The Somerville News Blog

Looking Back: 2008 (Commentary part 2) Open letter to the Charter Review Committee

William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) (November 2008) To the Charter Review Committee, I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to give testimony at your Nov. 10 public hearing. I hope you are not discouraged that, from mildly to passionately, all but one person who spoke was critical of your preliminary recommendations. That may explain why the hearing, which was scheduled to be broadcast at least five times on the city's cable channel, never was. I respectfully suggest that you might have begun the work of your committee by gathering evidence on how Somerville government is benefiting or injuring its citizens and, therefore, how it should be changed. In just five meetings, you covered a truly remarkable range of topics. Yet I detect scant mention in your meeting notes of the Somerville-specific historical context and conditions that inform your judgment. So please consider my own view. There were times when Somerville's government was more explicitly rife with patronage than it is today. It has been over two decades since city officials went to jail. But even then, citizen watchdog groups, a vigilant local press, and extensive, diverse, and politically active relationship networks helped keep city government honest. They have faded away. In their absence, the executive branch has steadily accumulated more power. The legislative branch has disappeared in all but name. For as long as anyone can remember, our mayors withheld city services from the wards of disobedient aldermen and worked for the election of obedient ones. But in the absence of vigilant watchdogs, aldermen have become more vulnerable to such pressure. This parallels and is fed by the enormously increased size and volume of donations going to mayoral campaign funds, particularly from interests living outside of Somerville. The current mayor won his position by spending $35 per vote, more than any municipal campaign in Massachusetts. By comparison, aldermen seldom spend more than $2 per vote. The resulting autocracy expresses itself in many ways. The current administration refused to release elected officials' ethics statements as required by law. In response to a Freedom of Information Act action, they released them with key blocks of information blacked out. They offer the laughable excuse that the Massachusetts Ethics Commission does not require the release of officials' phone numbers. From 1975 to 1985, the Board of Aldermen vigorously debated and passed legislation regarding at least twenty major issues, often with five to six votes. In the last ten years, I count two significant pieces of legislation originating from the Board. The rest were the mayor's initiatives, submitted by a Board member. Dissenting votes were rarely more than two or three. The eclipse of aldermanic power, trends in campaign financing, and the deal making that takes place outside of the public eye are, taken together, troubling. So many significant decisions over recent mayoral tenures flaunted the best relevant evidence, suggesting the extent to which they were influenced by political considerations. Their outcomes speak eloquently to their quality. Over the past century, the response advocated by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Louis Brandeis to such conditions was a council/manager municipal charter. So I was disappointed by your easy dismissal of it. At your July 9 meeting, you had "agreed to research and discuss a city manager [i.e., a council/manager] form of government." Then at your Sept. 10 meeting, "the committee agreed that there is no desire to move away from a mayoral form of government." When I asked what your research on council/manager government had involved, your response was that some committee members read the book, The Adapted City. When I asked what your discussion had involved, you said that committee members had made these observations: there is a trend among municipalities