By Anna K. Corning
Cambridge, Massachusetts, has long been a focal point for municipal governance reform, balancing professionalized administration with efforts to expand meaningful community participation. Central to these discussions are questions of representation, governance structures, and accountability. Over the decades, Cambridge’s government has evolved in response to changes in public engagement, political structures, and demographic shifts, reflecting the priorities of its diverse population.
A city charter serves as a municipality’s foundational legal document, defining the structure, powers, and responsibilities of local government. Often referred to as a city’s “constitution,” it establishes the roles of elected officials, decision-making processes, and how policies and budgets are developed. In Massachusetts, some municipalities operate under home rule charters, which allow flexibility in structuring local government within state law. Others, including Cambridge, retain legacy governance models established under earlier frameworks.
Historically, Massachusetts law provided several standardized municipal governance models, known as Plan forms (A-E), which cities could adopt under state statute. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the state discontinued this system, shifting toward home rule charters that offer greater local autonomy. Cities that adopted Plan forms before this transition—such as Cambridge, which operates under Plan E—continue to use them, while new municipalities must develop governance structures through the home rule process.
In 2021, the Cambridge City Council initiated efforts to update the Plan E Charter, ultimately approving changes that granted the council authority to confirm the city manager’s appointments to boards and commissions, established an annual review process for the city manager’s performance, and mandated a charter review every ten years. These proposals appeared on the Fall 2021 municipal ballot and were approved by voters. Following this approval, the city council convened the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the city’s governance structure and recommend changes to ensure Cambridge’s government remains effective and responsive to future challenges.
In Massachusetts, there are two primary pathways for charter reform:
- A charter review committee is an appointed advisory body that makes recommendations to the city council, which then decides whether to advance proposed changes to the state legislature for approval.
- A charter commission is an elected temporary body with greater authority to propose changes independently, requiring the Massachusetts Attorney General approval before being placed on the ballot for voter approval.
To form the Charter Review Committee, the city council solicited applications from the community, receiving over 100 submissions. After interviews, the council appointed 15 community members to serve on the committee. The CRC was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of governance structures rather than focusing on specific provisions.
One of the CRC’s most notable recommendations was the creation of a resident assembly, a deliberative body designed to provide structured civic input beyond election cycles and traditional public engagement methods. Public participation in local government is often episodic, typically occurring during elections or formal hearings, which limits broad-based community involvement. The CRC sought to establish a more consistent and inclusive mechanism for resident participation in municipal governance.
This case study explores the key themes, debates, and outcomes of the Cambridge Charter Review, examining the rationale behind the proposed resident assembly and its potential impact on governance reform and participatory democracy.
Long-Standing Tensions in Cambridge’s Governance Reform and Civic Participation
Cambridge has continuously sought to balance professionalized governance with meaningful public engagement. In the early 20th century, the city operated under a mayor-council system, where political affiliations significantly influenced municipal decision-making, including hiring practices. Reform efforts led by professionals and civic leaders sought to introduce a merit-based approach to governance, to replace the current politically influenced based employment practices.
To address concerns about administrative efficiency and transparency, Cambridge adopted Plan E in the 1940s. This system transferred executive authority to an appointed city manager, while maintaining an elected city council chosen through proportional representation (PR). The goal was to separate political considerations from administration while ensuring a representative electoral process. Today, Cambridge remains one of the few U.S. cities that uses PR elections for its city council, a system designed to reflect political diversity but that also adds complexity to voting and governance.
Governance discussions in Cambridge have evolved over time, reflecting different perspectives on the role of professionalized administration and public engagement. Elections and policy debates—particularly on issues such as rent control, affordable housing, and university expansion—have highlighted varying views on decision-making authority and civic participation. While Plan E has been credited with promoting administrative stability, some residents and stakeholders have expressed interest in enhancing broader public involvement in governance processes.
Key Considerations in Public Engagement, Accountability, and Transparency
As the Charter Review Committee (CRC) began its work, it identified several key considerations related to public engagement, accountability, and transparency in Cambridge’s governance structure. Committee members examined the balance of authority between the city council and city manager, the extent of public participation in decision-making, and existing oversight mechanisms.
