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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Don’t Confuse What Goes on in This Building with Democracy

Don’t Confuse What Goes on in This Building with Democracy: The disappearance of democracy in the Massachusetts State House At the Massachusetts State House, I stepped outside of a packed hearing on updating the state’s bottle bill to speak with a young reporter for a western Massachusetts weekly. I had been “holding court” with the press all morning – giving them the Sierra Club’s point of view on this proposed legislation. I enjoyed this type of work immensely, as reporters were generally sympathetic to environmental bills and asked interesting questions. But on this day, I was tired, frustrated, and not in a very good mood. “How will the vote go?” a young reporter asked me. “What vote? They’re not voting today” I replied. “When will the vote be? Next week?” he asked. “Probably never,” I shot back. “But isn’t the majority of the committee in favor of it? Won’t they call for a vote?” he queried That moment, I broke an unspoken but absolutely firm rule among l...
Read more

Ten ordinances to combat climate change locally

Ten ordinances to enact this session to combat climate change locally Cambridge had once been a Massachusetts policy leader – and example that led the way for numerous other cities and towns on human rights and housing protection. We have just gone through a summer showing us some of the ways climate change will affect us.   While there’s no way to avoid many of the consequences of climate change, we can slow its progression. Cambridge can become a regional and national model for how a city can combat climate change with forward-looking policies. We can once again be a policy leader by adopting these and other measures to take immediate action to ameliorate our impact on the planet and combat climate change. For most of these, there are numerous existing and successful “model laws” that could be easily adapted for our use. Many are inexpensive to implement.   While some of these would require permission from the state legislature requiring “home rule petitions,” these are ...
Read more

Participatory Budgeting: A Flawed Model for Municipal Decision-Making

Participatory budgeting is the city’s program that allows community members directly decide how to allocate a portion of a public budget. Each participatory budgeting cycle increases the amount of city funds to be disbursed; the current cycle allocates $2 million in city funds; $7.5 million has been allocated to date. Each time I’ve received the city’s participatory budgeting mailer, I’m struck that some are essential projects that unquestionably should be undertaken, some are feel-good projects, and a few that are superfluous. Some are ridiculously overpriced (a Tree/Garden Coordinator at $410,000 or 250 rat traps at $1440 each). Others are safety issues that the City should implement without question, like last cycle’s installation of high-visibility poles for fire hydrants. Upon reflection, I realize that participatory budgeting is a poor substitute for careful policy decisions. Participatory budgeting programs have gained traction in various cities around the world., Proponents o...
Read more