toward a mayoral form of government; some committee members believe that an elected mayor is more responsive to the voters; some believe that council/manager government is more appropriate for homogenous, suburban cities, while strong-mayor government is better for diverse urban ones; and some believe that our strong-mayor government is working well, so there is no need to change it. I would suggest that • trends mean little without understanding the historical reasons for changing governmental forms specific to each municipality that comprises the trend; • over the decades, our own strong-mayor government has become unaccountable to the voters; • you should actually examine objective conditions before you pronounce Somerville government to be working well; • and Lowell, Worcester, and Cambridge are all larger and more diverse than Somerville, but have done quite well with council/manager governments. Lowell and Lawrence had very similar economies when Lowell adopted council/manager government, as did Cambridge and Somerville when Cambridge did the same. It is fascinating to compare the subsequent trajectories of these two pairs of cities' fiscal health, political participation and general wellbeing. And then there is diverse and urban Chelsea, whose strong-mayor corruption and incompetence made it the first U.S. city forced into receivership since the great depression. In fact, only about 10 percent of Massachusetts' municipalities have strong/mayor governments, but they account for all but one of the Commonwealth's significant municipal corruption scandals. I imagine that your colleague Gerry McCue can describe how Chelsea has steadily come back since it adopted council/manager government. Somerville citizens now have no real means of redress other than by voting for a mayoral challenger. Without an incumbent's bulging campaign coffers and patronage-based army, a challenger's chances are miniscule. If you summarily dismiss consideration of council/manager government, then I am astonished you have not recommended initiative and referendum, which do not exist in our charter. I do applaud your recommendation to finally grant the Board of Aldermen authority to appoint their own staff. How about their own counsel? Your fiscal and financial recommendations are very much appreciated as well. The notion that a person of color appointed by the mayor could effectively represent fifty ethnic groups is dubious, however, as is the notion that School Committee members should possess some kind of "expertise" other than speaking for their constituents. Taken together, the recommendations you have made thus far are feeble in the context of our history and objective conditions. Council/manager government is not intrinsically superior in every situation. But its adoption would leaven an inertial, old-boy-network political culture that excludes the recruitment of fresh and diverse talent, perpetuates patronage, and fails on your criterion of benefiting all citizens. Somerville's structural fiscal deficit is one of its products. When our nation's founders decided to change their form of government, they began the Declaration of Independence by stating that "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" required them to state their reasons for doing so. They defined the values that would guide the transformation of their political institutions. And they cited the history and resulting conditions that compelled that transformation. I would encourage you to do the same. There are many among Somerville's citizens who would simply like unpoliticized consideration of their job applications and performance, impartiality in service distribution and zoning decisions, or a city government that tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Most do not enjoy the luxury of dispassionately discussing forms of municipal governance. Do you believe that the conditions they experience are unworthy of your consideration? Do you believe that the recommendations you are offering will transform those conditions?

