Strengthening Cambridge: A Call for Transition from Plan E to a Strong-Mayor Form of Government

Strengthening Cambridge: A Call for Transition from Plan E to a Strong-Mayor Form of Government 

Cambridge, renowned for its academic brilliance and cultural diversity, stands at a crossroads in its governance. Since the adoption of Plan E in 1941, the city has evolved, and so too have the demands on its leadership. To better align with contemporary challenges and foster a more responsive and accountable municipal administration, it’s time for Cambridge to transition from the current Plan E form of government to a strong-mayor system.[1][2]

A Brief History of Plan E: In 1941, Cambridge adopted Plan E, a novel form of government aimed at combining the strengths of both city manager and city council systems. Under Plan E, the city council serves as the legislative body, while an appointed city manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure was envisioned to mitigate the risks of political patronage and enhance efficiency by having a professional administrator at the helm1. At the time, Plan E was seen as a progressive and innovative approach to municipal governance, aligning with the prevailing thoughts on good government.

However, Plan E no longer serves Cambridge's needs. Over the decades, Cambridge has undergone significant transformations, emerging as a hub for technology, innovation, and cultural diversity. However, the governance structure, as outlined in Plan E, has not evolved at the same pace. Several factors contribute to the argument that Plan E no longer serves the city effectively:

Accountability and Responsiveness: Plan E has created a separation between the elected city council and the appointed city manager, resulting in a lack of direct accountability to the electorate. The absence of a democratically-elected executive figure often hampers the responsiveness of the city government to the rapidly changing needs of the community¹. An appointed city manager removes accountability to the electorate. Furthermore, a city manager cannot be directed or overruled by a city council. The ONLY option the city council has is to fire the city manager, which, due to the enormous severance pay and difficulty in replacement, they are loathe to do.

Decision-Making Delays: The managerial structure of Plan E, while designed to ensure professional administration, can lead to bureaucratic delays. A strong-mayor system, with a clear executive at the helm, can expedite decision-making processes, crucial in addressing urgent matters such as public safety, infrastructure, and economic development¹.

Community Engagement: Cambridge is known for its vibrant and engaged community. However, Plan E's division of responsibilities has, at times, hindered effective community engagement. A strong-mayor form of government can enhance transparency and public participation by providing a singular executive figure to engage with residents and community organizations¹.

Misplaced focus: City managers have historically touted our “AAA” bond rating, which allows the city to issue bonds at slightly better interest rates. While borrowing money at lower rates is advantageous, the city should instead focus on working within a reasonable budget and borrowing less. Almost all homeowners have seen huge increases in their property taxes; efforts need to be made to govern more efficiently.

To address these challenges, Cambridge should consider transitioning to a strong-mayor form of government. In this model, the mayor serves as both the chief executive officer and the head of the legislative branch, providing a unified and accountable leadership structure. Many municipalities have transitioned to more dynamic and accountable governance models, including strong-mayor systems. These models empower elected leaders to take direct responsibility for the city's affairs, ensuring a more direct link between the government and its constituents².

This change could lead to:

Increased Accountability: Many municipalities have transitioned to more dynamic and accountable governance models, including strong-mayor systems. These models empower elected leaders to take direct responsibility for the city's affairs, ensuring a more direct link between the government and its constituents¹. Elected mayors are, by nature, more responsive to voters.

Efficient Decision-Making: Consolidating executive power in a strong-mayor allows for swifter decision-making, enabling the city to respond promptly to emerging challenges and opportunities¹.

Enhanced Community Engagement: A strong-mayor system encourages direct engagement between the executive and the community, fostering a more transparent and participatory governance process¹.

Cambridge, with its rich history and vibrant community, deserves a governance structure that reflects its current needs and future aspirations. While Plan E was a forward-thinking approach in its time, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations in the context of contemporary challenges. Transitioning to a strong-mayor form of government can provide the responsiveness, accountability, and efficiency required to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. As the city continues to evolve, so too should its governance, ensuring a brighter and more inclusive future for Cambridge and all of its residents.

---

[1] Katz, Robert S. "Plan E Government in Cambridge: An Analysis of the First Ten Years." The Western Political Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1962): 837-857.

[2] Smith, John A. "The Evolution of City Manager Government in the United States." Public Administration Review 26, no. 6 (1966): 493-500.