Cambridge Day takes note of the increasingly stern measures the council is taking to maintain decorum, even at the risk of ignoring that pesky First Amendment.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Cambridge Day takes note of the increasingly stern measures the council is taking to maintain decorum, even at the risk of ignoring that pesky First Amendment.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Comrade will
By bulgingbuick
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 11:34am
suffice.
Oh, but there are so many others
By BostonDog
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 2:54pm
I'm greatly looking forward to testimony peppered with phrases such as:
"Well, you-know-who is an idiot!"
"Let me respond to councilor stupid.."
"That One [pointing] is wrong!"
"To the hideously ugly councilor I say...."
It's going to be great when people resort to childhood insults instead of just saying their names.
Wow.
By Cantabrigian
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 12:27pm
Anyone who's met Ilan Levy will tell you that he's extremely courteous. Sure, he has some weird ideas about municipal government, but removing him from the chamber is inappropriate. Dietrich and Williams are both bloviating fools. Still, suppressing their right to make asses of themselves is not an appropriate use of government authority.
Mayor Simmons should be ashamed of herself.
Does the incident serve to draw attention to their ideas!?...
By theszak
Sun, 05/01/2016 - 8:13pm
Or check out their ideas
http://vote.cambridgecivic.com/levy.htm
http://vote.cambridgecivic.com/dietrich.htm
http://vote.cambridgecivic.com/williamson.htm
In some circles the Cambridge Day writer of the article is also thought of that way, particularly by others getting castigated
http://www.cambridgeday.com/author/john-hawkinson/
Cambridge city government
By anon
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 1:03pm
I think their problems are more like some of the councilors are stereotypical not-very-bright-but-political PTA members, than the bribery and corruption and organized crime problems Boston gets.
There are some suspicious dealings with development in Cambridge (someone still needs to go to prison for the CRA). And I see some suspicious primo handouts to different groups, in a city where a surprisingly small number of votes can win a city council seat. But don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained adequately by stupidity.
This is the pinnacle of stupidity
By Boston_res
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 1:24pm
What the Cambridge city council is saying is this: "If we don't like what you're saying, then shutup!".
Seriously, if you can't take the criticism of constituents, then don't go into politics. How can any politician honestly try to fix problems if they are only willing to "listen" to positive comments?
Going even further, why restrict someone from naming a councilor? This whole thing really is dumb.
The First Amendment does not
By anon
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 1:26pm
The First Amendment does not apply to Cambridge.
Nor do the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th
By anon
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 3:39pm
Nor do the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, or 9th amendments apply.
Creepy-sounding bit from the article
By anon
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 1:26pm
I meant to add
By anon
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 1:52pm
Seemed like perhaps Simmons anticipated questions on something that was on the agenda, and perhaps tried to change the rules specifically to censor questions about that particular agenda item.
I don't know of this Williamson, nor whether his question was loaded with an inappropriate agenda, but the question might have been reasonable.
I'm more concerned by the willingness of the city council to throw away representative democracy, than I am about whatever foreign organization might have been talking with a city councilor.
Time for an investigation, possibly leading to impeachment.
I was at that meeting
By Robert Winters
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 9:35pm
I was at that meeting and the gentleman displaying the sign in violation of City Council rules was told that this kind of display is not permitted in the City Council chamber and has not been for a very long time. If he was asked to leave, it would only have been after his refusal to stop displaying the sign.
People make reference to the names of city councillors all the time at these meetings, but not generally as part of a tirade or personal attack. It's only when people enter into personal attacks that they are asked to "refrain from personalities."
It's worth noting that the writer of that article has had his own conflicts with City Council staff, and I believe he should have disclosed that in his article.
Parliamentary rules
By Waquiot
Sun, 05/01/2016 - 12:45am
In Congress and the Brirish Parliament, personal names are not used, but rather "the honorable member from..." and issues of decorum do arise, meaning one needs to really work at criticizing a member without saying as much.
And as far as signs go, they are too distracting.
That convention won't work in Cambridge
By Ron Newman
Sun, 05/01/2016 - 7:04am
because all council members are elected at-large.
The honorable councillor from....
By Robert Winters
Sun, 05/01/2016 - 12:04pm
I think it would be great if Cambridge City Councillors, even jokingly, started referring to each other as "the Honorable Councillor from Third Street" or "the Honorable Councillor from Appleton Street", etc. Imagine the possibilities for faux compliments.
Add comment