Looking Back: 2008 (Commentary part 1) California dreaming on this exquisite Somerville day

William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) (May 2008) This summer represents something of a milestone for me. I've now been in Somerville longer than I lived in California, where I am "from." So, I'm thinking about the differences between there and here. Just about every year when December arrives, I think that I must be self-destructive to live here. Decades ago, I stopped having the flashbacks and anxiety attacks associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. But depression is one of its legacies that I must regularly deal with. For some reason, the dark of Somerville's winter gets it going. This last winter was really bad. By evening, I'd feel so down that I didn't even have the energy to heat up frozen dinners. I'd just crawl under the quilt with one and lick it. Then, just after income tax return day, everything changes. Spring has the impact of a religious experience. The waxing sunshine and the explosion of new life make my spirits soar, and I wonder how I could live anywhere else. Californians are often caricatured in the minds of New Englanders. It's true that almost every nut cult in the history of the universe has at least one adherent in Los Angeles County. But for the most part, Californians want and care about the same things that you do. They care about their children's health and wellbeing. They want to be paid fairly for working hard. They don't want to be continually stressed about money. They would like the streets to be clean and for things to get fixed when they break. They want government to be honest and effective. They would prefer to breathe clean air and live a long time. Californians are more comfortable than Somervillians are in expressing warm feelings. They are more welcoming, but relationships don't have the depth and endurance of those here. Somervillians are more comfortable expressing negative feelings. They are less welcoming, but relationships are stronger and loyalties are tighter. Many people I know in Somerville have friendships that go back to high school, while I haven't spoken to anyone that I went to high school with for over forty years. Personally, I would prefer to live among people who easily express both positive and negative feelings. Having to conceal either one makes me feel lonely. But we must deal with the world as we find it. One of the reasons that we find the differences in our world that I have described comes from how and why the people who came from Europe expanded across this continent. They formed communities along the East Coast. As within all communities, conflict was inevitable. The frontier provided a means of escape for those who were unable to work through the conflicts, or to live with their outcomes. It offered a new life to those who had messed up their old one, and opportunity to those who didn't see much opportunity where they were. As a group, those who went West were the least integrated into their old communities, with the least skills in resolving conflicts, building relationships, and sustaining community. The other side of the West's celebration of individualism is its yearning for community. In community, you are known, and you must find a way to live with those you have offended. Oddly enough, if you aren't obligated to continually interact with others, it's easier to be warm toward them. The consequences of their indifference, or their antagonism to your overtures, are greatly reduced. There are always others to interact with. But strength, trust, and endurance in relationships don't come from what we have in common. They come from how we deal with our differences, how we resolve our conflicts. When the web of relationships is not strong enough to sustain community, it's easier to attribute imagined evils to public figures, because you don't know them. I often disagree strongly with Mayor Curtatone. (See my next column, for example.) But I can't pretend that he is some cartoon-like villain, or that his policy choices are willfully malign, because I know him and find much to like about him. There are other differences between here and California. On average, drivers here are much worse. I attribute this to the relatively lax enforcement of traffic laws here and the fact that New England cities weren't built to accommodate the automobile. Within a few years, we will come to appreciate the latter. California has rarely experienced the government corruption that regularly makes news in Massachusetts, and, per unit of service, government is more costly here. I see this as the consequence of one party controlling government so long that it becomes complacent. Yet for all of the dissatisfactions that I might express about Somerville, its people are the best. They are honest, hardworking, loyal, realistic, and funny. We can argue heatedly and still remember that we like each other. As I just wrote that, I remembered one night in the aldermanic chamber after a hearing on Assembly Square. Steve Post and I were yelling at each other at the top of our lungs. At some point, I looked at him and felt foolish. I quietly said, "I'm just so disappointed." The soul of compassion, he replied, "yeah. I know." So, much to the dismay and disgust of many of you, dear readers, I'm staying here.

