City Council - Special Meeting

Governing Body: Cambridge City Council Meeting Type: Special Meeting Meeting Date: December 17, 2025, at 12:00 AM Attendees: Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Councilor Patricia Nolan, Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui, Councilor Paul Toner, Councilor Ayesha Wilson, Councilor Catherine Zusy, Mayor Denise Simmons. Absent: Councilor Burhan Azeem, Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler.

• Councilor Azeem: Absent
• Vice Mayor McGovern: Present
• Councilor Nolan: Present
• Councilor Siddiqui: Present
• Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler: Present (joined during public comment)
• Councilor Toner: Present
• Councilor Wilson: Present (joined during public comment)
• Councilor Zusy: Present
• Mayor Simmons: Present

Outcome: Six members present at the start, three recorded as absent. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and Councilor Wilson joined during public comment, bringing the total to nine members present.

The meeting commenced with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence.

• The city is authorized to use remote participation pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025.
• Zoom teleconference is available for public comment.
• Meetings are viewable via the city's open meeting portal or cable channel 22.
• To speak, sign up at www.cambridgema.gov/publiccomment.
• Written comments can be emailed to cityclerk@cambridgema.gov.
• Public comment is made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37.
• Meetings are audio and video recorded by the City of Cambridge and third parties.

• Paul Schwein: Did not join.
• Marjorie Saunders (7 Maple Avenue, Cambridge): Expressed disappointment with City Manager Huang's "hands-off approach" and the recent restructuring and layoffs of staff.
  • Key Quote: "The violation of city ordinances without involving any of those directly impacted or consulting any of the stakeholders in our community... those abrupt firings can only be described as totally exclusionary."
  • Noted a lack of explanation beyond "empty, technocratic words and phrases, including the repeated word efficiency."
  • Stated that the insensitivity and lack of care were contrary to the values she expected from Cambridge.

City Manager Yi-An Huang provided an overview of the year's accomplishments and challenges.

• Transparency and Working Relationship:
  • Improved overall working relationship and transparency.
  • Biweekly federal updates to address federal government actions.
  • Cambridge played a leading role in addressing federal issues with the Law Department's work and City Council's backing.
  • Collaboration with the Cambridge Community Foundation during the government shutdown regarding SNAP benefits.
• Council Relationship:
  • Improved cadence of council policy orders and awaiting reports.
  • More responsive to individual councilor requests.
  • Appreciated the City Council's work to prioritize items.
  • Acknowledged that a handful of awaiting reports remain, mostly recent.
  • Expressed optimism for the relationship in the next term.
• Recent Changes:
  • Acknowledged feedback on the restructuring within OEI (Office of Equity and Inclusion).
  • Stated that the annual review is part of the commitment to a transparent and accountable city.
• Financial Management:
  • Improved budget process, starting earlier with more honest conversations about multi-year projections.
  • Shift from "budgeting our plan" to "planning our budget" due to economic trends and tax limits.
  • Committed to increased community engagement in the budget process, with workshops planned for January.
  • Aims for earlier council engagement in the next budget cycle.

Councilor Toner outlined the materials used for the evaluation: summative evaluation (composite of councilor scores and comments), solicitor's legal opinion, city manager's self-evaluation, and senior staff feedback/ratings.

• Overall Rating: 3 out of 4 (Met Expectations).
• Rationale:
  • Intelligent, personable, and well-intentioned executive with competence in several core areas.
  • City functions well under his leadership with capable staff and financial stability.
  • Demonstrated strength in day-to-day management, effective operations, and clear communications.
  • Received high marks from senior staff (4.25 out of 5).
  • 2025 Resident Opinions Survey showed strong positive results (70% excellent or good, 22% excellent - highest ever).
• Areas for Improvement:
  • Concern about declining collaboration and transparency between Council and staff.
  • Council members felt excluded from discussions before decisions were made.
  • Lack of transparent communication led to community anger and controversy (e.g., biomed community benefits, personnel decisions/organizational changes with commission staffing).
  • Need for a more cohesive vision and plan for the City, especially in housing, transportation, parking, and finances.
  • Need to find an appropriate working balance between management authority/discretion and Council leadership/involvement in key decisions.
• Specific Category Ratings:
  • Leadership: 2.61
  • City Council Relationship: 2.56
  • Management: 2.89
  • Community Engagement: 2.78
  • Culture: 2.67
  • ADEI (Advanced Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion): 2.67
  • City Operations: 3.22
  • Fiscal Management: 2.89

• Commended the City Manager for a good job in challenging areas, especially fiscal planning.
• Expressed desire for more forward-thinking on the budget and earlier council involvement.
• Acknowledged that a tough personnel decision was made, suggesting it could have been handled better as a "learning moment."

