A tale of two tickets
The ballot box in last week’s election symbolized the state of Medford — divided. The numbers depicted a city split into two primary voting blocs: Our Revolution Medford and the independents. Allied candidates tended to yield similar vote counts, indicative of bloc voting, while tight margins between groups and increased support for non-ORM candidates suggested a narrowing divide. For the independents, the gains were significant, but not enough to claim new seats. Not this time.
A town theatre model of government
Casting votes on Nov. 4 felt like casting actors in a play, as I felt that ORM councilors only heard public comments out of duty. Moreover, City Council President Zac Bears clarified that the Massachusetts General Law does not require public comments, which could result in further reductions in speaking time.
Certain City Council meetings feel more like performances than a real democracy. Citizens speak their minds on issues that affect them, but the six ORM councilors have pledged to support the issues outlined in ORM’s “People’s Platform.” In short, ORM has replaced the traditional model of local governance with a coordinated bloc, unmoved by testimony. Comments are heard but not always heeded, rendering civic engagement a hollow ritual.
Is this what representative government looks like?
“This is what representative government looks like,” Bears said during a contentious City Council meeting. Bears was describing the outpour of comments ahead of officially voting for Councilor Matt Leming’s late-night motion to reject one out of the 12 recommendations by the Community Development Board for Salem Street rezoning. The motion passed 6–0 after extensive public comments both for and against. I found Bears’ comment invalidating since a unanimous vote had just emerged from clear community division.
Is this what it looks like to derive power from the people? The ORM councilors would probably (unanimously) say yes. They justify their agenda-driven votes in various ways. For instance, regarding a rental registry issue, Bears claimed in one City Council meeting that some public comments did not represent the popular opinion in the same way as thousands of votes did. A vote hardly implies unwavering support for every policy a candidate ran on. I’ve yet to meet a politician I agree with on every issue, but we need not speculate. Some who voted for ORM have declared their opposition to particular ORM ordinances. Moreover, representatives don’t just work for citizens who favor them. They work for the nearly 60,000 people who call Medford home.
Second, the “People’s Platform” is pushed as something that was crafted by the people of Medford. The term “People’s Platform” is misleading. Leming wrote in his blog that ORM “has a public platform that Medford residents painstakingly crafted.” He left out the catch: They can only contribute if they join ORM, and they can only join if they first accept the community agreement, which indicates support for the platform. The ORM website echoes the worthy goal that Medford be “collectively governed by” residents, yet I question how an exclusive group is capable of carrying it out.
Read between the warning signs
If you’re wondering whether ORM weakens democracy, don’t take it from me. Examine the fruits of the ‘revolution,’ which signal eroding trust within the community. There’s extreme polarization, of course, but more subtle signs, too: divisive rhetoric, limited transparency and suppression of dissenting views.
In the lead-up to the election, Leming posted a rather scary ad claiming his seven independent opponents were part of a “MAGA-aligned” coalition. These seven included Paul Donato Jr., who organized the city’s first Pride parade and candidates who have kept their national politics private, but when pressed, express a lack of alignment with President Donald Trump.
Many ORM supporters found lack of transparency among the independent voices slate concerning, but I see it the other way around. They mistook a lack of shared policy platform for lack of transparency, when in reality, each independent had their own platform (hence, independent). ORM is indeed very transparent about its policies — so transparent that they censor you if you dissent. Healthy democracy requires the opposite: open minds and open dialogue. Without these, even decisions following public dialogue feel anything but transparent.
When residents felt blindsided by rezoning proposals, rather than addressing their concerns, Councilor Emily Lazzaro initially faulted residents for failing to keep up with dozens of meetings and a detailed web page. Indeed, Medford’s website includes maps and links to rewatch lengthy meetings. These resources fall short of those mandated by Medford’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for an accessible dashboard to track progress toward its goals. This raises the question: What would feel truly transparent to those currently left in the dark?
Most importantly, progress itself should be guided by community input. I’m sure ORM would remind us that the “People’s Platform” does seek community input. It does, as aforementioned, seek contribution from coalition members. How can a platform that only accepts input from supporters represent all voices in a large city like Medford? ORM, in practice, blocks diverse viewpoints from influencing the democratic process on issues the “People’s Platform” dictates.
A bridge over troubled voters
The people of Medford deserve a government that prioritizes the common good over one agenda. After all, local elections are nonpartisan, and city councilors take oaths to represent without bias. How can councilors uphold an oath that contradicts their pledge?
I propose a counter-revolution. Not an upheaval, but a restoration, where everyone is invited to participate, no strings attached. I call upon my elected officials to listen, learn and deliberate in the light of day. I welcome them to bring their progressive ideas to the table instead of to the “People’s Platform.” I call upon my fellow citizens to attend meetings, remain vigilant and hold representatives accountable to their oaths.