"Change," you say?

Part 5: Climate Change William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) Climate change may be the issue that most powerfully illustrates our institutions' abject incapacity to meet our needs. Without institutional transformation, the multi-billion-dollar green energy investments proposed by the president-elect, the tedious global warming arguments among our factionalized policy makers will, in the long run, amount to little more than disagreement over the color of our caskets. Of course, there are still some fools who embrace the lies broadcast by demagogues whose narrow self-interest is to gain just a little more money by selling, or a little more power by protecting, planet-killing technologies. They tell us that the following are merely tragic blips in the climate cycle: · A piece of Antarctic ice the size of Hawaii fell into the sea. · Midwest dust storms caused $10 billion in damage, and floods caused much more. · The length and strength of great storms like hurricanes increased 50% in the last 25 years; their frequency is increasing as well. · 120 glaciers melted in Glacier National Park · California wild fires burned more than a million acres. · A ten-day heat wave in Europe killed 30,000. The mythical Northwest Passage over the pole is mythical no more, but the polar bear soon may be. Forecasts beginning in the 1890s of a fossil-fuel economy's consequences have become realities. Fossil fuels' dominance would not be possible without $17 billion annually in government subsidies, tax breaks, research grants and waived royalty fees. But Terry Tamminem, former director of California's EPA, says that the true costs are closer to $1 trillion per year-damage to forest, rivers, buildings and human health; taxes and jobs lost overseas; and the costs, excluding the Iraq War, to defend the industry's overseas infrastructure. Our political and economic institutions keep producing false solutions that divert desperately needed resources, deepen the nation's deficit, waste precious time and enrich special interests. They gave us the ethanol scam. The fossil-fuel energy used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine corn into ethanol, compared to just burning fossil fuel, is 1.3 to 1. For gasoline itself, it's 5-to-1. Ethanol damages the environment. In addition to consuming huge amounts of fossil fuel, industrial-scale cornfields silt up the Mississippi River and create a vast dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Burning corn ethanol is as dirty as conventional gasoline and does little to solve global warming. Nor is ethanol an antidote to foreign oil dependence. If the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would replace only 12% of current gasoline use. The ethanol scam is largely the accomplishment of one huge but shadowy company. Half of Archer Daniels Midland's profits come from products subsidized or protected by the U.S. government. The company spends millions in lobbying and campaign contributions to influence policy. Sen. Barack Obama, for example, co-authored legislation to raise production of synfuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030. In the last days of his campaign, Mr. Obama said that he would "look at" clean coal technology. He should take a hard look, because it's the next scam. The Bush Energy Department launched "Future Gen" in 2003, a $1 billion partnership to design a coal-burning power plant with minimal emissions. After spending $1.8 million, they gave up in 2007. To remove CO2 emissions, coal burners must either use enormous amounts of energy to first gasify it, or scrub CO2 out of burning coal's exhaust. Either way adds 20% to the cost and lowers output by up to 40%. Compressing the removed CO2 into a supercritical fluid uses 10% more energy, and pumping it underground, another 10%. Then you must keep it under pressure and hope that it doesn't migrate through cracks in the earth, create pools of an invisible, odorless asphyxiant, trigger earthquakes, or damage freshwater drinking supplies. By the time that technologies could be developed to do all this, virtually every form of renewable energy will be cheaper. Large scale wind and solar would be much cheaper, easier, and quicker to build. As with tobacco industry executives who knew the truth for decades, coal company CEOs know that there is no safe way to burn coal in the foreseeable future. As with cigarettes, coal's death merchants' strategy is to lie. As with both industries, our economic and political institutions protect their homicidal greed. When evidence of tobacco's lethal effects became overwhelming, the death merchants increased their advertising. This summer, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity launched a $35 million media campaign. You've probably seen their television ads. They're aimed at reassuring you in the tradition of 1960s tobacco ads, and at generating support for 65 coal plants in development. Once again, this scam is aided and abetted by political leaders. Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri-swing states in this year's elections-mine and burn a lot of coal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comprises the top climatologists across the world. Their alarming warnings represent their consensus. But such bellwethers as Greenland's glaciers or the polar ice cap are hard evidence of the planet's heating up much faster than forecast in their computer-model projections. These projections estimate that average earth temperatures will increase 11.5 degrees by 2100, raising sea level by 23 inches. But the geological record shows that 3 million years ago when temperatures increased only 5 degrees above today's level, the sea rose 80 feet. In response to this evidence, our economic and political institutions produce scams that protect themselves, reward their masters, and hasten our demise. By their very nature, they are incapable of doing otherwise. The too-large-to-let-fail corporations buy the policy they want from too-small-for-courage politicians. And the institutions select for both. Economists describe our institutions' incapacity to place a proper value on clean atmosphere and the planet's future as a "market failure." In fact, it is the inevitable evolution of the market itself. In every industry, at the end of every round of competition, there are fewer players left, with more power. Eventually they have power sufficient to warp the government and the market to their own ends. The unambiguous evidence that our institutions long ago outlived their usefulness to us remains invisible to many Americans. And the climate-change point of no return for our oceans and atmosphere happens long before we can see it with our own eyes. I pray that we will see both before humanity's future is cooked.

