the consumer."

But Councillor Marjorie C. Decker immediately blasted the proposal as an

attempt to change the form of government in Cambridge, which is based on a weak, mostly ceremonial mayor chairing School Committee and council meetings, and a strong city manager overseeing the daily management of the city.

Decker said that if the proponents wanted a strong mayor system, they

should form a commission to study the idea of changing the city charter.

"This petition should not be confused as a vote for a strong mayor,"

Decker said. "This is a back-door attempt to change the charter."

Councillor Michael A. Sullivan agreed, saying that a popularly-elected

mayor would have too much power.

"In this process, the council would be marginalized," Sullivan said.

But Toomey said he had no intention of creating a stronger mayor or changing the city charter.

"I haven't advocated that. I haven't talked about that. I don't know where that comes from," Toomey said, pointing out that the proposal would set a limit of two consecutive terms.

Braude said the proposal would not create a stronger mayor, but would merely make the election system more efficient and democratic.

"It would not formally change the power of the mayor," Braude said. "It would merely take it away from the nine of us."

Both Toomey and Braude stated that the current system causes delays in forming the council's committees--where the bulk of council work

is done--while also creating tension between councillors.

But Sullivan attacked Toomey and Braude's contention that the

current system had problems. He said instead that councillors not being

truthful and straightforward with each other during the voting process led

to the delays.

"Don't blame the system if players who play the game don't do it

in an appropriate manner," Sullivan said.

And Councillor Kathleen L. Born said the current system does not create any tension or bitterness--even though she lost the last election when several

of her supporters switched allegiances to Mayor Anthony D. Galluccio at

the last minute.

"I don't feel any acrimony," Born said. "I find this to be a relatively tension-free City Council."

Galluccio disagreed, saying that the process made it difficult to begin new terms as a unified council.

"I do feel it is divisive," Galluccio said. " It's a detractor, and takes a long time to come back together."

Despite the disagreement, several councillors said they supported

improving the system, even if they did not agree that Braude and Toomey's

proposal was the best way.

Several residents proposed having a instant runoff election instead of deciding the mayor's seat through the popular vote. Councillor Henrietta Davis proposed making the mayor's election "date certain," with the council having to select a leader by a set date at the beginning of each new term, still allowing the council, and not the public, to choose the mayor.

"I believe the mayor is the chairman of this board, and should be

elected by us," Davis said.

In the end, the councillors voted to place the item on file, and hold a series of public committee meetings to discuss the various options.

Braude accepted the outcome of the meeting, saying he was not wedded to

any particular process--just the idea of a popularly-elected mayor.

"This is an attempt to take a first step," Braude said. "My goal is to begin a debate a vast majority of citizens feel strongly about."

And Galluccio said public committee meetings would be a faster way to settle the issue.

"This debate has been going on for a lot of years, and its not going to end tonight," Galluccio said. "A public hearing would allow for the tone and temper we need for this discussion."