Robert Healy and the Role of City Manager

Hanging on the wall of City Manager Robert W. Healy's office is a plaque praising the city for exceptional urban design.

"By strengthening the vital connection between the public interest and private development," reads the plaque, "[the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan] has established the importance of collaboration in the search for excellence, revitalized the community and renewed the historic relationship between the city, the people and the Charles River."

But many city residents say they do not see big development in such lofty terms. At nearly every City Council meeting, one community group or another can be found lobbying against a new building. And the person who gets most of the blame--along with much of the praise--for the steady influx of new developments is Healy, the city's top administrator.

One Above All

Healy occupies a special position in the city. He is one of five employees hired directly by the City Council, and nearly all city jobs are under his supervision. Although the council is the ultimate authority on policy, the city manager's office implements these policies--often making Healy a shaper of policy as well.

Cambridge created the post of city manager in its current form in 1965. But Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55 says it was not until Healy's predecessor James L. Sullivan assumed the post in 1977 that the office assumed its pro-development stand.

At that time, Cambridge desperately needed revenue, and Sullivan--who had been fired once from the city manager spot--was seen as a competent fiscal manager.

"In 1971 Cambridge was really kind of a declining industrial city, much like others in the Northeast," Duehay says. "It was really a bad scene, and Sullivan's return was seen as a kind of victory."

Sullivan's solution to the city's financial crisis was to broaden the city's tax base, and this plan meant opening parts of the city to developers.

"Cambridge, left to its own devices, would probably become an adjunct of Harvard and MIT," says Sullivan, explaining the reasoning behind his plan. "What you needed to do was to build a tax base to provide programs for the people who live there."

Sullivan, now president of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, points to the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan and revamped areas of Kendall and Lechmere Squares as examples of the type of development he promoted.

Most Cambridge development has occurred along what Sullivan calls "the spine of the, city"--the transit lines along Mass. Ave. The concentration of hotels and high-rises in areas like Harvard and Kendall Squares, he says, is the result of a conscious effort to keep projects out of residential areas.

Sullivan says the new projects are aimed at increasing the quality of life for city residents. But the effects are still being debated. Many complain that the current operation of city government encourages development that harms, rather than helps, Cambridge residents. Others say that placing the responsibility for policy implementation on the city manager opens the door to possible abuse.

For this reason, some city politicians say they have reservations about a three-year contract extension that is expected to be awarded to Healy on Monday, saying the extension could broaden the manager's power.

Because the extension includes a controversial "buy-out" clause that would require Cambridge to pay Healy's salary and benefits through 1993 even if he were removed from the job, they argue the contract weakens the council by eliminating the city's strongest check over its administration--the right to fire Healy.

And, some neighborhood activists add, Healy is already calling the shots on policy issues--particularly those involving development. But the city manager says he just follows the council's plans, despite an occasional communication gap between his office and the councillors.

"I work with the tools that the city administration has in shaping policy, but it's not my job to shape policy," Healy says. He says that in many cases, the distinction between making policy and following it gets blurred.

And that is exactly the comment Healy's critics make. They say the pro-development policy may have gone too far, adding that the plan may have been needed 11 years ago, but today it deserves to be reexamined.

From Definition to Practice

Healy began his career in administration as Sullivan's assistant, first in Lowell, and later in Cambridge. He says he still follows Sullivan's plan of broadening the tax base to fund city services.

But Duehay says Cambridge's finances have changed over the last decade, thanks to the efforts of the two city managers. Today, the city is on a sound footing.

"What we're seeing now is going from a bust to a boom, going from nothing going for us to everything for us," Duehay says, adding that Sullivan's plan does not fit the city in 1989.

Opponents of a garage being built on Binney St. as part of the One Kendall Square development say their cause is a perfect example of how Healy's pro-development attitudes today infringe on neighborhoods.

Last May, East Cambridge resident Debra McManus looked out in her backyard and saw workers preparing to build a 1530-car garage only nine feet from her property. When McManus and other residents started looking for ways to stop the project, they uncovered a legal nightmare.

The Athenaeum Group, the garage's builders, is required by law to provide a certain number of parking spaces for its One Kendall Square Development. But the Federal Clean Air Act of 1973 froze the number of commercial parking spaces allowed in Cambridge.