Talkin' 'bout my generation

William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) When The Who sang those words in the late 1960s, some of my generation were in Vietnam, some in the work place, some in schools, and some in the streets. But many of us in each of those places imagined that we were special. We thought that we would change the world. We did. We bankrupted our economic system, rejected saving and investment to live lives of meaningless consumption, made the rich much richer and the poor poorer, raised spoiled children, allowed their achievement in math and science to fall to 25th in the world, manipulated symbols on the papers we pushed instead of substance in the things that we made, and brought shame to our nation in the global community. "Baby boomers" are the 76 million Americans who were born between 1946 and 1963. For the last sixteen years, they have ruled the White House. They dominate Congress, the largest corporations, and Wall Street. Many who railed against leaders in their youth are irresponsible leaders today. As Liars Poker author Michael Lewis remarked, "The rebellion by American youth against the money culture never happened. Why bother to overturn your parents' world when you can buy it, slice it up into tranches, and sell off the pieces?" Boomers are special. Their parents struggled, suffered great privations, endured, and handed them the best opportunities that any American generation has inherited. Boomers, in turn, squandered their children's and grandchildren's birthrights. Of course the boomers that I'm talking about are those with some minimum of power and wealth. The poor had little impact on much of anything, including their own circumstances. The 20 percent of households with the highest incomes now make 12.5 times what the lowest 20 percent of households make. This ratio was 7-to-1 in 1982. The last time that the top 1 percent made 20 percent of all U.S. household income as they do today was on the eve of the Great Depression. During the first administration of Ronald Reagan, who modeled fiscal irresponsibility for younger generations, the oldest boomers entered their late 30s. They also entered their prime earning years and positions of increasing influence. But instead of saving and investing as their parents had done, they bought whatever they wanted with debt and without concern for the future. Well before Dick Cheney said that deficits don't matter, boomers made deficit spending a lifestyle. And from their positions of influence, they encouraged others to do the same. In 1982, Americans saved 12 percent of their income. During the Bush administration, household savings went below zero. Between 1989 and 2007, credit card debt increased 300 percent, to $937 billion. In the last five years, boomers took $3 trillion of equity out of their homes. What did they do with it? Census Bureau data tell us that boomer households annually spent $2,400 on clothing, $1,900 on furniture, $3,800 on vehicles, $600 on lottery tickets, $950 at casinos, and $1,400 on entertainment. They spent more on restaurants ($4,000) than on charity ($2,900). They spent more on consumer electronics ($1,100) than on education ($950). Boomers who had achieved those positions of influence pushed debt like crystal meth and produced popular culture that made wasteful spending a virtue. Those merchants of waste spent $275 billion per year on advertising. They mailed out 27 billion credit card offers in the last five years, and they collected $12 billion in late fees annually. Most boomers who were squandering their substance didn't give much thought to those with little substance to squander. Between 1989 and 2004, baby boomers' median income increased 52 percent, while that of Americans aged 35-to-39 fell 10 percent. In fact, median income for American households as a whole has remained flat or declined for many years. But instead of fighting for economic justice, sustaining unions, and insisting on a share of the wealth produced by their continually increasing productivity, working class boomers compensated for their declining incomes by borrowing and spending. Those in labor's most privileged ranks imagined that they lived in a dream world free of foreign competition, while their less advantaged brothers and sisters slipped further behind. The auto industry's labor/management protection racket allowed executives to "earn" obscene amounts while they waged a decades-ong campaign against corporate responsibility, fought minimal increases in mileage standards, and extolled the virtues of gas guzzlers. The boomer President and Congress aided and abetted them. Democrats kept the auto unions in fantasyland while Republicans sanctioned the gas guzzlers, killed alternative energy initiatives, and insisted that we "drill, drill, drill." Economic "growth" fueled by people spending money they didn't have to buy things they didn't need made by people who didn't live here created a false prosperity that was never equally shared, but pointed to with pride by political leaders. Meanwhile, our economic bedrock was eroding. Those leaders' policies produced a drop in manufacturing from 22 percent of GDP in 1980 to 12 percent today-a smaller portion of GDP than government expenditures. Now, 156,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient, and we buy most of our oil from foreign sources. The chickens are coming home to roost. Extrapolating from Federal Reserve projections, the poorest 30 percent of boomers will spend their retirement years in low-income housing waiting for meals-on-wheels-if the nation is generous to them. The middle 40 percent will spend their meager savings on a modest existence with social security as their only buffer against real poverty-if the nation is generous to them. The top 30 percent will live a high old life, and the nation continues to be generous to them. Hank Paulson is handing out $700 billion to the industry that he came from, with the blessing of Bush and Pelosi. * * * Much of America's fall from grace is the inevitable result of economic and political institutions that, having long outlived their usefulness to most Americans, are kept staggering from crisis to crisis by the powerful who profit most from them. But the generation that was going to change those institutions didn't. They hastened institutional decay and corruption. Although the hour is late, there is still a little time for my generation to redeem itself. Our disregard for our planet, our neighbors, and our own children has been shamefully immoral. As in the Judeo-Christian tradition, our redemption requires confession of sin followed by righteous behavior. The nation's future is disproportionately our responsibility because we remain disproportionately the leaders of our obsolete institutions. We must find our moral fiber, act with strength of character, look at the future unflinchingly, speak the harsh truth clearly, and model responsibility for each other's wellbeing. We must move from crisis management to transformation. We must keep the promise that we made in our youth.

