Cambridge Politics: Will the DeGuglielmo Coalition Survive Tomorrow's Elections?

Cambridge City Manager Joseph A. DeGuglielmo '29 worries a lot.

Most of the time, he frets about running a city of 100,000. In recent weeks, he has been more worried about tomorrow's elections, for the results may upset the City Council coalition which put him in office for two of the most turbulent years in Cambridge's political history.

After a fierce 40-day battle beginning in January, 1966, a five-man coalition on the Council named DeGuglielmo City Manager, replacing John J. Curry '19. During his 14 years as Manager, Curry and former Mayor Edward A. Crane '35 had dominated city politics.

The close personal relationship between Crane and Curry made Cambridge's sometimes ill-defined Council-Manager system work smoothly, if sluggishly. By law, the Council is the policy-making body, but much of the real power rests with the Manager.

The City Manager appoints members of all City boards (planning board, recreation board, etc.). He plans the budget from which the Council has only the power to delete. He has some discretion in awarding small contracts and choosing from among the top scores on civil service exams.

The coalition which ousted Curry probably felt--though never openly complained -- that the Crane-Curry team had often slighted other councillors when making decisions. Also, they charged that the pair had sacrificed needed capital improvements for the City, in order to keep tax rates low.

The coalition supporting DeGuglielmo cut across the traditional lines of Cambridge politics. Two of its members--Thomas Coates and Cornelia B. Wheeler--are endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association (a "good-government" organization whose major support lies in the upper-middle-class Brattle Street area.)

The two CCA-endorsed councillors were joined by three independents: Mayor Daniel J. Hayes Jr., Bernard Goldberg, and William G. Maher. The only real point of agreement among the five is their support of DeGuglielmo, and a consequent opposition to the minority bloc on the Council.

The tragedy of the split is that it has placed Crane--the most intelligent and capable member of the Council--into a bitter and futile role of opposition.

Since January, 1966, Crane, who enjoys CCA endorsement and his allies (independents Walter J. Sullivan and Alfred E. Vellucci plus CCA-man Thomas H.D. Mahoney) have constantly fought the new administration. Virtually every proposal by DeGuglielmo has been passed by the same 5-4 vote. Debates have frequently been sharp; tempers sometimes spark at the drop of a phrase.

Despite this narrow margin, DeGuglielmo has-forged ahead with an ambitious program for the City's development. Three new schools, a new City hospital, and a library addition (most of which sat idly on the drawing boards during the previous administration) have been, or are being, constructed. Last spring, the Council voted to consolidate the City's scattered health services into one department--the first of its kind in the nation.

The City Manager named Justin Gray to head a new Office for Community Development. Gray's chief task is to snare all available Federal funds for the City. Thus far, his prize catch has been a $261,000 grant for a master plan for Cambridge.

In his inaugural speech, DeGuglielmo challenged the Council minority to "make my administration an issue" in the 1967 elections. However, the DeGuglielmo administration has generally not been an open issue during this campaign, simply because the structure of Cambridge voting argues against any and all City-wide issues.

Cambridge is the only municipality in the country to vote under a wierd electoral system known as proportional representation (PR). The system works this way:

A voter can choose as many candidates as he likes, listing them in preferential order (1, 2, 3, . . . etc.). The ballots are then put into piles according to which candidate received the "number one vote" on each blank. On the basis of the total voter turnout, the quota needed for election is determined (for the Council, it is one tenth of the vote plus one).

Some candidates can meet the quota from their "number ones"--they are then declared elected, and their surplus ballots are distributed to those who are listed second. At the same time, candidates with the fewest "number one votes" are declared defeated; their ballots are also given to their second choice. The process of elimination and redistribution continues--usually for several days--until nine candidates have received the necessary quota.

The supporters of PR claim that it assures representation of minority groups on the Council. It does; the present Council includes one Italian, one Jew, one Negro, and one Republican. However, the corollary of this representation of minority groups is that most Council candidates pitch their campaigns to a small, relatively restricted electorate. Tight control of a quota of "number ones" is the surest way to election.

Thus, City-wide issues are often shunted in favor of questions concerning a neighborhood, or even just a block. Councillors fight to get a sidewalk repaired, a traffic light installed, or a playground cleaned in their strongholds.

Take a look at Al Vellucci. He grins as a grade school drill team from East Cambridge comes to have its picture taken with the City Council. Veteran observers ask him if the children's parents are good for 50 or 60 "number ones." Al's smile broadens into an angelic beam--it's all part of the game of Cambridge politics.

Even this year's campaign is fought along such lines. While the results may mean the end of the DeGuglielmo administration, there is relatively little he can do to make his administration an issue. The election must be fought neighborhood by neighborhood, in Brattle Street, in North and East Cambridge, and throughout the City.

