The Cambridge Chronicle reports, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1039479868/Cambridge-election-recount-ends-results-remain-the-same, that the previously announced election results in the Cambridge City Council election remain unchanged after the recount.
My previous analysis is posted at http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=19121262#editor/target=post;postID=1088469206149279966;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=6;src=postname.
To put it succinctly, here is the short form of my analysis.
Decker and Davis did not seek reelection. With regard to Davis it was a strong good riddance. With regard to Decker, the resignation is a shame because she resigned to sit as a state representative where she can do more harm.
Reeves lost, in my opinion, because he was a clear part of the rotten situation in the Cambridge City Council over the past decade plus, both in its environmental and civil rights outrages. He started as a reformer. Reeves' lack of performance over the Monteiro outrage makes him perhaps the second city councilor, after Seidel, to be cleansed out of city government by an electorate which which wants a responsible city government, and which agrees with the Courts up to the Appeals Court panel.
All of the Court decisions in Monteiro gave the Cambridge City Council strong decisions upon which to base a firing of the now retired Cambridge City Manager. The Courts found she was fired for filing a female rights / civil rights complaint. Reeves looks like a civil rights activist. The words: “reprehensible” (Trial Judge) and “ample evidence . . . of outrageous misbehavior” (Appeals Court panel) were not enough. Exactly zero sitting city councilors attempted to fire a Court found malfeasant City Manager.
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom served one term and had the nerve to give the impression she is an environmentalist.
She voted for the destruction of 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common along with the rest of a very bad city council. Her explanation to me was that the staff fighting for destruction told her it is ok. The staff is environmentally reprehensible. Her claim, as an “environmentalist,” that she can destroy a large number of excellent trees in a key location based on staff recommendation and nothing else fits the well established outrageous situation in Cambridge government.
The staff wants to destroy most of those excellent trees because, according to their environmental filing, they are blocking the view.
VanBeuzekom’s record on the Charles River and Alewife is no better than, and possibly worse than, the rest of a unanimously terrible Cambridge City Council.
I could go on and on. I will not.
Three of the new city councilors appear to be no different from the incumbents. One of the three, Marc McGovern, publicly fought for the outrage at Magazine Beach.
One, Mazen, has no record and I know nothing about him.
Mazen is the subject of my dream that at least a shred of responsibility can exist on the Cambridge City Council..
I can dream.