Open letter to the Charter Review Committee

William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

To the Charter Review Committee,

I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to give testimony at your Nov. 10 public hearing. I hope you are not discouraged that, from mildly to passionately, all but one person who spoke was critical of your preliminary recommendations. That may explain why the hearing, which was scheduled to be broadcast at least five times on the city's cable channel, never was.

I respectfully suggest that you might have begun the work of your committee by gathering evidence on how Somerville government is benefiting or injuring its citizens and, therefore, how it should be changed. In just five meetings, you covered a truly remarkable range of topics. Yet I detect scant mention in your meeting notes of the Somerville-specific historical context and conditions that inform your judgment. So please consider my own view.

There were times when Somerville's government was more explicitly rife with patronage than it is today. It has been over two decades since city officials went to jail. But even then, citizen watchdog groups, a vigilant local press, and extensive, diverse, and politically active relationship networks helped keep city government honest. They have faded away. In their absence, the executive branch has steadily accumulated more power. The legislative branch has disappeared in all but name.

For as long as anyone can remember, our mayors withheld city services from the wards of disobedient aldermen and worked for the election of obedient ones. But in the absence of vigilant watchdogs, aldermen have become more vulnerable to such pressure.

This parallels and is fed by the enormously increased size and volume of donations going to mayoral campaign funds, particularly from interests living outside of Somerville. The current mayor won his position by spending $35 per vote, more than any municipal campaign in Massachusetts. By comparison, aldermen seldom spend more than $2 per vote.

The resulting autocracy expresses itself in many ways. The current administration refused to release elected officials' ethics statements as required by law. In response to a Freedom of Information Act action, they released them with key blocks of information blacked out. They offer the laughable excuse that the Massachusetts Ethics Commission does not require the release of officials' phone numbers.

From 1975 to 1985, the Board of Aldermen vigorously debated and passed legislation regarding at least twenty major issues, often with five to six votes. In the last ten years, I count two significant pieces of legislation originating from the Board. The rest were the mayor's initiatives, submitted by a Board member. Dissenting votes were rarely more than two or three.

The eclipse of aldermanic power, trends in campaign financing, and the deal making that takes place outside of the public eye are, taken together, troubling. So many significant decisions over recent mayoral tenures flaunted the best relevant evidence, suggesting the extent to which they were influenced by political considerations. Their outcomes speak eloquently to their quality.

Over the past century, the response advocated by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Louis Brandeis to such conditions was a council/manager municipal charter. So I was disappointed by your easy dismissal of it. At your July 9 meeting, you had "agreed to research and discuss a city manager [i.e., a council/manager] form of government." Then at your Sept. 10 meeting, "the committee agreed that there is no desire to move away from a mayoral form of government."

When I asked what your research on council/manager government had involved, your response was that some committee members read the book, The Adapted City. When I asked what your discussion had involved, you said that committee members had made these observations: there is a trend among municipalities toward a mayoral form of government; some committee members believe that an elected mayor is more responsive to the voters; some believe that council/manager government is more appropriate for homogenous, suburban cities, while strong-mayor government is better for diverse urban ones; and some believe that our strong-mayor government is working well, so there is no need to change it.

I would suggest that

• trends mean little without understanding the historical reasons for changing governmental forms specific to each municipality that comprises the trend;

• over the decades, our own strong-mayor government has become unaccountable to the voters;

• you should actually examine objective conditions before you pronounce Somerville government to be working well;

• and Lowell, Worcester, and Cambridge are all larger and more diverse than Somerville, but have done quite well with council/manager governments.

Lowell and Lawrence had very similar economies when Lowell adopted council/manager government, as did Cambridge and Somerville when Cambridge did the same. It is fascinating to compare the subsequent trajectories of these two pairs of cities' fiscal health, political participation and general wellbeing.

