City Council Unlikely to Prohibit Foreign Policy Discussions Following Ceasefire Resolution

A Cambridge City Council committee largely opposed a proposal to limit the body from considering foreign policy issues at a Monday committee meeting, following months of pressure from local activists to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The Council passed a ceasefire resolution late last month, after failing to do so in November. But during the debate over the resolution, some Councilors questioned whether the Council should take a formal stance on foreign policy matters at all.

Still, members of the Council’s Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee seemed to mostly reject the idea, an informal proposal brought forward by Councilor Paul F. Toner, the committee chair.

During the meeting, Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern said that though the ceasefire debate took up “a lot of time and a lot of attention,” most foreign policy resolutions tend to be less contentious.

“I think it’s appropriate for us to lobby or express our point of view to our elected officials in Washington,” McGovern added.

Referencing the 2024 presidential election, Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler said that foreign policy discussions may look very different under a hypothetical Donald Trump presidency.

“We could have a very different federal government, and then at times, we want to weigh in on policy issues,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said.

But Toner said he found it “offensive” that local activists criticized councilors — including himself — for voting “present” on the ceasefire resolution when it was originally considered in November, adding that the Council ought to focus on issues that matter most to residents.

“I didn’t get one question when I was campaigning for City Council on my opinions on foreign policy — it was about bike lanes, municipal services, taxes,” Toner said. “I just don’t think the City Council should be participating in these discussions.”

“Going forward, I just think people need to respect peoples’ decision to vote present on these issues,” Toner added.

Some councilors, including Mayor E. Denise Simmons, suggested that, rather than discussing foreign policy issues during Council meetings, councilors could take a stance by signing open letters.

But the city’s Law Department suggested that councilors co-signing an open letter could still constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law, which prohibits five or more councilors from gathering or deliberating on issues under their jurisdiction outside of a public posted meeting.

Deputy City Solicitor Megan Bayer told the Council that open letters would still be a “gray area” considering the Council’s precedent of discussing foreign policy matters in the past.

During the meeting, the committee also voted to advance a proposed change to public comment rules.

Under the new proposed rule — which will come to a vote in the full Council — the first 50 registrants for public comment will be allocated two minutes to speak, and the remaining registrants will be allotted one minute each.

Cambridge City Council meetings take place at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. The first part of the meeting is devoted to public comments, which have been known to stretch for hours when the Council considers particularly contentious issues.

Simmons said that Council should consider taking a recess and reconvening meetings on an alternative date when there is a high volume of public comments, noting that councilors are often forced to take consequential votes late at night.

“We are not at our best at 11 o’clock to make policy decisions,” Simmons said.

—Staff writer Ayumi Nagatomi can be reached at ayumi.nagatomi@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @ayumi_nagatomi.