By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

In this space last month, Mayor Joseph Curtatone began a column by saying, “Over the past four-and-a-half years, Somerville residents have seen their government become more open, more accountable and more participatory.” I was astounded by the bald-faced audacity of this claim. By any measure that I can conceive, Somerville city government has become more secretive, more cliquish, more autocratic, and less accountable.

Public attendance at aldermanic meetings is at an all-time low. There is understandably little interest. The Board no longer initiates capital investments, reforms city policies and departments, question’s the mayor’s performance, or vigorously debates policy choices, as it did in years gone by.

Too often, aldermen’s performance has less to do with making city government better, than with remaining in their positions, which are substantially better compensated than they were four-and-a-half years ago. Many ward aldermen believe that their re-electability is based on how well they serve as ombudsman to their constituents, and on the mayor’s support at election time. The mayor can withhold city services to the wards of, and electoral support from, disobedient aldermen.

As never before, incumbent aldermen are rarely challenged in city elections. It would strain credulity to imagine that this is because Somerville has become a citizens’ paradise since the time when at-large races often drew over 20 contestants.

The Curtatone administration’s decision to conceal from the public, information that Somerville public officials are required by law to report also gives incumbents less to worry about. Mayor Michael Capuano first proposed strengthening the ethics law in his January 6, 1997 state-of-the-city address.

He said, “this ordinance will allow citizens of Somerville to know how the elected officials make their living, who their wife works for and their children, how they are financially and personally connected to someone who gets a city license, a zoning variance, or a city contract.” In addition to proposing a system whereby Somerville residents could become aware of potential conflicts of interest, his plan reduced the proportion of mayoral appointees on the Ethics Commission.

The Board adopted the new ethics ordinance in October 1997. It requires elected politicians, appointed officials, and candidates to disclose their sources of income, spouses’ jobs, relatives on the city payroll, business associates who also do business with the city, and stocks and real estate owned.

When it passed, then Alderman Curtatone, who was making headlines by continually lambasting Mayor Capuano, said that the ordinance did not go far enough: ‚ÄúI would like to see more included, but now we have an ordinance, and I’m a proponent of accountability.‚Äù [emphasis added]

That was then, and this is now. In anticipation of last year’s city election, the Somerville Journal routinely requested copies of the ethics statements. Journal staff received copies with all the relevant information blacked out, and they continue to challenge this change in policy. Mayor Curtatone’s city solicitors offered the laughable explanation that Massachusetts law forbids disclosure of public officials’ addresses and phone numbers. The city already publishes aldermen’s addresses and phone numbers on its website, and Commonwealth law does not forbid disclosure of the conflict-of-interest information.

Last month, Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz objected to the solicitor’s office’s representation that aldermen wanted their disclosures kept secret. She asked that hers be made public, and Alderman Bill White joined her.

Openness, participation, and accountability have also declined in Somerville’s twenty-seven boards and commissions. They often do not publish minutes of their meetings, including meetings where the Planning Board made important decisions. Scores of board and committee positions remain unfilled. The terms of many who do fill positions have expired, but they continue serving. In this way, the administration can allow those who are congenial to its ambitions to remain, while replacing those who aren’t.

If the stakes are high enough, even thoughtful members whose terms have not expired can be neutralized. Consider the case of Planning Board member Linda Bohan, who consistently does the most homework on the Board.

When the Planning Board received the Planned Unit Development application for IKEA, at least 85 percent of both the written and public-hearing testimony either opposed its development, or opposed key aspects of its design. A majority of Planning Board members-Joe Favaloro, James Kyrilo, and Linda Bohan-became concerned about the enormous traffic impacts that IKEA would have on their neighborhoods, and the company’s lack of responsiveness to their questions about these impacts.

The night of the vote, Linda Bohan proposed ten conditions to attach to the approval. She intended them as solutions to the public’s and her colleagues’ concerns. James Kyrilo excused himself to attend the appointment of his son to a city job.

When he returned, City Solicitor John Gannon, and Jim Shea, who was sitting with him at the Planning Board’s table, persuaded Bohan to drop most of her conditions. Shea is the Palmer and Dodge attorney who defended the illegal rezoning of Assembly Square to accommodate the big-box strip mall development. Together, they told Bohan that the appropriate time to attach her conditions was not then, but when IKEA returned for the store-specific permit.

Not long afterwards, Mayor Curtatone asked the Board of Aldermen to expand the Planning Board by two members, which he would appoint. The Board created two alternate positions, which served Curtatone’s purpose as well. Gannon then told Bohan that she a had a conflict of interest because she was a direct abutter, and that she should recuse herself, allowing an alternate to vote in her place.

This was curious indeed, since Bohan does not live in Assembly Square, or even on Route 28 or Shore Drive. And, city administration had never suggested such a conflict of interest when she had voted with it on previous Assembly Square development matters.

To be continued.