When I started at neighbor media, I decided to 'expose' Cambridge, at the time I wasn't sure what it meant... Three years later, I think it meant trying to understand the processes making our city work... the mechanism behind those processes ... maybe by the end of this blog... the people that make it work... and maybe as Silvia Glick best said
... turn the perception of Cambridge into the realty of Cambridge ...

I started understanding the role and influence of the City Council during the Alexandria Real Estate (hereafter referred to as ARE) rezoning petition, for more read my past blogs... The process I discovered, although sound in principle, highlighted a disconnect between the City Councilors and the residents. A disconnect maybe best expressed, a few month later, by many Councilors:
... we got an amazing deal, like we’ve never seen before, we couldn’t have done it without you ...
Let me explain. The ‘you’, were the residents of East Cambridge, whom, for a year, dedicated a huge amount of time, skimming through the details of ARE petition, negotiating, attending meetings and most importantly giving Councilors the leverage they needed to negotiate a more fair and beneficial outcome.
What you might ask, how is that a disconnect? Well the way I see it, the leverage the residents created should have been created by the City Council. The City, in particular the Councilors, should have analyzed the proposal and it’s consequences, alerted the residents, basically foster an environment in which such leverage is created and grows. By doing so, the Councilors would, from the start, establish a strong initial bargaining position enabling more outcomes of the type reached with ARE. Currently, the City Council is mostly a reactive body and as such, most of the time, out of sync (not out of touch) with what is happening on the ground. This asynchronous (out of sync) system weakens the Councilor’s role and power. What it seems to encourage is a more constituent service type of role, low in power, high in prestige... A system where the Councilor reacts to the request of a constituent (customer), provides the service, or more correctly, tries to arrange to provide the service (retail politics). Such a type of system, although on the surface might seem reasonable, at it’s core encourages the influence of money and diminishes the power of the constituent (customer), ie: the more expensive, the more precious. And more dangerously, in politics, especially at the local level, it encourages professionalism. Why Dangerous? If politics becomes your job, especially at the local level, you’ll do about anything to keep that job, especially if it’s a good job. Although tough at times, City Councilor is a good job. The result: personal interests dominates, constituents interests are lost. The consequence: voting looses it’s significance, people pay less attention, the democratic process, at its core, takes a blow. Is Cambridge an example? I think so.
Let me point to the write in campaign, turned sticker campaign, of Marjorie Decker. Mrs Decker missed the deadline to register as an official candidate. As a consequence she launched a ‘sticker’ campaign. She gives people sticker that they will stick on the ballot. Up to now nothing extraordinary. Well of what I understand, and please correct me if I’m wrong, she requested from the election commission that any sticker placed on a ballot be counted as a #1 vote. The election comes down with a 2-2 decision, no decision! So for the current election we don’t know yet how votes are going to be counted. Quite extraordinary!
Immediately the question come to mind: Wow... why does she so desperately wants that job? It must be a really good job... really really good job...
Let me point to campaign finance: as of October 30, 2009, public record of campaign finance, the 5 top spenders, (Tim Toomey, Henrietta Davis, Kenneth Reeves, Marjorie Decker, David Maher), in the election have spend 74% of the total amount spend, all 5 of them are seeking re-election!

Ok... so you might say what is the solution... it’s easy to say something is wrong, much harder to fix it... Well first let me go back to the interviews. What I learned from the candidates (6 worthy candidates, 3 city councilors), has been essential in understanding the mechanisms of power particular to our city. Each of them offered me a fresh perspective on the perception (candidates) and realty (city councilors) of the role of City Councilor; it’s power, influence, faults and the ideals that drive it. So I encourage you to take the time to listen... don’t mind me... listen to them...

1. Cheung, Leland Click Here
2. Glick, Silvia part 1 Click Here -- part 2 Click Here
3. Kelley, Craig part 1 Click Here -- part 2 Click Here
4. Leavitt, Neal Click Here
5. Marquardt, Charles Click Here
6. Siedel, Sam part 1 Click Here -- part 2 Click Here
7. Stohlman, Tom Click Here
8. Toomey, Tim Click Here
9. vonBeuzenkom, Minka Click Here

Tomorrow I'll give you my take... Hey I like to hear myself speak...

PS: I know my blogs are full of spelling and grammatical mistakes... i don't have much time and lots to do... my first language is french... excuses... excuses... i've been around too many politicians...