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.)

Many look back to Somerville‚Äôs 60s, 70s, and early 80s as the ‚Äúbad old days‚Äù of corrupt city government.  It is true that patronage was common then, but no more so than now.  And the fact that more officials got caught with their fingers in the public cookie jar is not, of itself, proof of less corruption today.  Those very scandals produced legislative initiatives by a Board of Aldermen that was much more proactive then than it is now.

The city charter gives the board only two real powers:  budget approval and creation of ordinances.  For reasons that I‚Äôll save for another column, the budgetary power is illusory.

But consider the substantial legislative issues that the board debated, just between 1975 and 1985:  tax assessment reform, police department reform, comprehensive rewriting of the zoning code, licensing reform, cable TV, condo conversion, strengthening the Board of Health, rent control, requirement of a five-year capital improvement program to be updated yearly by the mayor, and creation of a personnel department.  They mandated a traffic commission because decisions such as one-way street designation had become politicized.  On four separate occasions, they debated rewriting the charter.  They initiated a comprehensive study of the city‚Äôs sewer system.   They initiated dozens of major street and sidewalk reconstructions. They considered consolidating the Redevelopment Authority, Planning Board, and Community Development and making the Community Development budget part of the larger city budget, and therefore subject to Aldermanic review.

Debates were vigorous, and votes were often 6-to-5.  In a number of instances, the Mayor resisted board initiatives, but the board prevailed.  Aldermen‚Äôs compensation was one-tenth of what it is now, but few elections were uncontested, and aldermen-at-large races often drew over 20 candidates.

Today, the Board of Aldermen initiates very little.  Public works improvements usually reach them only when bond approval is required.  Most legislation is prepared by the mayor‚Äôs office and sponsored by a friendly alderman.  Debate is tepid, and most votes exceed a super majority.  Taken together, these conditions have led to charges that the board is a ‚Äúrubber stamp.‚Äù

It is reasonable, at least, to ask how Somerville politics, once so vigorous, participatory, and content-laden have come to be so shallow, passive, and inspire such little participation.  One answer, I believe, is that while the real circumstances of Somervillians‚Äô lives have changed enormously, much of our political culture has not.

Somerville politics has always been about relationships. Indeed, the newcomers who, from time to time, attempt to influence city policy are often bewildered when they discover that the evidence and analysis they so carefully prepared have little or no influence on political decisions.

But the relationships that once made up vibrant Somerville politics were, themselves, vibrant.  Rich networks of extended families, neighborhoods, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, youth sports and civic organizations intertwined to weave a strong community fabric.  They provided multiple ways for people to know each other and to discuss the day‚Äôs political issues.

Politics was personal in several senses.  First, politics were about whether my street gets repaired or my kid gets a summer job.  Second, extensive and dense relationship networks ensured that voters personally knew candidates and held them accountable.

Third, politicians maintained influence by developing personal loyalties.  Paradoxically, even though politics then were more content-rich, their practice often resembled competition among sports teams and fans more than conflict over policy choices.

Yes, patronage was about loyalty and rewarding supporters.  But it was not about giving responsibilities to unqualified people.   Hiring officers often had extensive knowledge of applicants, either directly or through relationship networks. They also knew whether the applicant‚Äôs friends, family, and associates would act to ensure that he or she would perform and not become an embarrassment. 

This worked effectively with an electorate who were, simultaneously, a community composed of deep and interweaving relationships.  But over the years, the institutions that built and sustained these relationships disintegrated, along with personal accountability, hundreds of mini forums for political discussion, and campaigns based on organizing.

Somerville politics is still mostly about relationships, but not through large relationship networks in which the politician is well known and held accountable.  Today‚Äôs political relationships are often imaginary. (He‚Äôs like me, so we must have a relationship.  Or, she got the garbage picked up when I called her.)  The most potent relationships are often based on a narrow interest on the part of someone who wants something.  Often that someone wants to make money in Somerville, but isn‚Äôt from Somerville. 

This is convenient, because (1) spin has replaced mobilization of relationships as the primary electoral tactic; (2) advertising costs money; and (3) the cost of mobilizing significant political contributions is small compared to what special interests hope to gain.  But this skews political calculations from ‚Äúwhat will enable me to make a difference for most voters?‚Äù to ‚Äúwhat will enable me to raise enough money to get elected?‚Äù

It creates a cycle that shifts more power to the mayor in a city with an already mayor-heavy charter.  The mayor is much better positioned to capture large campaign donations.  In turn, aldermen are more obliged to a mayor who can either support their campaigns or punish them by withholding city services from their constituents.  Over time, aldermen cede more power to the mayor, which in turn, positions him to capture more donations.

Patronage now is little more than a means of maintaining loyal political troops.  Whoever wins the prize of the mayor‚Äôs office has the ability to hire or retain employees who, simultaneously, become a small campaign army, particularly on election day.

To be continued