A recurring theme in the CRC’s discussions was the role of residents in providing input on executive decisions. While the city council appoints and evaluates the city manager, residents do not have a direct role in this process. Some committee members explored whether the annual budget process could be structured to encourage broader public input, while others considered potential adjustments to governance structures to clarify the distribution of authority between elected officials and the administration. Additionally, discussions included whether the city’s two-year election cycle affects long-term planning and collaboration, as well as whether financial barriers may influence who is able to run for city council.
Public engagement also emerged as a significant area of focus. CRC members observed that civic participation was often concentrated among a relatively small group of regular attendees at public meetings and hearings, while other segments of the community—particularly working residents, parents, youth, and individuals for whom English is not a first language—were less likely to engage. This raised questions about how outreach efforts could be expanded to include a broader cross-section of the population. Some residents expressed uncertainty about whether public input meaningfully influenced decision-making, highlighting a potential area for further examination.
Another consideration was the public’s familiarity with municipal charters, a subject that was relatively unfamiliar even to some engaged residents. To address this, the CRC allocated time to educating the public about the charter’s role in shaping local governance, though this sometimes-limited opportunities for in-depth policy discussions.
Accessibility also played a role in public participation. Factors such as language barriers, financial constraints, and work schedules presented challenges for some residents. While digital engagement tools provided alternative participation methods, they did not fully address gaps in access, particularly among residents with limited internet availability. The CRC also observed that public engagement tended to fluctuate, increasing during moments of heightened policy debate but lacking a structured mechanism for consistent civic involvement in routine governance decisions.
Cambridge’s experience aligns with broader discussions in municipal governance and democratic innovation about how to develop more inclusive, accountable, and participatory decision-making structures. Cities across the country have explored strategies such as participatory budgeting, citizen assemblies, and digital engagement tools to enhance political representation, public trust, and accessibility in local government.
The Case for a Resident Assembly
As part of its review, the Charter Review Committee (CRC) examined how Cambridge could enhance civic engagement beyond existing public participation methods, such as public forums, surveys, and online feedback tools. The committee found that while these approaches provided valuable input, they did not always ensure broad, consistent, or representative participation. Based on its findings, the CRC concluded that Cambridge could benefit from a structured and ongoing mechanism for public input that extended beyond election cycles and periodic town halls.
To address this, the CRC proposed the establishment of a “resident assembly”—a deliberative body selected through a randomized and demographically representative process. This assembly would serve as a rotating forum for civic engagement, enabling a diverse range of residents to contribute to municipal decision-making. The proposal aimed to complement existing governance structures by formalizing a mechanism for sustained public input while maintaining administrative efficiency.
Governance and Public Oversight Challenges
- Public Oversight of the City Manager
Under Plan E, Cambridge’s City Manager holds executive authority over budgeting, policy implementation, and municipal administration. While the city council appoints and evaluates the city manager, residents do not have a direct role in this process. Some members of the public expressed interest in increasing transparency in decision-making, particularly regarding major policies on housing, zoning, and infrastructure. - Balance of Authority Between the City Council and City Manager
The city manager oversees administrative functions, including the hiring of department heads and the execution of city policies, while the city council establishes legislative priorities. Although the city council has the authority to remove the city manager, this process is complex and rarely exercised. Some residents noted that significant executive authority resides in an appointed official rather than an elected representative, raising questions about how to ensure accountability while maintaining the benefits of professional administration. - Expanding Public Participation
Traditional engagement methods—such as public hearings, advisory boards, and community forums—do not always capture a broad cross-section of the community. Participation has often been concentrated among a small group of highly engaged residents, while other groups—such as individuals with demanding work schedules, parents, youth, and those for whom English is not a first language—face barriers to participation. The CRC explored ways to bring new residents into city discussions, improving accessibility and inclusivity in civic engagement. - Institutionalizing Public Participation Between Elections
While Cambridge holds municipal elections every two years, there is no formalized process for residents to engage with governance decisions outside of election cycles. The CRC received feedback that public input is often sought in response to specific policy debates rather than as part of an ongoing, structured dialogue with city leadership. The proposed resident assembly was intended to help address this gap.
