Discussing the Sun part 2: Explain away Salarygate? Cain’s not able.
Or:
Discussing the Sun part 2: No need to hear from citizen ~Cain
The Quincy Sun had another item in the Sept. 26th edition that had a lot of AJQers scoffing and guffawing: an interview with Council President Ian Cain about the raises and those of us who oppose them. This surprised me because when Joe Catalano asked him on AM Quincy if he had any comment about those who rallied on September 9th, he responded with a simple “no.” But since then he has decided he has more to say.
One of the first points Councilor Cain wants to make is that he feels there are numerous issues, other than these raises, that do not seem to stir up this kind of reaction.
“I point to numerous other issues where we can’t get anyone to pay attention that have much more potentially detrimental consequences to the city for future generations. I will always point to the $475 million pension obligation bond, which was fulfilling a liability with a liability that if, at any point in time, we don’t make the market threshold for those returns that it needs to continue paying down the debt, then that will have some serious consequences. I’m most proud of that one vote.” Quincy pension bond passes with last-minute additional vote, amendment (patriotledger.com)
What jumped out at me on this point is that this is not an issue before the city council at the moment. When it was, Councilors Cain, Liang, and Mahoney voted against the bond, but it still went through. So I’m not sure why he feels “that’s the most consequential vote” he’s taken as a councilor, and I don’t really understand what that has to do with the issue of the raises.
Councilor Cain then had some generalizations about the people who are upset about this issue:
“...the people who are the leading voices on them…are the same people [who were upset over] Black Lives Matter, different environmental things, some of them are part of the ceasefire group….A lot of this feels personally directed to the councilors or the mayor.”
This has been a go-to strategy out of the Salarygate playbook from the beginning: dismiss those who are fighting against these raises as “haters” who are just against the mayor or the councilors. They are nothing if not consistent. And I’m not sure why people can’t have opinions on the other issues too. We can hold many thoughts in our head. Maggie, share some of the many thoughts in your head.
Maggie: So much to unpack with this one. Councilor Cain just got finished saying that the raises are not the most important issue facing the city. But here he dismisses other issues that constituents care about. Does he only take people’s concerns seriously if he thinks they are important?
Also, why does he think that people expressing their views on any policy issue is “personally” directed at city leaders? It is literally their job to listen to constituents so they can represent their interests. None of this is personal.
Finally, his comments make it sound like the raises matter to only a few chronic complainers. But more than 6,000 Quincy residents signed our petition to repeal the mayor’s raise. That’s nearly five times the number who voted for Councilor Cain in his recent unsuccessful bid to become a US senator. The truth is, the raises are widely and wildly unpopular, and no amount of official gaslighting will change that.
Joe: The councilor does not seem to see any need for a public hearing now, nor did he see a need before they voted in June.
“The process was public, like everything we do it was out in the open, transparent with light on it.”
Maggie: Um, what process? There was a finance committee meeting on the mayor’s raise, which Councilor Cain did not actually attend. At that meeting, several councilors commented that the raise was on the high side and lamented the “process” by which it was proposed. But they did not engage in a debate with each other about either the amount or the process, and all but one voted to support the raise in its entirety.
Joe: I’ve noticed that people in power often seem to think that by conducting their corruption out in the open, they somehow absolve themselves of guilt. Also, he’s not really answering Scott Jackson’s question. Whether or not the “process” was done out in the open does not really address whether the public should have had a chance to speak first.
When asked if there may have been less outcry if they would have heard more from the people, Cain remarked:
“I think there would have been a group of people displeased about any number, any change to the number in any of these roles.”
Here we have another familiar refrain from the Salarygate keepers – that we don’t think there should have been any raise at all. This shows that they really do not have a legitimate defense of these raises. I find this rationale particularly annoying because they did not test this theory by proposing any other numbers. How about they rescind the mayor’s raise and come back to us after some public input with, say, a 20% raise, and let’s see how displeased we are then.
Councilor Cain was asked about having a monthly open forum to let citizens speak on issues, similar to the school committee’s “open forum” session.
“I don’t think that’s part of our form of government…This is set up that we elect people to be the voice of the people.”
This can’t be a coincidence right? The Mayor said something very similar when he defended reducing the time school committee meeting attendees have to speak at open forum.
