Healy Should Stay

It's hard to know how to judge Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy. The hired gun of the City Council, Healy's mission is to run the city full time while the councillors pop in weekly to see how things are going. When they drag him from his office four or five times a night to explain city issues to them, Healy wearily explains to a part-time legislature the intricacies of his 14-hour days.

And now that Healy's contract is up for renewal, the councillors, none of whom really knows how Healy operates, have to find a way to judge this man who for over a decade has run the city's business largely behind closed doors.

A few months ago, his contract's renewal was barely an issue. Measured in terms of bottom-line economic success, Healy has been astounding. Cambridge was the only city in greater Boston not to go belly up in the recent recession; his economic savvy has saved most of Cambridge from financial disaster. A number of activist groups--most notably the Cambridge Citizens for Liveable Neighborhoods--have opposed Healy for what they perceive to be his selective agenda. They say that Healy is not equally accessible to all members of the community, and is especially deaf to groups defending the environment and aesthetic concerns of the city.

While these charges are serious, it's hard to tell just where Healy falls. Other citizens groups, on all sides of the political spectrum, have begged the council to keep Healy for another term. Healy is accused of being pro-business, but most Cantabrigians believe that responsible business is just what they need.

But bottom-line economic evaluations aren't enough to judge Healy's work, especially after the recent controversies over the power he nearly single-handedly wields over the city's purse. Last month's bombshell about the Unicorp settlement set the council on edge, and may have threatened Healy's reappointment.

Last month Healy decided to pay the Unicorp real estate company the $3 million they said the city owned them from an eminent domain seizure in 1984. Not only did Healy wait until two days before payment to tell the council about this fait accompli, but he had never even told them about the lawsuit.

This revelation set the council on edge. On top of it all, Healy told the officials that such settlements were all in a day's work for him, and that they shouldn't worry about these decisions.

That Healy has the power to make such expenditures is true. But the high price of the settlement demands voluntary disclosure on Healy's part. More shocking to the council than the high price of settlement was Healy's power to conceal it from them, and the council's lack of expertise to curb Healy's power. City Councillor Jonathan s. Myers lamented. "This is not a way for us to do business."

But while the settlement was enormous, almost all concerned now believe that Healy did the right thing. Even Myers conceded that Healy's judgment in the matter was prudent. And when the councillors demanded greater accountability, Healy said he would present them with biannual reports on all cases pending against the city.

The council's main gripe with Healy his attitude. Looking over the past decade, they have little to complain about. Healy has always been forthcoming and patient with a Council which often finds it hard to understand his job.

We believe that the council should renew Healy's contract. The answer to council-manager friction isn't to dump a man who has been such an asset to the city, but to regulate the office in general. The council must demand greater accountability from Healy if they are wary of his power (and they should be). Healy has done a good job of running the city's business in the past, and under the watchful eye of the council, he should continue to do so in the future.