The Cambridge Chronicle has a tradition of selecting candidates for the city elections in its last edition before the election. This is normally a rosy, happy event. Their editorial this year was anything but rosy and happy.
Although I would be happy to provide a link to this strong editorial, I have not been able to find it on line.
The key comments are two:
The second sentence: “Although it’s customary for newspapers to make endorsements before an election, this newspaper finds it difficult to recommend many of the current crop of incumbent and challengers.”
The Chronicle discusses aspects of the Monteiro case, summarizing: “the one power they do have is oversight of the city manager and in this situation they have shown none, making themselves irrelevant.”
The op ed written by the former head on the Cambridge Women’s Commission which was published on line which I have reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/monteiro-former-womens-commission-head.html was not printed in the hard copy, nor was the response by one incumbent which was also published on line.
My letter placing the Monteiro comments of the former human rights commissioners was printed as the third of three letters on the editorial page, quite visible. It may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-former-cambridge-human.html.
