Opinion: Amherst’s Town Council Form of Government Fails Every Democratic Test
Photo: istock
Ongoing Charter Review Should Illuminate Areas of Town Government Requiring Repair
by Art Keene, Darcy DuMont, Kitty Axelson-Berry, Lenore Bryck, Ira Bryck, Rita Burke, Sean Burke, Felicity Callahan, James Callahan, Amber Cano-Martin, Allegra Clark, Lou Conover, Hilda Greenbaum, Michael Greenebaum, Ann Hollingworth, Keith Hollingworth, Marla Jamate, Maura Keene, Rosemary Kofler, Richard Kofler, Maria Kopicki, Rob Kusner, Phyllis Lehrer, Ricci Mastroianni, Peggy, Matthews-Nilsen, Pat Ononibaku, Christina Platt, Laura Quilter, Robert Quinn, Anita Sarro, Hetty Statup, Adrienne Terrizzi, John Varner, Lydia Vernon-Jones, and Russ Vernon-Jones
In 2017, the Amherst Charter Commission voted by a very thin majority (five out of nine) to change our form of government from representative town meeting to a town council/manager form of government. Few municipalities in Massachusetts (only 12 of 351) have made this choice. Eighty-three percent retain some form of town meeting.
The Charter Commission’s majority promised that the new form of government would be based on the following values:
- Citizen participation
- “Representativeness” (demographics and interests)
- Effective, deliberative, and efficient structures
- Accountability and transparency
- A clear voice for Amherst
- Avoidance of big-money politics
- A culture of tolerance and respect
- Strategic and long-term planning
A minority report was submitted by three Charter Commission members who voted against the new charter: Meg Gage, Gerry Weiss, and Julia Rueschemeyer. They predicted that the new charter would 1) provide no checks and balances; 2) decrease democratic participation; 3) decrease representation and diversity; 4) decrease civic involvement; 5) increase the power of money and special interests in town politics; and 6) increase the cost of town government.
Their predictions were prescient.
Some of those problems can be fixed by substantial amendments to the charter, something the current Charter Review Committee is charged with studying.
The Amherst Home Rule Charter requires a review of the charter every 10 years, in years ending with a four. The town’s first charter review, now underway, comes six years after the start of the council/manager form of government in Amherst. A nine-member Charter Review Committee was appointed by the Town Council in the Spring of 2024 but did not get up and running until late September of that year. The committee spent most of its first 10 months of meetings planning outreach events (see e.g. here and here) to get public feedback to inform its recommendations for revisions to the charter that might improve the efficacy of local government. The committee has voiced concern about the possible representativeness of past public dialogue on the charter and has prioritized its own outreach.
To date, there is no indication that the Charter Review Committee is interested in documenting, analyzing, or repairing that which is ineffective or outright broken in our town government (see .e.g here, here, here, and here) and we have no confidence that the Charter Review Committee is conducting robust outreach and an honest review and no confidence that the Town Council will pursue meaningful change.
In contrast, the League of Women Voters Amherst spent 15 months (March 2023 – May 2024) exploring the efficacy of the charter in terms of the League’s own Principles of Good Government. More than 400 people completed a survey about the charter that was conducted online over six weeks in March and April 2023 and dozens more participated in three public forums in 2024 that reviewed the charter in considerable depth. The culmination of that work resulted in the League publishing a set of recommendations for amendments to the charter.
One clear conclusion from the League’s work is that a substantial number of Amherst residents, more than half of the survey’s respondents, were unhappy with town government. Many offered substantive recommendations for how government could be improved.
The Charter Review Committee seems wary of assigning much weight to the League’s work, or to previous substantial analysis and commentary that has appeared in the Indy (see e.g. here, here, here, and here), or really from anywhere outside of the committee’s own outreach efforts. And the committee has voiced a desire to prioritize feedback from those already holding power, that is, elected officials, town hall staff, and members of town committees.
The abject failure of our current council/manager form of government to deliver the things that its proponents promised demands a strong correction. Perhaps the most effective remedy would be a return to town meeting, though we recognize that effecting such a return would require a challenging and expensive multi-year effort.