And then there is diverse and urban Chelsea, whose strong-mayor corruption and incompetence made it the first U.S. city forced into receivership since the great depression. In fact, only about 10 percent of Massachusetts' municipalities have strong/mayor governments, but they account for all but one of the Commonwealth's significant municipal corruption scandals. I imagine that your colleague Gerry McCue can describe how Chelsea has steadily come back since it adopted council/manager government.

Somerville citizens now have no real means of redress other than by voting for a mayoral challenger. Without an incumbent's bulging campaign coffers and patronage-based army, a challenger's chances are miniscule. If you summarily dismiss consideration of council/manager government, then I am astonished you have not recommended initiative and referendum, which do not exist in our charter.



I do applaud your recommendation to finally grant the Board of Aldermen authority to appoint their own staff. How about their own counsel? Your fiscal and financial recommendations are very much appreciated as well.

The notion that a person of color appointed by the mayor could effectively represent fifty ethnic groups is dubious, however, as is the notion that School Committee members should possess some kind of "expertise" other than speaking for their constituents.

Taken together, the recommendations you have made thus far are feeble in the context of our history and objective conditions. Council/manager government is not intrinsically superior in every situation. But its adoption would leaven an inertial, old-boy-network political culture that excludes the recruitment of fresh and diverse talent, perpetuates patronage, and fails on your criterion of benefiting all citizens. Somerville's structural fiscal deficit is one of its products.

When our nation's founders decided to change their form of government, they began the Declaration of Independence by stating that "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" required them to state their reasons for doing so. They defined the values that would guide the transformation of their political institutions. And they cited the history and resulting conditions that compelled that transformation. I would encourage you to do the same.

There are many among Somerville's citizens who would simply like unpoliticized consideration of their job applications and performance, impartiality in service distribution and zoning decisions, or a city government that tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Most do not enjoy the luxury of dispassionately discussing forms of municipal governance.

Do you believe that the conditions they experience are unworthy of your consideration? Do you believe that the recommendations you are offering will transform those conditions?

“Change” you say?

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

People sometimes ask whether I'm “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive,” “libertarian,” etc. I never know what to say. I've never fit comfortably into a single label, and I believe that they're increasingly meaningless. Certainly today's conservative and liberal policies bear little resemblance to their historical predecessors' core beliefs.

Getting it right in Union Square

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I was deeply unhappy with Assembly Square planning. The public processes were window dressing to satisfy regulatory requirements and create the illusion of democracy. The real intent all along seems to have been rewarding the original developers by enabling them to leave town with $30 million in profit created solely by city decisions. The new developers have been a welcome change.

Calling all citizen journalists

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Over the last decade, studies and surveys continually report a decline in American civic engagement. By civic engagement, they mean “working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference.”

Last month, I wrote a column suggesting that the watchdogs that historically guarded the interests of Somerville's citizens-aldermen, the press, and citizens groups-had all been domesticated. It's equally true that this could not have happened if their citizen masters had not been snoozing. Well, “snoozing” may be the wrong word, since they're often working too hard to pay attention.

Keeping the beacon burning brightly

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Visiting Somerville's public libraries is one experience that always makes me consider the possibility that my tax dollars are being well spent, even though library expenditures are only 1 percent of the city budget. Paraphrasing Daniel Webster, it is a small government institution, but there are those of us who love it.

So I was alarmed to learn that Somerville's libraries are at risk of being decertified; and perplexed to learn that the reason for this is a history of inadequate funding.

Secrecy, autocracy, and lack of accountability: Part 3

Domesticated dogs and absent advocates

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Mayor Joe Curtatone has demonstrably achieved the opposite of his claim to lead an administration that is more open, accountable, and participatory than its predecessors. But he is not some amoral cartoon villain who lusts after power for its own sake. In person he is warm and cordial. He does want what is best for the city. He wants to expand the scope of his authority because he sincerely believes that he knows what is best, and is the most able in achieving it.

Secrecy, autocracy, and lack of accountability

Part 2: SomerStat and ResiStat

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Mayor Joseph Curtatone flatly states that during his administration, “Somerville residents have seen their government become more open, more accountable and more participatory.” Implementation of the SomerStat and ResiStat programs are key elements that he cites to support this claim.