• Noted this evaluation is the first after the City Manager's "learning curve."
• Praised operational efficiency (e.g., Universal Pre-K).
• Suggested a need for more leadership from the City Manager on policy areas where the Council lacks pre-formed ideas (e.g., traffic, parking, public transit, commuter rail station at Airwife).
• Expressed concern about the budget process, feeling that cuts are sometimes "small and mismatched" without a clear narrative.
• Advocated for re-emphasizing city values, especially during anxious times, to counter a "technocratic" public perception.

• Acknowledged the difficulty of the City Manager's job (billion-dollar budget, 120,000 people, nine bosses).
• Stated that he has never agreed 100% with any City Manager, nor does he expect to.
• Recognized the "checks and balances" system, where the Council sometimes asks for tough decisions and then reverses them (e.g., Health Department cuts).
• Believes the City Manager is "meeting expectations overall," despite individual shortcomings.
• Praised the city's overall functioning, Universal Pre-K, expanded after-school slots, 93 studio apartments for unhoused individuals, and pushback against the Trump administration (e.g., SNAP benefits).
• Areas for Improvement:
  • Communication of Decisions: Criticized the handling of recent layoffs and commission changes, suggesting a lack of political advice.
  • Felt the City Manager's responses to concerns about timing (e.g., "there's no good time") were dismissive.
  • Advised tuning into the emotional impact of difficult decisions and validating feedback.
  • Visibility: Called for the City Manager to be more visible at contentious community meetings to back up staff and answer public questions.

• Celebrated the City Manager's accomplishments and the city's progress.
• Expressed that her review was "dramatically different" from previous years due to recent decisions.
• City Council Relationship: Felt the Council is viewed as "something to get through" rather than a "collaborative partner."
  • Cited the handling of personnel decisions as causing deep concern and impacting city culture and employee morale.
  • Mentioned the "deep, deep, deep level of disrespect" shown during charter discussions, where the Council was treated as "idiots."
  • Urged the City Manager to set a tone of collaboration and view the Council as a "board of advisors."
• Coordination and Follow-up:
  • Noted a lack of coordination among city departments (e.g., Communications and zoning, Transportation and CHA).
  • Cited instances of initial discussions with the Council followed by no follow-up, with decisions made later (e.g., CARE team, body cameras requiring FTEs).
  • Emphasized that the sense of collaboration and mutual respect is "on the wane."
• Stressed the importance of fixing the way people were treated in layoffs due to "deep confusion" between written and actual outcomes.
• Expressed hope that the strategic team will demonstrate its value.

• Echoed previous comments, acknowledging the difficulty of the job.
• Praised coordination during federal challenges and efforts to establish stabilization funding.
• Noted positive resident feedback on day-to-day operations and the piloting of new engagement programs (e.g., street team).
• Areas for Growth:
  • Management and Leadership: Highlighted "key process failures" in the recent layoffs, particularly regarding public-facing work.
  • Emphasized the importance of how the City Manager takes and implements feedback.
  • Suggested intentional goal-setting with the Council and earlier engagement on the budget.
  • Recalled the "very challenging" charter discussions, where the City Manager's absence made it feel like "us versus them."

• Stated a desire for the budget process to engage the City Council more and earlier, citing Somerville as an example.
• Charter Discussion: Described the charter discussion as a "big miss" and "very strange," with the City Manager "totally absent" publicly, leaving the Council to argue with staff.
• Personnel Decisions (Women's Commission): Expressed continued confusion and frustration with the rationale.
  • Argued that in Cambridge's City Manager-Council system, the City Manager's actions reflect on the Council, even when the Council is not involved in personnel decisions.
  • Contrasted this with the City Manager's stance on curb cuts, where the Council is expected to be involved in "minutia."
• Positive Feedback:
  • Praised the responsiveness of the City Manager and department heads, noting quick turnaround times for requests.
  • Acknowledged improvement in awaiting reports compared to the previous City Manager.
• Critique of Evaluation Format:
  • Suggested the current format focuses too much on management and not enough on policy.
  • Felt some categories (e.g., culture) were difficult to assess.
  • Advocated for incorporating policy goals into the evaluation.