In the meantime, we have an opportunity to amend the charter to correct its many deficiencies. That process is now underway but raises concerns that all we are going to get out of the current process is an affirmation of the status quo, or worse, an exacerbation of the charter’s worst failings. We still have time to raise our voices and push for a correction of where the charter is failing us, exemplified in the multitude of thoughtful suggestions that have already been put forward for repairing the charter, to bring us closer to the more inclusive and more effective democratic governance that was promised. This local intervention is an important step in protecting our democratic franchise at a time when democracy is under assault everywhere.
Please join us in calling for an authentic and honest charter review that will move us toward fixing some of what is broken in our town government. Below we offer some suggestions that reflect our concerns and merit full and open deliberation.
Ways to Share your Concerns
The final public listening session for the Charter Review Committee will be on Wednesday, July 23 at 7 p.m. in 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.
View the town charter here.
Residents should be aware of the time-sensitive nature of the ongoing review. The Charter Review Committee has agreed to complete its deliberations and submit recommendations for changes to the charter by October of 2025. If the existing provision for charter review is not amended, the charter will not be reviewed again until 2034.
The undersigned recommend changes to the town charter that would significantly increase public participation, transparency, accountability, and democracy in Amherst. The suggestions below, following the numbered sections of Amherst’s Home Rule Charter, are exemplary of the kinds of changes that we seek. We acknowledge that some of these changes cannot be adopted without the creation of a new charter commission but we believe it is important to undertake now, discussions of how such changes could improve the quality of democracy in Amherst.
A. Preamble
Develop and add a preamble to the Amherst Home Rule Charter, outlining the town’s goals for good government and including a mission and values statement. Such a statement, as appears in charters of some other Massachusetts municipalities, could address town goals on issues such as (but not limited to) affordable housing, racial equity, and climate change.
1. Form of Government
Recommend returning to the town meeting form of government or alternatively, adopting a council/mayor form of government.
2. Legislative Branch
2.1 Provide that each district councilor represents one voting precinct. (See also Section 7.4)
2.1 Shorten the current period between election and inauguration of councilors (lame duck period) to no more than 3 weeks.
2.1 Term Limits: Limit the terms of town councilors, school committee members and library trustees to six consecutive years. (that is, those elected to these offices, after serving two consecutive three year terms, could not run for those offices again without a hiatus).
2.2 Limit the number of consecutive years a Council President and Vice President can serve in that office to a single two-year term (i.e. prohibit the President and Vice President from running for re-election in consecutive terms). Current terms are one year, with an unlimited number of terms allowed.
2.4 (d) Enable the Town Council to appoint standing committees of the council that include town residents as voting members. Or,, require committees of the council (e.g. Finance, Government, Organization and Legislation, Community Resources), to also appoint town residents as voting members.
2.4 Develop a means to provide a diversity of opinion on all council-appointed committees, representing the diversity of opinion on the council. (This would be similar to towns requiring Democratic seats and Republican seats on town committees.)
2.4 Provide each town councilor with an equal opportunity to have a voice and vote on standing council committees by ensuring that each councilor serves on the same number of standing committees. (Currently, some councilors serve on more committees than others and this has the potential to create unbalanced influence in legislating).
2.7 Require district councilors to hold at least three district meetings (currently two are required) with constituents each year and at-large councilors to attend at least one district meeting in each of the town’s five districts across their three year term.
2.8 Provide the Town Council with the power to hire its own legal counsel or analyst. (Currently all legal inquiries by the council must be passed on to the town’s legal counsel through the Town Manager.)
2.9 Provide that the Clerk of Town Council be an employee of the Town Council and not of the Town Manager.
2.10 Require a second in order for a councilor to postpone discussion under Section 2.1 (popularly known as the nuclear option).
2.11 Applications for membership on boards and committees of the Town Council should be public records that are readily accessible to the public.
3. Executive Branch
3.3 Delineate more clearly the powers of the Town Manager.
3.3 Require the Town Manager to request capital funding budgets from every department on an annual basis in order to keep up with necessary building/departmental maintenance.