Based on all the evidence that I've seen, Somerville government has become less open, less accountable, and less participatory. If Mayor Curtatone sincerely believes his statement, and I think that he does, how can we explain this conflict in perceptions?

Secrecy, autocracy, and lack of accountability, Part 1

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

In this space last month, Mayor Joseph Curtatone began a column by saying, “Over the past four-and-a-half years, Somerville residents have seen their government become more open, more accountable and more participatory.” I was astounded by the bald-faced audacity of this claim. By any measure that I can conceive, Somerville city government has become more secretive, more cliquish, more autocratic, and less accountable.

Public attendance at aldermanic meetings is at an all-time low. There is understandably little interest. The Board no longer initiates capital investments, reforms city policies and departments, question's the mayor's performance, or vigorously debates policy choices, as it did in years gone by.

The Worst

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

News coverage of the race for the White House has been a blessing to its current occupant by eclipsing news of his performance. As we consider the coming election, it may be useful to compare what we want with how we've been had.

At 71 percent, George Bush now has the highest disapproval rating since pollsters began measuring it. But popularity is not a good measure of a presidency. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was broadly unpopular by the autumn of 1863.

Did we forget?

By William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) In gratitude for all those who…gave their last full measure of devotion, lest we forget. - Honor Roll,   City Hall Concourse We can't forget. - Vietnam Memorial,   City Hall Concourse Every marine, soldier, sailor, and airman takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Six monuments on the Concourse that runs between City Hall and the Public Library commemorate Somervillians who gave their lives to uphold that oath-78 in World War II, 31 in Korea, and 33 in Vietnam.

Five years

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

The Iraq invasion's fifth anniversary has understandably prompted widespread commentary. Its consequences are felt in Somerville through concerns for absent and suffering community members, sometimes-divisive arguments, constrained fiscal choices, and increasing economic hardship. So I'll add my modest insights to those of the pundits.

For me, the most important lesson is one that our nation should have learned many times since 1898. Our nation's political leaders do not understand the complexity of any other peoples' experience, and they don't have the humility needed to acquire that understanding. The best military leaders have learned this from experience, but they must follow the chain of command.

Facts versus truth… or can't we all get along?

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

A statement may be factually accurate, but not true. I may say that you have a hysterical fear of water, but I don't mention that you're on top of your house, praying for rescue from a rapidly rising flood. The first fact accurately conveys one meaning. Adding the second fact radically changes the meaning.

You can't beat a woman, Part 2

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

The winter after the Impossible Restaurant incident, a family of four moved in across the street from us. Paul was so big that a neighbor started calling him “the mountain that moves.” He worked in a scrap yard and had the physical strength to load engine blocks onto a truck bed by hand.

Emma had lost a leg to advanced diabetes. She spent most of her time in bed or blunted from drugs. Without much adult supervision, the boys ran wild, terrorizing neighborhood kids.

You can't beat a woman

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

This past week, Deval Patrick, Paul Celucci, and Tom Menino co-chaired White Ribbon Day. Men across the Commonwealth took this pledge: “From this day forward, I promise never to commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women, sexual assault, and domestic violence.”

Most who read this will nod and agree that those are words we should all live by. Not all will realize how challenging it is to do this effectively.

What's in a name?

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

I've been writing about Somerville's place on the bleeding edge of a growing societal trend. We increasingly substitute name calling for listening to each other, identifying what we have in common, and understanding our legitimate differences.

Among the names that we call each other are “liberal” and “conservative.” No longer terms that accurately describe any consistent or mutually understood political philosophy, these words are increasingly insults used by one group to dismiss the concerns of another.

What would I do if I didn't call you a moron?

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

As I was saying, Somervillians are the people who I like most and have chosen to live with. Yet in these times, they call each other names more than other people that I know. 

There seem to be ever more conditions that legitimately evoke anger, but fewer clear opportunities to change them. Posts on the Somerville News' website catalog these conditions.