Lessons from Other Cities: How Deliberative Bodies Improve Governance
To better understand how other municipalities approach civic engagement, the CRC examined resident-led deliberative bodies in various cities. Other cities, such as Eugene, Oregon, Paris, and Toronto, have implemented deliberative bodies to strengthen resident input in policymaking, particularly on housing, urban planning, and civic engagement. These models demonstrate that structured participation can complement existing governance structures while broadening public involvement. These models demonstrated that deliberative bodies could provide structured, representative, and ongoing mechanisms for civic engagement, complementing existing governance structures while fostering broader public involvement.
Structure and Role of the Resident Assembly
Drawing from these examples, the CRC developed a framework for how a resident assembly could function in Cambridge. After deliberation, the committee refined its recommendations to address several key structural considerations:
Key Deliberation Points & Final Recommendations
- Binding vs. Advisory Authority: Some CRC members supported granting the resident assembly binding decision-making power, while others expressed concerns about conflicts with elected governance. The final recommendation was to maintain an advisory role, ensuring that resident input was structured but not legally binding.
- Selection Process: The committee debated whether members should be selected purely at random (jury-style) or through a representative lottery system that considers demographics and geographic diversity. The final recommendation was a randomized selection process designed to reflect the city’s demographics.
- Frequency of Assemblies: The CRC considered different meeting cycles of the assembly. The final recommendation to convene one new resident assembly per city council term, with the city council determining the policy topic for each session.
- Accessibility Measures: To ensure broad participation, the committee emphasized the importance of providing stipends, translation services, food, childcare, and technology assistance to eliminate barriers to engagement. While specific implementation details were left flexible, the CRC recommended that best practices be refined over time.
Final Specifications from the Charter Review Final Report
According to the Cambridge Charter Review Final Report:
(c) Mandatory Specifications:
i. The city council shall convene at least one Resident Assembly each council term.
ii. Any Resident Assembly created pursuant to this section must have the following characteristics:
(a) The assembly shall be created via a sortition process to be provided by ordinance and shall be open to all citizen and non-citizen residents over the age of 16.
(b) The procedures for selecting membership must include a random lottery such that the Resident Assembly is representative of the city’s population.
(c) Membership on the Resident Assembly must be voluntary, and members must be permitted to resign for any reason.
(d) No fewer than 30 people may serve on the Resident Assembly at any given time.
(e) The Resident Assembly must receive sufficient resources to exercise its powers effectively, including financial resources, staff support, translation services and space for deliberation.
(f) The city shall take steps to remove barriers to participation. To ensure that participation is not a financial burden, assembly members must be offered a stipend that is sufficient to compensate members for their time and for reasonable costs incurred by participation, including transportation to the meeting, dependent care, or similar expenses. The city shall provide interpretation and translation support and accessibility technology.
(g) Subject to appropriation, the city shall provide resources for staff support to the resident assembly
(Cambridge Charter Review Finalize Report, 2024, p. 78-79)
While the resident assembly was one of the most discussed proposals, the CRC also recommended several additional reforms aimed at modernizing Cambridge’s governance, enhancing electoral participation, and improving public accountability
Additional Recommendations from the Charter Review Committee
Beyond the resident assembly, the CRC proposed several reforms to improve governance, expand electoral participation, and enhance public accountability. These recommendations were informed by deliberation, community input, and best practices from other municipalities.
- Modernizing the City Charter – Updating the charter language to replace the Plan E framework with a more comprehensive document reflecting Cambridge’s governance needs.
- Expanding Electoral Participation – Maintaining the at-large, proportional representation system while considering ways to strengthen neighborhood engagement. The CRC also recommended enfranchising non-citizens, lowering the voting age to 16, aligning municipal elections with even-numbered years to boost voter turnout, and modernizing election procedures to allow greater flexibility in voting methods.
- Enhancing Civic Engagement & Accessibility – Establishing a public tracking system for policy orders, enabling residents to follow legislative proposals, voting records, and implementation progress more easily.