3.3 Limit the Town Manager’s power to seek a grant for any project not deemed a general or specific goal of the Town Council.
3.3 Require the Town Manager to provide staff and funding needed to implement bylaws, goals or other measures adopted by the council.
3.3 Omit the statement: “Such [Community Participation Officer] may be a current town employee”.
3.3 Require applications for seats on town committees and boards overseen by the Town Manager to be public records, with the consent of the applicant.
3.3 Require prior review and adoption by the council of any executive actions by the Town Manager that amount to a new town policy or project.
3.3 Provide that a neutral party or body appoint town residents to the resident advisory committee, which advises the town manager regarding appointments to town boards and committees; alternatively, provide for positions to be filled through townwide election.
3.9 Require a review of the Town Manager’s performance to be conducted or facilitated by an independent third party individual or group (currently it is the Town Council, with the council president composing the evaluation).
3.9 Include provisions to ensure a robust Town Manager evaluation by the public, the staff and the council. Require, as part of that process, incorporation of representative feedback from town employees, committee members and the general public.
3.9 Provide that the Town Manager’s performance be evaluated based on Town Manager goals established by the sitting council.
4. Other Elected Offices
Add provision for a Citizen Oversight Board of the Amherst Police Department.
Provide that the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals are elected bodies.
5. Financial Policies and Procedures
5.5 Provide that the Finance Committee be composed of five residents, appointed by a non-partisan body or person.
Provide the council with the power to add new budget items while not increasing the sum of the total budget.
7. Elections
7. Add a recall provision.
8. Public participation
8. Provide, at minimum, a period of public comment at the beginning of all meetings of the Town Council, standing council committees, and multiple-member bodies.
8. Add to the list the public participation methods: public attendance in person or remotely, and submission of written public comment.
8. Require the timely posting of public comment to the town website (ideally within 24 hours of submission) and the complete archiving of submitted public comments.
8. Provide that, in virtual or hybrid meetings, residents can see each other, and are able to know who and how many are present.
8. Require that the town maintain virtual access to all meetings of town boards, committees, or commissions.
8. Extend the time needed to collect voter veto signatures to four weeks.
8. Provide for a rigorous and public process of certification of signatures for voter veto in which the town clerk may not remove signatures from petitions without legal justification and without providing those whose signatures were disqualified the opportunity to challenge their disqualification.
8. Delete the section on measures ineligible for voter veto.
8. Add a provision enabling ballot initiatives originating with voters, to introduce and adopt new legislation.
8. Allow electronic signatures on all types of resident petitions.
8.4. Require that a voter veto resident vote be required to be the same percentage in the affirmative as the original council vote being challenged in order to pass (Usually either ½ or ⅔).
9. General Provisions
9.6 Require a charter review every five years.
10. Transition Provisions
Include a recommitment to implement the five programs listed in Article 10, including with robust state legislative advocacy:
a. Ranked Choice Voting
b. Participatory Budgeting
c. Creating a position of Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator
d. Permitting non-citizens to vote in town elections and to hold town elective office
e. Lowering the voting age for town elections
Consider new advocacy for:
Local elections in even numbered years to coincide with national elections.Continued hybrid Town Council and virtual Council Committee meetings.
Art Keene, Darcy DuMont, Kitty Axelson-Berry, Lenore Bryck, Ira Bryck, Rita Burke, Sean Burke, Felicity Callahan, James Callahan, Amber Cano-Martin, Allegra Clark, Lou Conover, Hilda Greenbaum, Michael Greenebaum, Ann Hollingworth, Keith Hollingworth, Marla Jamate, Maura Keene, Rosemary Kofler, Richard Kofler, Maria Kopicki, Rob Kusner, Phyllis Lehrer, Ricci Mastroianni, Peggy Matthews-Nilsen, Pat Ononibaku, Christina Platt, Laura Quilter, Robert Quinn, Anita Sarro, Hetty Startup, Adrienne Terrizzi, John Varner, Lydia Vernon-Jones, and Russ Vernon-Jones are residents of Amherst.