It is so creepy when our city councilors and our mayor start sharing talking points with each other. There have been a few instances where the mayor and other elected leaders (including school committee) start reciting these half-baked responses within hours or days of each other.
This mini-lecture on our form of government stinks because they say it as if they are a civics teacher explaining the nuances of government to us, and as if they are revealing some fundamental truth that will end the argument. In reality, there is no reason our form of government can’t have public forums.
Maggie: Totally! I recently called six Massachusetts cities with the same (“plan A”) government type as Quincy, and I found out that most offer more opportunities for public input than Quincy:
Boston (pop. 676,000) offers public comment at council committee meetings, which happen multiple times every week
Springfield (pop. 156,000) offers half an hour of "speakout" time before council meetings, with three minutes of time allotted to each speaker
Fall River (pop. 94,000) offers "citizens input time" at all council and committee meetings (30 minutes, 3 min/person, although I was told they extend the time if there are a lot of people who want to say something)
Lynn (pop. 101,000) held a public hearing ahead of a recent vote on raising city councilors’ salaries
Somerville (pop. 81,000) allows residents to send in comments by email that are read out during council meetings
If other cities can do this, why can’t Quincy?
Joe: Well, if you listen to Councilor Cain, he claims he used to have public meetings, and no one attended.
Maggie: When we discussed this at a recent meeting of A Just Quincy members, at least one member said that she had been to some of Councilor Cain’s meetings, and they were well attended. But even if that weren’t the case, why is Councilor Cain making this argument about a lack of public engagement now? That’s clearly not the situation with the raises – thousands of people signed petitions to repeal them, and hundreds have signed letters asking for public meetings to discuss them. Lack of public interest is not an issue here.
Joe: Another prepackaged talking point that is making the rounds: Public forum is unnecessary when the elected leaders make themselves available already.
Mayor Koch at a School Committee meeting on how people can reach out individually instead of speaking at School Committee meetings
-Peter Blandino The Patriot Ledger September 12, 2024
“I have always tried to create more avenues for communication. It’s not like we don’t make ourselves available. We’ve got phones. We’ve got emails.”
-Ian Cain, The Quincy Sun, September 26, 2024
Maggie: Here’s the problem with that. People do reach out individually – and what they usually get back, based on everything we’ve experienced ourselves and heard from other people, is crickets. Our calls and emails disappear into a black hole. And unless people share elected officials’ response rates, as we’ve started doing with our email campaign about the raises, no one else knows just how unresponsive our elected officials are. Which is undoubtedly why politicians like the current system.
But with public forums, everyone can plainly see how many people are upset about a particular issue and hear why they’re upset. People can respond to each other’s points and, ideally, get a deeper and clearer understanding of an issue. Elected officials have to listen – or at least be present to hear – those statements, and constituents can watch their reactions. Journalists can follow up with elected officials to see what changes, if any, will result from the comments made in public forums. The end result is more accountability from elected officials and more transparency in how government runs. That is what many Quincy politicians claim they want when they run for office – now it’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is and give the public an opportunity to be heard.
Joe: To me, it doesn’t pass the sniff test. They have public hearings when they are convinced the public will be on their side. In 2018, the mayor and city councilors had a meeting in Squantum Elementary’s gymnasium where a couple hundred people showed up to show solidarity against Boston’s plans to rebuild the bridge. The crowd that showed up was overwhelmingly in agreement. But a public meeting is more important when there are opposing views. Having a public meeting to soak up the applause and get some thank yous from the crowd is weak. Gathering people in masses to make the case that you deserve a 79% raise would have been gutsy.
In the end, I doubt Councilor Cain convinced anyone that the city council is showing real leadership at this time. His words, in my opinion, reflect echo-chamber thinking. I’m not sure if he truly believes what he’s saying or if he thinks this strategy will keep the train moving long enough for people to stop chasing it. If it’s the latter, it’s going to be a slog for him — people are not going away, and AJQ’s numbers rise each month.
I suggest that our elected leaders rescind the raise ordinances and start over with a process that includes apples-to-apples comparisons to similar mayors and takes into account the opinions of Quincy residents. After all, our property taxes fund these decadent raises, head-scratching land grabs, and inexplicable deals with certain developers.