• Found the sessions "incredibly useful" and this year's feedback "most concrete and distilled."
• Acknowledged clear feedback on big picture items and helpful specific thoughts.
• Agreed that the budget process is a "work in progress" and has concrete ideas for a different process next year.
• Agreed with Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler's point about awaiting reports that are "off the tracker" but still have outstanding work, suggesting a need for a "tracker next term."
• Agreed that the performance review structure could be improved by incorporating joint policy goals with the City Council.

• Echoed the difficulty of the City Manager's role.
• Praised the City Manager's response to the federal administration (lawsuits, SNAP benefits, support for pantries).
• Areas for Growth:
  • Leadership and Management: Reiterated concerns about the process of moving board and commission staff, noting a lack of "overwhelming consensus" on its effectiveness.
  • Agreed with Vice Mayor McGovern that the "never a good time" response to timing concerns was unhelpful.
  • Emphasized that personnel decisions, when they cause public outcry, become a "council issue."
  • Called for rebuilding relationships and trust within staff, noting low morale.
  • Budget Priorities: Expressed concern that the budget prioritizes bike lanes over social services (e.g., Rise Up, shelter, SNAP benefits).
  • Advocated for a budget that clearly shows community members where they fit in.
  • Called for "true deep community engagement" from the new department.

• Praised the City Manager's leadership in maintaining a well-functioning city with capable staff and a AAA bond rating.
• Areas of Strength:
  • Response to the Trump administration (legal challenges, housing vouchers, SNAP benefits).
  • Excellent city services.
  • Financial stability.
  • Positive resident sentiment.
  • Responsiveness to report requests.
  • Healthy work culture and investment in affordable housing, education, and social services.
• Places for Growth and Development:
  • Transparency and Data: Greater transparency and access to information through the open portal and website, with more consistent housing data.
  • Planning: Better planning for housing and transportation, with more transparent responses to transportation complaints.
  • Inter-departmental Communication: Encourage better communication between CDD and Inspectional Services.
  • Staff Empowerment: Empower staff to lead as experts and push back on the Council when appropriate.
  • Program Evaluation: More careful evaluation of existing programs and necessary cuts.
  • Fiscal Responsibility: Maintain budget balance, retain AAA bond rating, reduce debt growth, and preserve free cash.
  • Livability: Preserve Cambridge's livability (parking, traffic, enforcement, public safety, open space, greenery, trees) as it impacts business and public health.

• Acknowledged the City Manager's ability to address issues raised in previous evaluations.
• Praised the City Manager's interface with the broader community (governmental agencies, business community), noting his respect among Mass Mayors.
• Commended the improved relationship with the schools and the new superintendent.
• Noted improved agenda management.
• Recommendations:
  • Biannual Training/Retreat: Suggested a biannual training or retreat for the Council and City Manager to set goals and discuss priorities.
  • Council Representation: Emphasized the need for the Council to feel their requests are being addressed to effectively represent constituents.
  • Neighborhood Issues: Called for improved follow-up on recurring neighborhood issues (e.g., mattresses and desks in the street), especially in the Port.
  • Budget Clarity: Urged the City Manager to be clearer with the Council about budget cuts and potential negative impacts, even when the Council has the final vote.
  • Standing Up for Decisions: Advised the City Manager to stand up for his decisions, even when contrary to Council wishes, and to support his staff.
  • Clarity of Demarcation: Requested clarity on lines of demarcation regarding communication with city staff, noting inconsistency in responsiveness across departments.
• Stressed the importance of working together as a team for the benefit of Cambridge citizens.

• Motion by: Councilor Toner
• Outcome: Passed unanimously (9-0)
  • Azeem: Yes
  • Vice Mayor McGovern: Yes
  • Nolan: Yes
  • Siddiqui: Yes
  • Sobrinho-Wheeler: Yes
  • Toner: Yes
  • Wilson: Yes
  • Zusy: Yes
  • Mayor Simmons: Yes

Councilor Toner thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to help prepare the report and expressed confidence that the City Manager would consider the feedback.

• Motion by: Councilor Siddiqui
• Outcome: Passed unanimously (9-0)
  • Azeem: Yes
  • Vice Mayor McGovern: Yes
  • Nolan: Yes
  • Siddiqui: Yes
  • Sobrinho-Wheeler: Yes
  • Toner: Yes
  • Wilson: Yes
  • Zusy: Yes
  • Mayor Simmons: Yes