Since 1984, the city has had the power to grant exemptions to the parking freeze, but McManus contends that the Binney St. garage should not have received an exemption because the developer will charge for the facility's use. If opponents win the suit they filed against the developer, commercial parking lots built since 1984 may become illegal.

City officials have met repeatedly with the state Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and the federal Environmental Protection Agency to resolve the dilemma, and the city contends it can still grant exemptions.

But McManus and other garage opponents argue that Healy and his staff are granting the exemptions without keeping the City Council informed.

Because the city manager does not appear to be telling the City Council everything that is going on, my guess is that he is either making policy himself or not bringing it to the attention of the full council," says McManus.

Several councillors--notably Vice Mayor Alice K. Wolf--hold similar views.

"I feel that we have not gotten enough information and that we have not been involved in formulating a policy," says Wolf, adding that Healy is often able to influence council policy by his method of executing it.

Wolf says one major issue raised by the Binney St. garage is the city's lack of independent legal advice. Only two of the nine councillors are lawyers, and the city's only resource on matters of law is its solictor--who worked for Healy.

"He uses the city solicitor's opinions--which are the furthest thing from legal opinions--to his advantage," says William Cavellini, a leader in the 16-years fight against MIT's University Park development. "It's all decided before the council meeting starts.

Community activist Peter Valentine said at a recent council meeting that he believes the city is "being planned in private meetings by the city manager, the Community Development department, the developers and the universities."

And administration critics say events to support this view are plentiful.

Last month, Mayor Alfred E. Vellucci shouted developer John L. Hall off the council floor during a short recess, later calling the incident one of the worst ethics violations in his 34 years on the council.

Hall says he accidently wandered on to the floor.

The number of former city officials who now work for developers alarms other city residents. David Vickery, a former head of the Community Development department, is now a partner in Reynolds, Vickery, Messina & Griefen, a commercial development firm. Kathy Spiegelman, his successor, is Harvard's director of planning.

"Those people just stroll into Mr. Healy's office," says McManus, adding she has "never gotten the man to return a phone call."

But Healy denies that his former employees wield undue influence.

"I just had a big fight with David Vickery the other day," says Healy, adding, "Kathy hasn't been in here in a couple of months."

He says claims that he and developers plan the future of the city on their own are patently false. "I don't have any authority to cut deals," he says.

Healy is rarely described as an excessively political city manager. At council meetings he is generally reticent, answering questions from councillors but rarely allowing them to draw him into arguments.

His low-key style of management presents a marked contrast to Sullivan and his confrontational style.

"James Leo Sullivan would allow himself to get in fights," says Cavellini. "Healy's reaction is just to roll with it and not to fight back."

But Healy says the difference between the two is mostly "stylistic." His goal--to run a financially stable city by focusing development in small areas--is the same. And he adds that he does not get involved in large-scale urban planning debates.

"Jim Sullivan told me this in 1971--one thing a city manager stays out of is zoning debates," Healy says.

Neither manager has much sympathy for the legions of community groups formed to fight development projects.

"There's no such thing as two sides to a question in Cambridge," says Sullivan. "There's 15 sides to every question, and each side is led by a Harvard or MIT professor."

And Healy says that the same people who complain about his role also want the best school and health systems, the lowest property taxes and a halt to development.

The city manager says he is proud of his administrative record. Under his tenure, the city has received the highest possible credit ratings, and a state agency recently commended Cambridge for excellence in financial reporting.

So the problem, Duehay says, may be sharp divisions on the city council, instead of an overly powerful city manager.

Since the early 1970s, the council has been split between candidates running on the liberal Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) platform and those running as independents. Although the independents currently hold a 5-4 majority, independent Mayor Vellucci often sides with the CCA, producing an uneasy balance of power between the parties.

As a result, Duehay--a CCA-backed councillor--says Healy becomes a scapegoat for unpopular policies.

"If the City Council were less pro-development, the city manager would follow suit," he says, adding that while he has frequently criticized Healy, he approves of his overall performance.

"I have been very critical of the city manager's environmental review procedures and policies," says Duehay. "I have criticisms of other areas that I feel need to improve, but I feel they would improve faster if we had a different coalition on the city council.