Tom the meek

A new breed of mayors is reinventing city government. Tom Menino talks reform, but he shies from its risks. With four more years, will the "urban mechanic" finally give Boston the government it deserves?

by Michael Crowley

It was April Fool's Day, but the worst crisis in Boston mayor Tom Menino's otherwise sleepy tenure was no joke. In a freak blizzard, two feet of snow had fallen on the city. Two days later, people were still skiing through unplowed streets in Roslindale, West Roxbury, and Hyde Park.

Particularly since the storm had been forecast, residents were furious with Menino. And why not? Here was a mayor who insisted that basic city services were his highest priority. Menino had supposedly spent all his time worrying about things like snow plowing -- but when the snow came, he failed utterly.

A report from City Hall eventually blamed the failure on poor communication, lack of oversight, and inflexibility in the Basic Services Department (while snow piled up through the night, the only two men authorized to put more plows on the road were sleeping).

You might think this "urban mechanic" would have restructured the department, delegating authority and improving lines of communication. Instead, Menino vowed to hire a bunch of middle managers.

That's the logic of city government for you: if a department screws up, reward it with a bigger payroll. But there's a larger problem. There is no real way of knowing whether the extra money and manpower will help, because the city has little sense of whether the department runs efficiently, or if there's a better way of doing the job. The same holds true for services throughout Boston's city government. In an old municipal tradition, officials here still think more about how much money is spent than how well it is spent.

Over the past several years, however, a growing number of America's biggest cities have been shattering the old models of city government. Led by what Time magazine this summer called "a new breed of activist mayors," and the New Republic this spring identified as "the pride of the cities," city halls from Philadelphia to Chicago to Los Angeles are proving that creative ideas and political bravery can inject big cities with new life.

We're seeing a historic change in urban government -- and Boston is being left behind. We have watched as other cities, adapting to social trends and new economic realities, have streamlined, innovated, and begun "reinventing" their governments for the next century, saving millions of dollars while improving city services. A once-skeptical media now talk breathlessly about nothing less than a "renaissance of the cities."

At the moment, Boston may hardly seem in need of a renaissance. Our biggest challenge is development, not downsizing. Residents are generally happy with the city. For this, the mayor deserves real credit for his steady stewardship. But he was clearly aided by a robust economy and falling crime rates, national trends beyond his control.

Next week, Menino will stroll to a long-guaranteed reelection. But as he does so, he is passing up a moment of opportunity. He has hoarded his vast political capital when he could spend it to further improve city services and fortify Boston for the future. Yes, the mayor has built a strong record on crime, education, and neighborhood preservation. His police department's community-policing initiatives have driven down crime and made the force a national model. But Menino has not encouraged widespread reform in what is one of the country's most expensive city governments.

Why should he? Menino's sympathizers argue that he has little incentive to push politically risky reforms. After all, Menino enjoys an 82 percent approval rating and is the first Boston mayor ever to run unchallenged for reelection. The mayor himself says Boston does not face the circumstances that have forced other cities into fundamental change.

But the truth is that Menino has every reason to change the way this city works. If he really wants to deliver first-rate services, he has much to learn from his counterparts in other cities. And reforming government is as much about preparing for the future as it is about improving the present. It is way for him to leave a real legacy instead of being remembered as a mere caretaker.

Ultimately, however, there's more than the mayor's image at stake. It's a question of whether Boston -- a city so insecure about its national profile -- wants to be counted among the country's great urban success stories. And failure to act does not just leave Boston short of its potential; it leaves it vulnerable.

On to part 2

Michael Crowley can be reached at mcrowley[a]phx.com.