Danehy Takes the Gavel

THE CHAMBERS of the Cambridge City Council are set in a square room with a circular center of podiums, tables and platforms. The main stage at the front of the room is where the mayor sits, with his assistants, the city clerks, on his right-hand side. Down below, the room is further divided by two rows of smaller podiums, occupied by the remaining members of the council. The casual observer cannot, however, expect to distinguish party affiliations by the physical divisions of the room. The conservative Independents do not sit on one side of the room, as if facing off against the liberals; rather, the two groups sit side-by-side. The room's geography underscores an important point; at least one city councilor believes that the council is not as ideological and party-oriented as some may think.

Opinions on the strength of party divisions differ. Councilor David C. Wylie believes that outsiders make far too much of the differences between liberals and conservatives. The liberals, he says, actually vote conservatively on some issues. Saundra Graham, another liberal, takes a different view, however. In fact, Graham credits her liberal coalition with the success of many of the progressive measures the council has taken up recently. For starters, she notes the liberals have over the years been responsible for maintaining strong rent control legislation in Cambridge. And one of Graham's biggest concerns as a councilor, the issue of condominium conversion, is expected to come up for a vote in the council today. The fact that the liberals have been behind reforms such as rent control--working behind the scenes in the interests of the working people of Cambridge--is the reason they were so eager this January to elect one of their own as mayor. Graham says, "We're tired of being the power brokers. Nobody considers us, and we thought it was time to see one of us up there."

The liberals goofed, or perhaps fate simply took its chance. Whatever the reason, Thomas W. Danehy, one of the council's most conservative members, will now be sitting in the front of the room with the gavel in his hand for the next two years, and the best word to describe the liberal's loss might be disappointment. First, it is disappointing that the liberals did not approach former Mayor Alfred E. Vellucci for his support and back him for another term, because Vellucci's voting record has been consistently on the liberal side of issues. Perhaps it would have been wiser for the liberals to have made Vellucci their choice and struck up the kind of bargains with him that they succeeded in making during the last election. They did not have a majority, after all, and at times during the vote-counting this November, it even looked as though they might not even win a fourth seat. Politics is a game of bargains, but the progressive forces seem to have missed the boat.

The liberals, on the other hand, cannot be scored too sharply for their miscalculation. Vellucci was indeed their second choice, but they wanted first to try to elect either Graham or Councilor Francis H. Duehay '55. Apparently they searched for the crucial Independent vote needed to put them over the top, and were expecting last Monday to elect Duehay with the support of Councilor Lawrence Frisoli. Instead they got Danehy--as in one of the more mystifying aspects of the election, Vellucci supported Danehy.

From Vellucci's point of view, it is clear that he felt insulted that the liberals did not make him their first choice. Vellucci last week took a sour grapes attitude because the liberals had only asked him to join them in voting for Duehay or Graham.

In Vellucci's own words, "They blew it--they fooled around too long." So he turned around and gave Danehy his vote. Vellucci claims to have felt ignored by the liberals, after doing them favors for the past two years, but some observers wonder if this is the only factor contributing to his support of Danehy. He is not, after all, trying to change his position--he has voted according to his own principles and not just for the liberals.

Another theory presents itself. Vellucci has been out of a job since an article in The Boston Globe charged he held a "no-show" of his state job, and forced him to resign the post. But Danehy's brother John is the Middlesex County Commissioner and some people believe Vellucci might wind up with a county position. Vellucci, however, says he does not want to work anymore, and will devote himself entirely to public service. If Vellucci is true to his word, all that is left is an even deeper puzzle surrounding his decision to vote for a man with such a conservative record.

Danehy does have some positive credits to his name, provided by both liberal and Independent members. The morning after Danehy's election, Wylie said he believes Danehy will be business-like and may even prove to be a good mayor. Graham and Vellucci have expressed similar sentiments. Alice Wolf--a member of the school committee that Danehy as mayor, will also chair--reserved any judgments, but said optimistically, that she hopes the situation will work out well. On the more negative side of things, the liberal members and supporters of the Cambridge School Committee fear some conflicts with Danehy. The main issues confronting the committee these days are the development of an alternative public high school, achieving a racial balance in the city schools, and choosing an affirmative action officer for the schools. And in the always-difficult question of the budget, Wolf withholds her predictions on how Danehy will handle these questions.

IN THE BROADER SCALE OF Cambridge politics, Danehy says he has a hard time supporting rent control because he believes it is unnecessary. "I don't think the city needs a blanket form of legislation," he says, adding that he knows of a number of developers who chose not to build in Cambridge because of the strictly enforced rent control law. Condominium conversion, another big issue in Cambridge this fall, is a development Danehy favors, because he says he likes to see people owning their own property. But condominium conversion, like skyrocketing rents, tends to drive out the city's elderly residents who cannot afford either to buy their homes or pay increases. Danehy acknowledges this fact, and says he would rather devise a system which would solve both problems: a system he says he has not yet figured out, but is sure will eventually be devised.

Anyone sitting in the council two weeks ago who heard the voices of elderly and young residents who have had to leave their apartments so the owners could convert them to condominiums--and were thus also forced into higher rent costs--would understand the problems confronting these people. And no matter how many "systems" he promises, it is disheartening to have a mayor who will not be actively sympathetic to them, although he does express his concern verbally.

Despite the disappointments that surround this election, Vellucci has perhaps best summed up what the coming year will be like. In response to why he would vote for such a conservative mayor, Vellucci says, "I think he will be a good mayor. It is really only a ceremonial position, and if he gets up there and votes against rent control, who cares. There will still be eight votes in support of it."