Charter assessment: review and reform

Project Background

On September 23, 2020, at the request of the city council, the Collins Center charter project team presented at a special council meeting on charters and charter processes. Cambridge is one of only a dozen Massachusetts municipalities to still retain a “Plan” form of government, and one of only two remaining cities with a Plan E. The City has had this Plan E charter since it was adopted in 1940, and, to the Center project team’s knowledge, it has never been the subject of a formal review. Best practices suggest that a charter should be reviewed at least once every ten years.

Following the Center’s presentation, the council requested further information about what different charters and forms of government could look like in Cambridge and what charter review pathways might make the most sense. The Center responded with a proposal that included two memos: 1. A memo presenting major options of form of government available to Cambridge and the key differences between them; and 2. A memo summarizing the Cambridge City Council’s feedback regarding the current charter and form of government, and providing options for pathways the Council could take.

The proposal also included a presentation of the memos to the city council, if the council requests one.

After receipt of the proposal, the city council unanimously passed Policy Order O-5 of November 23, 2020, which stated “That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to appropriate the funds necessary to procure the work of the Collins Center as outlined in their submitted proposal.”

Upon signing of an intergovernmental services agreement, the Center commenced work on the first memo, which was delivered on March 11, 2021. After delivery of the first memo, the project team met virtually with each member of the council to answer any questions from councilors about the memo, and to obtain the perspectives of councilors on the potential need for and possible scope of a review of Cambridge’s charter. To maintain compliance with the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, the content of each councilor’s interview was not shared with any other councilor. Upon completion of the interviews, the information was compiled into this second memo for the project.

2

In this Memo

This memo includes: 1. Overview of Findings 2. Recommendations and Alternatives 3. Potential Next Steps

Overview of Findings

There is nearly universal support on the council for a review of the charter at some point in time, but there is also widespread concern among councilors about the timeline, given several significant events occurring in the near term that would both impact and be impacted by a charter review. First among these, it is understood that the current city manager will be retiring in July 2022. In between now and that time, there is a council election, as well as still many unknowns about how fast the pandemic will recede, what its impacts will look like, and what new work it will entail.

Many councilors astutely noted the potential damage to a city manager recruitment that could come from a simultaneous discussion about a potential change in form of government that could involve eliminating the position. Several councilors also pointed to the election in less than six months and noted that a new council could have a different perspective on the need for, or scope of, a charter review.

On the consequential question of whether the City should seriously consider changing form of government to replace the city manager as chief executive with a directly elected mayor, there was a wide variety of opinions. On balance, it does not appear that there is a majority on the council to consider a wholesale change in form of government to a mayor at this point in time, let alone the kind of super- majority that would make a change more likely to succeed.

The combination of those who profess no interest in making the change to a strong mayor form of government, and those who might be open to it at some point in the future but not at this point in time, leaves only minority support for consideration of a strong mayor form of government right now. (It is also worth noting that there was concern that any charter discussions would turn into a binary mayor vs manager debate that would derail all possible changes.)

Put simply, it does not seem like a full debate on converting to a strong mayor form of government is something the council may want to undertake at this time. However, while consideration of a major change in form of government is probably not on the table for the council at this moment, it should certainly not be permanently dismissed.

In its history, Cambridge has already had three very different forms of government, and with the rapid and accelerating changes in demographics, service expectations, technology, and laws, there is no reason to assume the current form will always remain the best one for the community.

Moreover, it is important to note that nothing in this memo or the proposed alternative pathways the Center provides here prevents residents from initiating a Home Rule Charter process to create an elected charter commission that could propose any form of government legal in the Commonwealth. This is described briefly as Option C at the end of this memo and operates outside of council decision-making.

Moving beyond the mayor vs manager debate, there are a few common substantive threads where strong majorities of the council would likely find common ground. These include the following: 3 Do no harm to the City’s financial strength: It was widely recognized that the City is in a position of financial strength unique in the Commonwealth, and probably New England. It was noted that this was not always the case, and that four to five decades ago, the City was in weak financial shape.

There was a strong sentiment for ensuring that any charter review and charter changes protect this current strength, even while there was some thinking that the City could be utilizing more of its resources to face current challenges without damaging its long-term fiscal health. Provide the council stronger voice in appointments: There is significant frustration on the council about its complete lack of involvement in appointments to boards and commissions, both as a matter of process and sometimes in the outcomes.

This is not surprising, as the Plan E text is the most extreme position of charters on the spectrum of where appointing authority lies, providing the council no voice in these processes. Other Massachusetts city charters provide for councils to play a role in appointments processes, whether in the form of required approval of appointments or potential veto over appointments. There seemed to be similar interest in this with regard to appointment of at least some key department heads.