Election Commission To Get Evaluation

City Manager Robert W. Healy has agreed to hire a lawyer from outside the city to review the rights and responsibilities of the Cambridge Election Commission.

Commissioners have been calling for such an evaluation since Healy overturned the Election Commission's September decision to fire Teresa S. Neighbor, the executive director of the commission, since they believe the statutes governing the election commission give them the ultimate say in cases such as Neighbor's.

"As a number of us read it, it gives us the authority to hire and to operate our office at arm's length relative to the manager," said Election Commissioner Sondra Scheir.

The upcoming review will center not on the specific incident of last fall, but on any cases since the commission's creation in 1921 where there has been a question as to the role of the city manager relative to the commission, Scheir said.

"It went beyond the tenure of any employee. It had to do with the independence of the election commission," said Scheir.

Now, the purpose of the evaluation is to "determine our statutory responsibility in terms of our hiring authority as well as our operational authority," Scheir said.

At first glance, the Election Commission's struggle for independence from the manager seems to parallel that of the city council, which has lately been fighting the confines of the Plan E form of government in effect in Cambridge.

Plan E calls for a strong city manager hired by a relatively weak elected council. This division of power is supposed to prevent political motivations of elected officials from affecting the management of the city.

When Healy's contract was up for renewal last Spring, the decades-old civic group Cambridge Civic Association (CCA)--which holds a five to four majority on the council--opposed renewal because they perceived Healy was perceived as too strong and independent from the council.

"Some people think Plan E is weak council, strong manager. We don't think that the city of Cambridge can afford a weak council. We want a strong council and a strong manager," said R. Philip Dowds, the president of the CCA.

Similarly, the CCA backed the commission's attempt to review its relationship to the manager.

"While the CCA did not get involved in the dispute between the commission and the city manager, it did seem important to do what the election commission wanted to do, that is, to clarify the limits of the manager's power on the election commission," Dowds said. Until now, Healy had held that City Solicitor Russell B. Higley could conduct the evaluation. Scheir and Dowds said that as an employee of the city manager, Higley was not in the best position to make this decision.

The CCA, which was originally founded by proponents of Plan E, also backed the commissioners seeking an outside legal perspective because they're concerned about situations where judgment may be tainted by personal considerations.

These concerns about conflicts of interest are similar to the reasons Scheir gave for wanting the Election Commission to be independent of the manager.

Since the commissioners supervise the election of the councillors, the manager, who is chosen by the councillors, should not have power over the commission, Scheir argues.

But the issue is more complicated than that because it is difficult to define who currently has power over whom.

The commissioners are in control of the council election and hence the appointment of the manager, but they are themselves appointed to their four-year terms by the city manager from names placed in nomination by democratic and republican parties.

The Election Commission has forwarded to Higley, in his capacity as solicitor, the name of a lawyer recommended by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Although Healy will definitely hire a lawyer, he is not compelled to follows the commission's recommendation and may chose one on his own.