Ice Cream, Newspaper Ethics, and Ongoing Cambridge City Politics

Cambridge prides itself on fairness, equity, and civic engagement. But what happens when the President, Treasurer, and Director of the Editorial Team of our local newspaper, Cambridge Day, also sits on the Boards of two other critically important Cambridge groups:  the city’s Affordable Housing Trust, and the Cambridge Community Foundation board, and from this trifold power base also chose to host a fundraiser for a developer‑aligned political action committee—all the while taxpayer money is being spent on ads in that very newspaper?

That’s not just “wearing too many hats.” It’s a textbook case of conflicted interest melt-down that significantly erodes public trust.

An Ice Cream Social That Blurs the Lines:

On July 13,  2025, A Better Cambridge Independent Expenditure PAC (ABC‑IE) held a “Pro‑Housing Ice Cream Social.” The poster (see above image) announced that the event took place at an address that turns out to be the home of a man who self identifies as an “entrepreneur, investor, and advisor in industrial startups.” In addition, this person, Mr. Freeman/Mardirosian (he uses both last names), holds three powerful and critically important city positions, not only as a Cambridge Day funder and editorial Director, but also as a Board member (Trustee) a city-appointed member of the Affordable Housing Trust trustee (responsible for our affordable housing policy financing), and a Board member of the Cambridge Community Foundation.

Cambridge Day,  announced the formation of Cambridge News, Inc, a 501c3 Non-Profit group to support this local newspaper explaining that  “…we have established a nonprofit news organization, Cambridge News Inc., to be led by a community based board, and we have acquired the current Cambridge Day.  It is well known that 501c3 organizations must remain apolitical if they are going to receive tax-deductible donations. This same Cambridge Day announcement also specifies that it was the Cambridge Community Foundation  both “established and seeded” the “…Local News Fund that will support Cambridge News Inc.”  

The very generous and well-funded Cambridge Community Foundation (CCF) which set up and financed Cambridge Day, with a $100,000 gift that established and seeded this newspaper also has had long holding 501c3  non-profit status. And stated simply here too, as a 501(c)(3), like the Cambridge News Inc, the Cambridge Community Foundation is prohibited under federal law from engaging in partisan political activity (such as supporting or opposing candidates for office) making the intersection of political fundraising and conflicts of interest especially sensitive. 

These facts make the holding of a election advocacy ice cream fund-raising event at the home of this individual, not just a casual neighborhood gathering, but a city council candidate political fund-raising event. This is particularly problematic since it was hosted by someone responsible for stewarding the public’s trust in providing non-politically biased journalistic practices as well as in promoting best fiduciary and ethical practices for both the CCF and the city’s Affordable Housing Trust. And, since Cambridge Day is now receiving city funds to publish its legal notices, the taxpayers of Cambridge also need to be assured that the 501c3 obligations here, too, are maintained.

Why This Matters:

• Journalism and Politics Shouldn’t Mix This Way: When newspaper leadership is actively involved in political fundraising, readers cannot be confident that coverage is impartial.
• Housing Board Independence is Compromised: Trustees owe a fiduciary duty to protect the public good. Fundraising for developer‑aligned candidates opens up serious concerns of bias.
• Public Money Flows Through This Ecosystem: Tax‑payer funded ads in Cambridge Day help support its operations. That means public dollars are channeled into an entity whose leadership raises money for a political PAC.
• Non-Profit Groups Are Supposed to Stay Neutral: The Cambridge Community Foundation’s Board of Overseers is charged with “providing stewardship” and—critically—“avoiding the reality or appearance of conflict of interest in financial and grant decisions.”

 
A Core Question in Play:

Should a Board Member of two 501c3 non-profit groups, and the Director (President, Treasure, Funder of a local newspaper, supported by one of these groups) be hosting a political PAC fundraiser that blurs their roles along political and civic non-partisan lines?

By way of comparison, it should be noted that the owners of our country's  leading newspapers, including the New York Times, theWashington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Boston Globe are prominent figures in business and civic life but are not known to have hosted political PAC fundraisers at their homes. While each has shaped journalism and public discourse in different ways, none have crossed into that form of direct partisan activity. This is in part what makes the Cambridge situation so unusual, and while Cambridge Day's Director/President and Treasurer is not an "owner" per se, since there are no stocks and our local  paper remains a non-profit,  the same principle should hold true here as well.
 
Legal vs. Ethical or just plain “Bad Practice"? Both our state and local rules draw clear ethical lines:

• Massachusetts General Laws c.268A prohibit public officials from acting where they—or their associates—either have a financial interest or where there's a “reasonable impression” their duties could be compromised. As a member of the Affordable Housing Trust this person is considered an employee of the city of Cambridge, even if he receives no pay. And as such Mass General Laws apply: “Acting in a manner that would make a reasonable person think you can be improperly influenced is prohibited….Public employees must avoid conduct that creates a reasonable impression that any person may improperly influence them or unduly enjoy their official favor…”  
• The City of Cambridge Ethics Ordinance (2.1118) sets minimum standards but also stipulates that “All City employees, including all elected and appointed officials, are subject to the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law.”
• Finally, The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics (which applies also to editorial boards) sets a clear standard: “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts….and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.” ​

The ethics of good governance in each of these cases are unmistakable: one person should not simultaneously direct a newspaper, shape housing policy, sit on a philanthropic board, and raise money for a developer PAC.

Problems here are compounded because of the trifold roles of this individual:

• His position on the Affordable Housing Trust has the clearest legal conflict (with state ethics law);
• His newspaper leadership shows the clearest ethical conflict (because of the need for journalism neutrality)
• The Community Foundation Board seat shows a clear governance, and possible fiscal conflict, that compounds both of the above. 

What’s at Stake? These aren’t abstract concerns. At a time when housing is arguably the most pressing issue in Cambridge, public trust is fundamental. Yet patterns like this may lead residents to feel that:

• Our city housing policies are shaped by developer interests.
• Our city philanthropic interests are tied to political gain.
• Our city news coverage is filtered through developer PAC agendas.
• Our city public money is indirectly supporting developer‑aligned politics.

This does seem to represent a breakdown of civic trust, one that may also undermine citizen engagement and public decision‑making.

Update 9.12.25: Cambridge Day has announced a new editor-in-chief: Michael F. Fitzgerald which we applaud. However it remains to be seen how much the current ownership structure, and particularly the political vantages and active advocacy of key Board members and financial backers will impact ongoing policies.