​​Sparse Attendance at Charter Review Listening Sessions

The second of four planned public listening sessions sponsored by the Charter Review Committee was held at the Bangs Center on June 30. About eight members of the public attended the in-person session, which was not recorded in order to encourage people to speak their minds. Only three members of the public attended the first listening session held on June 18. 

The session was facilitated by Charter Review Commissioners Meg Gage and Andy Churchill. Committee chair Julian Hynes and members Ken LeBlond, Raphael Rogers, and Marcus Smith were also present. 

Below are some of the issues raised.

Transparency
One participant cited the lack of transparency in our city government. He said that an elected mayor would result in better accountability and more public debate. Term limits should be imposed on council members and council officers. 

There was general agreement in the room that the town should hire a person specifically assigned to interface with the public. A three-person Resident Advisory Committee does exist, but does not appear to be effective. Only one of the three original Community Participation Officers specified in the charter remains and she (Anglea Mills) also serves as Executive Assistant to the Town Manager.

Another resident wanted to know who is in the Zoom audience at meetings? People attending town council meetings in person in the Town Room of Town Hall know who is there. Security is the reason given for not identifying people participating in the Zoom call, apparently because there was one instance of a zoom-bomber during the council’s first year. The commenter stated that we should not have to sacrifice democracy for the slim chances of a Zoom bomber. If people are asked to register with their real name and address to enter the site, all these data can be verified before letting them enter the Zoom room.

Budgeting
One resident felt that the budget process is flawed, yet it defines our values as a town. This person thought that the Library Trustees do not hold to the same standards as other committees. They should be required to make monthly reports of the state of the library budget. 

Another attendee asked if the Charter could include the Budget Coordinating Group (BCG). This person stated that the BCG is not being used as intended, and asked what the Charter says about coordinating/collaborating with the School Committee, especially when developing the budget guidelines This person stated that the Finance Committee is making all the decisions to present a [mostly finished] document to the full Town Council and the School Committee, which does not participate in this process. Members of the council and School Committee can come to public comment sessions but are limited to three minutes each to speak.

A participant asked about the budget calendar for the legislative process, and said that it needs to be more collaborative. The council looks to the town manager to do the work, but felt that he shouldn’t be directing the budget process.

Another attendee stated that too many decisions about what happens (particularly with regard to road/town building repair or reconstruction) depends on grant availability and not necessarily on what residents need or want. Notice was made of the nice new multi-use path created in front of four houses on the North Amherst Common, while traffic continues to pile up at the intersection, and East Pleasant Street school children don’t have a sidewalk to walk on when they get off the school bus. 

The issue was raised about what teeth are in the Charter? What recourse is there for required things that aren’t being done? One person mentioned that a child with asthma can’t cope with all the mold in the middle school; what are the mitigation plans? And when will it happen?

Committees
A person also noted that a large committee composed of members with specific expertise was appointed by the town manager to develop a Solar Bylaw. It was completed after many months of research and discussion with two pages of bibliography for each subject. This work was completely ignored by the Community Resources Committee and the Town Council. Others present noted this issue is not unique to this committee but happens with other citizen committees also.

There was general agreement that the committee system is not working. Appointments to committees are often arbitrary and capricious. Their work is duplicated (or ignored) by council committees. The Finance Committee should represent the taxpayer as a minimal check and balance, but since they vote as council members, they do not present an independent review.

Also, committee vacancies are not being filled in a timely manner, with the town manager waiting for enough people to apply to increase the size of the applicant pool, so that some people can be turned down. The names of those who are denied appointment should be part of the public record along with the reasons they were denied to eliminate any appearance of “committee stacking.” The longstanding vacancies make getting a quorum for action difficult, especially if one of the members must recuse due to a conflict of interest. 

The Charter offers no remedy like “deemed approved” or “deemed denied” if no action can happen in a timely fashion. At the same time “temporary” residents, such as undergraduate students, who don’t have a stake in the results or long-term intended or unintended consequences of any decision/action/policy should not be appointed to regulatory committees. This would also avoid some of the difficulty of getting a quorum in the summer when many students are gone from the area.

A school committee member felt that there was too much concentration of power in too few people. This person questioned committee appointments by the council and town manager, and stated that committee members often feel that their work is only advisory. Despite hours of research and discussion, their research is not recognized nor utilized by the council when voting. Diversity of viewpoints does not happen.

Another audience member agreed that the council ignores the minority view. He asked what practices other towns and cities have found to be effective?  He suggested that council and committee members should read books by Alan Robinson on idea-driven government for guiding principles of good government and how to run an effective meeting. He also recommended Lawrence E. Susskind and Jeffrey Cruickshank: Breaking Robert’s Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, and Get Results . He also contended that too many council  decisions are “group think” or opinion and not based on facts.

Those in attendance were in agreement about the above issues. Everyone agreed that committee members need more training especially in Robert’s Rules of Order. Everybody agreed that there are no checks and balances on the actions of the town council, while the bar for undoing or revoking a council action by the public is exceedingly high. 

The group recessed with the feeling that they aren’t alone, are being heard, but also feeling cynical, believing that any recommendations of the Charter Review Committee will “end up on the same dusty shelf as all the consultant reports paid for with our taxes”

More Opportunities for Public Input on Charter
Upcoming public listening sessions for the Charter Review Committee are scheduled for Tuesday, July 8 on Zoom. and Wednesday, July 23 at 7 pm at the Bangs Center Large Activity Room. 

Another way of having a say in this process is to submit comments using the Feedback Form or providing comments at a Charter Review Committee meeting.   

For information about the Charter, the committee, and the review process, see the Charter Review website.

The League of Women Voters of Amherst conducted an extensive public review of the Charter in 2024 involving hundreds of residents. Its report may be read here. and a complete list of all written comments submitted to the League is available  here.