Earlier this year, the city of Cambridge found itself without a mayor at the helm for nearly two months—showcasing the need for reforms to the election process to prevent the ship from running aground in the future.

As the City Council disagreed for weeks on end about which of the nine councillors would hold the post of mayor for the next two years, the city lingered without an elected leader.

Some say that the vacuum posed considerable problems for the city, while others contend that the mayor’s duties are not so significant that a vacancy in the spot is a major problem.

But many agree that such drawn-out complications should be curtailed in future mayoral elections to ensure that preventable delays do not disrupt the city’s smooth sailing—and civic leaders have proposed a variety of amendments to a clearly troubled selection process.

MAYOR, MAY I?

On the first Monday of the new year, five City Council members declared their aspiration to ascend to the top spot in Cambridge politics: Henrietta J. Davis, Marjorie C. Decker, David P. Maher, Kenneth E. Reeves ’72, and E. Denise Simmons.

With more than half of the nine-member City Council signed up for the race, each candidate faced the daunting task of garnering at least five votes from their fellow councillors to be elected mayor.

At the end of that January night, Maher commanded a slight lead with three votes—an insufficient number to secure the mayorship.

“I’m ready to vote as often as I need to until we as a group can choose a mayor,” said council member Sam Seidel at that first meeting. “It’s going to take a lot more talking, and some more cups of coffee.”

The deadlock during the Council’s inaugural meeting would set the tone for the following two months.

Over the next four elections, Decker and Simmons announced their plans to run for a recently vacated State Senate seat and dropped from the mayoral race. As for the remaining contenders, Maher continued to hold a firm lead with four votes, while Reeves and Davis split the other five.

Despite the smaller pool, however, the Council was repeatedly unable to reach a consensus. During the sixth and final election—on Feb. 22, eight weeks after the initial ballot—Decker expressed a desire to expedite the sluggish process.

“We have to ask ourselves, if there is no mayor, and there are no committee assignments to chair, then what does the City Council do?” Decker said in a lengthy defense of urgency.

“We cannot effectively advocate for public policy,” she added.

Decker’s impassioned speech accompanied her motion to move the vote for the city’s next mayor to the top of the agenda.