Citizens Evaluate City Manager's Performance at Packed Hearing

Cambridge City Manager Robert W. Healy and Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstine are a lot alike in that they must both manage diverse, decentralized communities, according to Happy Green, Harvard's director of community relations.

This statement is characteristic of the analogies that have been used over the past several weeks both by Healy's defenders and by his detractors. The manager's five-year contract with the city expires in June, and Cambridge's efforts to evaluate him have been marked by widely varying opinions.

About 25 people took the podium last night during a hearing at City Hall which marked the conclusion of the public evaluation of the manager. Each speaker was granted three minutes to speak.

Healy, who said he felt most of the comments made at the meeting were positive, said that if offered a contract by the city he would accept.

Most of those who spoke at the meeting had already submitted written evaluations of the manager's performance to the city council.

Speakers ran the gamut from neighborhood activists to residents of other municipalities speaking on behalf of their businesses. Happy Green said she attended to reiterate Harvard's position that the city manager's contract should be renewed.

While acknowledging that Cambridge is made up of varied constituencies with different interests, Green told the council, "Bob Healey has been successful because he listens well and because he is willing to make decisions."

While most speakers restated their original positions, Michael H. Turk, the co-chair of the Cambridge Tenants' Union, expanded on his criticism of Healy be drawing from the evaluations received by the city.

Turk said the responses show that there is "a gross imbalance in access" to the city manager by different groups in the city. He said the written evaluations show that Healy was accessible to businesses but not to citizen groups.

Green said in an interview that she felt the claims that Healy is inaccessible are unfounded. "From Harvard's point of view, he is an accessible person who is fair," she said. Harvard is contractually obligated to meet with the city manager monthly as part of a payment in lieu of taxes contract signed in 1990, Green said.

Green also took issue with the claim that Harvard receives preferential treatment and said she has never seen an instance of that. "I think his relationship to Harvard is like any other," she said.

The Harvard evaluation form, which Green said was filled out by Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs John H. Shattuck, credits Healy with single-handedly saving the city from financial ruin.

Green spoke more broadly of Healy's management of Cambridge. "It's not that I think everything's perfect in the city, but I think the city manager does a good job in a very complicated city," she said.

Charles Bahne, the Director of Cambridge Citizens for Livable Neighborhoods, challenged Harvard's views. Bahne said that the financial growth credited to the city manager is actually due to the real estate boom of the 1980s.

Tracy Gallagher, the chair of the government and community affairs committee of the Chamber of Commerce, said that this was not a fair claim. "To suggest that somehow he was just the, beneficiary of the favorable economic climate is erroneous given the comparison to other cities in the area," Gallagher said.

Bahne also said that the city as a whole is not running very smoothly. "A number of departments have performed very poorly over the last years," he said.

While Green acknowledged that there are obviously groups which aren't happy with the performance of the city manager, "I think that the general public is in fact very satisfied with the city manager," she said.

Healy said that he was not surprised by the comments made at the meeting. "I think it was interesting to listen," he said, "I'm not sure that it's dramatically different than some of the things that I've heard in the past."

The public evaluation of the city manager has been surrounded by controversy over the significance of the written evaluations. Some have said the surveys could potentially be used as political tool to justify whatever decision the council may come to on contract renewal Green said Cantabrigians are participatory by nature.

"I can't imagine Cambridge not having something like this process," Green said. By the same token she added that she felt the fact not many new people came out to speak today means that people are happy with the manager.

Healy, who said that this public evaluation process was unprecedented and "a lot more extended and protracted than most," said he is growing weary of the evaluation. "I'll be, happy when it's over," he said.