Only occasionally has the issue of DeGuglielmo's administration even been raised. At the Council meeting a week ago, Crane attacked the mailing of the City's 1966 annual report to every taxpayer during the election campaign. "Publishing and mailing cost for this political propaganda exceeds $10,000--the 1965 report cost $3100," a Crane ad commented.

Crane has also hit the rising City tax rates of the past two years. He said that this year's rate is up $10.50 and is also based on higher assessments. Supporters of the City Manager have replied that the higher rate was due to unavoidable welfare increases and pay raises for City employees.

Perhaps the bitterest note of the current campaign was sounded by an advertisement placed in last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle by one Marjorie Ainsworth. The ad featured a picture of the City Manager, the names of the Council majority, and a call for their repudiation. "What a Mess," the ad concluded. Mrs. Ainsworth said Friday, "I prefer not to discuss that, but I have my reasons for it."

Nonetheless, through the smoke of the individual campaigns, certain trends emerge. The position of the Council minority apears fairly secure. Both Crane and Mahoney (an M.I.T. professor) have power bases which are relatively wide for Cambridge. They gain a sizeable amount of "number ones" from Brattle Street. Support from scattered neighborhoods of middle-class Irish also comes their way. Crane in particular appears a sure bet; he has finished in the top two for the past four elections and holds the record for number one votes 6100 in 1951.

Walter J. Sullivan, member of an old-time Cambridge political family, should have little trouble gaining re-election. In the past, he has usually been the top man. Al Vellucci slipped to fourth place in 1965, but he has campaigned hard this year to guard East Cambridge against all comers.

None of the majority five can feel as secure. Maher finished third in the last election, but his showing was largely due to number two votes from Sullivan backers. Since Maher and Sullivan are now on opposite sides of the split Council, this source of support will probably not be as fruitful this time around.

However, Maher has played up his opposition to the anti-Vietnam petition to every person within shouting distance. This should give him enough support to make it onto the Council again.

Many observers felt that Mayor Hayes, who finished ninth in 1965, was running poorly until he began his anti-hippie campaign. Since then, he has probably picked up enough votes in his North Cambridge base to edge ahead of his chief rival, Thomas W. Danehy.

However, Danehy finished only 67 votes behind Hayes in the last election. This time, he might pick up enough support to edge out a weaker Councillor, even if he finishes behind Hayes.

The advertisements of Danehy have taken the Crane line, stressing the rising tax rates of Cambridge. If Danehy gets on the Council, it would probably tip the scales in favor of the anti-DeGuglielmo forces.

The closest race is being fought in the quiet enclaves along Brattle Street. Two CCA-endorsed candidates--Mrs. Wheeler and School committeewoman Barbara Ackermann -- are vying for support. Mrs. Wheeler has been on the Council since 1957, but the Smith-educated Mrs. Ackermann appears to have a good chance of cutting into her past support.

Because of the CNCV registration drive, some 3000 additional voters will probably join the 30,000 who voted in 1965. Both Mrs. Wheeler and Mrs. Ackermann supported CNCV's drive to get their petition on the ballot, but Mrs. Ackermann has become more closely identified with the group. She may pick up a large amount of "number ones" from the new voters.

If Mrs. Ackermann replaces Mrs. Wheeler on the Council, it would probably be another point in favor of the anti-DeGuglielmo coalition. During her tenure on the school committee, Mrs. Ackermann's relations with the City Manager have been none too cordial; only two weeks ago, she accused him of delaying a community schools program.

Throughout her campaign, Mrs. Ackermann has called for the City Council to retrieve some of the decision-making power that has slipped into the Manager's hands. She has also supported a "more definite" method of selecting City Managers. She has said that the Council should talk to a prospective manager and determine whether his conception of the job agrees with their own.

Translated into pragmatic politics, this could well mean a vote against DeGuglielmo if a showdown occurs. During the past two years, the City Manager has clearly taken the leading role in the City. The majority on the Council has usually stood behind decisions with little dissent; only the minority four have seriously questioned him.

The other two members of the pro-DeGuglielmo coalition--Coates (a Negro) and Goldberg--finished seventh and eighth in the last election. Neither appears directly threatened this time, but one of them might be indirectly squeezed off the Council if Danehy garners a sizeable number of votes.

The interval between the elections and the seating of the new Council in January, 1968, will probably see much jockeying for position by the Crane and DeGuglielmo factions. (It was during this period, two years ago, that DeGuglielmo lined up the five votes which made him City Manager.)

If one or more members of the present majority are bumped from the Council, DeGuglielmo--veteran politician that he is--will probably attempt to set up another coalition to keep himself in office.

As its first order of business in January, the Council will elect a mayor; the City Manager might lend support to a prospective mayor in exchange for another vote. Beyond that, few venture to predict his moves. "No one knows what cards DeGug has up his sleeve," one observer of the Council commented recently.

Tomorrow's election may give the Council minority the chance they have been awaiting for nearly two years--to loosen the ground under the City Manager's feet. If they succeed, Cambridge may soon see a replay of the bitter days of January, 1966