Charter Commitee Discusses Elections

BY JINA H. CHOE AND SAMUEL P. GOLDSTON CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Cambridge Charter Review Committee — tasked by the Cambridge City Council with recommending changes to the city’s charter — convened for its first public forum at the Cambridge Public Library Tuesday evening to discuss election procedures and civic engagement.

Comprised of 15 Cambridge residents from diverse backgrounds selected by the Council, the committee has met internally once or twice every month this year since August to discuss reforming the city’s plan of government.

The committee fielded several public comments Tuesday night concerning the short turnaround of the current two-year Council terms and the mayoral election process.

the discussion was falling outside of the Council’s purview.

“In my opinion, the City Council is going way beyond the realm of our role,” Toner said.

“I’m not here to run the police department. I’m not here to make the decisions for the Commissioner,” he said.

“I do think we have a wonderful department,” he added.

Zondervan closed the meeting with a contentious response to Toner.

“I appreciate and understand that the rage of this conversation may be making him uncomfortable,” Zondervan said. “I do urge him to review our code of ordinances, where the City Council has complete purview and jurisdiction over our police department.” ryan.doannguyen@thecrimson.com yusuf.mian@thecrimson.com

“I also urge him to respect my First Amendment rights to speak about whatever I feel like,” he added.

The last major updates to the charter occurred over 80 years ago when the city adopted the ‘Plan E’ government structure, in which an elected council selects a mayor to serve as a council chair and a city manager who oversees the day-to-day operation of the city, budget, and departments.

More than 20 residents attended the forum, including Councilor Patricia M. Nolan ’80, who said she was “disappointed” by the low turnout in an interview after the forum.

On the other hand, committee member and lecturer at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design James G. Stockard Jr. said that the turnout at the meeting on Tuesday was uncharacteristically high.

“All of our meetings so far have been on Zoom,” he said.

“There’s more people here tonight than we’ve had in any of those meetings,” Stockard Jr. added.

Many forum attendees decried the city’s lack of news and education for voters, with local Cambridge resident Heather Hoffman saying that Cambridge’s government is “way too often opaque.”

“So often, people in the city government think that ‘If we actually tell people what we’re doing, they will just organize against us,’” Hoffman said.

“That could well be, and that maybe suggests that you are doing things that we don’t like, and that they are not necessarily for everyone’s good,” she added.

When is all this outreach? When is this rich dialogue? When is this informed citizenry going to be making informed decisions?

Jane Kornacki Cambridge Resident

Others questioned whether the committee could develop recommendations for charter amendments and conduct meaningful outreach by its Council-imposed June deadline.

“When is all this outreach?

When is this rich dialogue? When is this informed citizenry going to be making informed decisions?” asked resident Mary Jane Kornacki. “I’m just saying that the short timeframe you have seems designed to do something short of robust civic engagement.” jina.choe@thecrimson.com samuel.goldston@thecrimson.com

Committee member Stockard said, in an interview following the forum that the committee will “very likely” request an extension and deliver its recommendations in the fall.

Charter Review Project Manager Anna K. Corning said that she was pleased with local residents’ comments during the forum.

“It was great to start these conversations and hear some of the feedback from the community about what we can be doing better, and some of the steps we can be taking to engage more of the community,” she said.