|
| |
|
|
Same as it ever was?
BY ADAM REILLY
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Arroyo’s unexpectedly strong second-place showing in last year’s city-council elections gave local political junkies fodder for speculation over the last month or so: was this the birth of a new player on Boston’s political landscape? But any notion that Arroyo’s momentum might shake up the council’s balance of power was summarily dispelled on January 5, when Michael Flaherty easily won re-election to a third term as council president. Arroyo, who challenged Flaherty for the post, was backed only by Chuck Turner of Roxbury, Charles Yancey of Dorchester, and at-large councilor Maura Hennigan — all regarded as members of the council’s progressive wing. In other words, the same factions that dominated the council last year look like they’ll be in full effect in 2004 as well. And for that matter, so will some of the same issues. Toward the end of Monday’s meeting, for example, the council was poised to consider a motion to temporarily approve the council’s rules. Following tradition, the motion had been put forward under Turner’s name, since he is the council’s oldest member. But when Turner realized what was happening, he balked at lending his name to any endorsement, even temporary, of Rule 19, which allows the council president to halt discussion of matters deemed irrelevant to council business and generated scads of controversy in 2003 (see "Local Color," October 17, 2003). Turner first attempted to amend the motion to exclude Rule 19. When this failed, Turner withdrew the motion, then blocked the efforts of Councilors Paul Scapicchio and James Kelly to re-introduce it. After his bid for the council presidency failed, Arroyo explained that he had run to highlight several issues, including his desire to amend Rule 19 to allow for a majority override. (Arroyo also downplayed the criticism implicit in his decision to challenge Flaherty — who endorsed him last October — for the post: "It’s nothing personal. It’s not a vendetta. We have differences in how business should be conducted and what business should be a priority, but that’s natural since we’re different people.... His agenda is a positive agenda, and I agree with the priorities he’s set.") The good news, of course, is that the year is still young. As the council takes up new and potentially contentious items of business — like changing the city’s school-assignment plan, for example — it’s still possible that new allegiances will form and bold, unexpected decisions will result. Turner, who notes that at-large councilor Stephen Murphy sided with the council’s progressives in the Rule 19 debate last year, insists that the Flaherty-Arroyo split doesn’t reflect intransigent opposing camps. "I think that’s jumping ahead too much," Turner says. "It’s premature to talk about one bloc versus another bloc until we’re looking specifically at issues coming before the council." Here’s hoping he’s right. Otherwise, the council’s 2004 session could be déjà vu all over again.
|