- Strengthening Government Effectiveness – Requiring the city council to engage in measurable goal-setting early in each term and maintaining two-year terms to ensure frequent accountability while allowing new candidates to enter local politics.
- Improving Budget Transparency & Oversight – Formalizing the budget process by adding an annual budget meeting and requiring the city council to set priorities in advance. The CRC also recommended granting the city council authority to add or increase budget line items, a change modeled after recent reforms in Boston.
- Expanding Direct Democracy Tools – Introducing a Resident Initiative Petition, allowing residents to propose ordinances and bring them to a citywide vote if not passed by the city council, and a Group Petition Process, requiring the city council to hold public hearings on issues that meet a signature threshold.
While not all proposals were adopted, these recommendations reflect ongoing efforts to modernize Cambridge’s governance and increase public participation in decision-making.
City Council Review and Considerations for Reform
After completing its 16-month review, the CRC submitted its final recommendations to the city council in January 2024. The Government Operations Committee held two meetings in June 2024 to review the proposals and subsequently established a Special Committee of the Whole to further evaluate the recommendations and determine potential next steps.
At its initial meeting, the Special Committee of the Whole reviewed the CRC’s recommendations, including the proposal for a resident assembly. While the proposal did not advance at that time, council discussions reflected a range of perspectives on its feasibility and role within the city’s existing governance structure. Some councilors viewed the assembly as potentially duplicative of Cambridge’s current advisory boards, while others raised concerns about how it might interact with the city council’s policymaking responsibilities.
Councilors also discussed logistical and structural considerations related to the resident assembly. Some noted that the city did not currently have an established framework to support such a body and questioned whether it was practically achievable. Since Cambridge would have been the first municipality to incorporate a resident assembly into its charter, the absence of precedent may have contributed to uncertainty about its implementation. Additionally, there were differing opinions on whether a randomly selected, demographically representative group could function effectively and whether it would introduce additional complexity to existing engagement mechanisms.
Beyond the discussion of the resident assembly, the city council opted to further examine other proposed reforms, including potential changes to election processes and considerations regarding voting eligibility for non-citizens and 16-year-olds.
Lessons for Cambridge and Other Municipalities
Cambridge’s charter review process provides insights for other municipalities seeking to enhance civic participation and explore governance reforms. Key takeaways include:
- Institutionalizing Public Input is Challenging – The CRC’s experience highlights the complexity of fostering consistent resident participation and securing support from elected officials for new deliberative bodies. Establishing long-term engagement mechanisms requires careful planning and sustained commitment.
- Electoral Structure Changes Require Significant Support – Discussions of electoral systems and the distribution of executive authority demonstrated that governance reforms often necessitate broad political consensus and momentum to advance.
- Civic Engagement extends Beyond Election Cycles – The charter review process reinforced the importance of continuous public education and engagement beyond periodic elections. Ensuring that residents have accessible opportunities to contribute to governance decisions is essential for long-term participation.
- Balancing Administrative Stability and Public Accountability – The city council-city manager system promotes professional administration and continuity in governance. However, maintaining public trust requires complementary oversight mechanisms that enhance transparency and accountability.
While the CRC’s recommendations were not fully adopted, the review process elevated key governance discussions that will likely continue to shape policy considerations in Cambridge and beyond. The conversation about institutionalizing resident input remains ongoing, and the insights gained from this effort will inform future governance initiatives
Next Steps and Potential Impact of Reform Efforts
Momentum for governance reform in Cambridge remains strong, with ongoing discussions about potential changes to the city’s structure. Multiple pathways for reform continue to be explored, including new structures for public engagement and accountability mechanisms. The city council is in the process of determining which charter changes, if any, will advance to the state legislature and ultimately be presented to Cambridge voters. Governance reform is an ongoing iterative process and is expected to continue through public engagement, policy discussions and future charter review committees.
Anna K. Corning is a Master of Public Administration candidate at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, specializing in urban policy and democratic innovation. She has extensive experience in municipal governance, civic engagement, and strategic policy development, with a focus on charter reform, public participation, and election processes.
