Residents Call for Amendments to Charter at Review Committee’s Third Listening Session

The Charter Review Committee held the third of four listening sessions on July 8, the only one conducted on Zoom. Committee member Erika Mijlin facilitated the session, joined by two other committee members, Raphael Rogers and Ken LeBlond. Eleven persons attended the session and those who spoke offered a range of criticisms and suggestions.

Rogers briefly reviewed the committee’s charge  and, in response to the concern of one attendee, LeBlond said that all suggestions will be included in the report to the Town Council, including those that fall outside the scope of the charge.

Darcy Dumont proposed that members of the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the nonvoting Finance Committee members be elected instead of appointed. She said that there should be a mechanism that ensures balance of points of view on committees, something that is lacking under the present system where individuals are appointed who further the viewpoints of those in power. Dumont noted that there is a general rule concerning committee appointments that gives preference to an individual seeking reappointment over someone who has never served on that committee, but that rule is often ignored. The most recent example involved appointments to the Planning Board where a competent member was denied reappointment.

Anita Sarro echoed this observation, adding that there are other examples of rules and requirements being ignored and suggested including enforcement measures in the charter. She also noted that the charter is now reviewed only once every ten years (in a year ending in a 4) and proposed that the interval be shortened to five years.  

Sarro drew attention to a comment submitted to the committee by Town Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) concerning the voter veto (the procedure enabling voters to call a referendum to overturn a vote of the town council). Hanneke, a majority member of the original Charter Commission, advised the committee to put further restraints on the process which has only been employed once since the charter was adopted in 2017, claiming the Charter Commission determined that the ability to mount a voter veto should be “difficult but not impossible.”  Sarro urged the committee to reject that suggestion and instead make changes to the charter, especially Article 8, that will support and strengthen mechanisms for public participation rather than further constrain it.

Rani Parker described those current mechanisms for public participation as very unfavorable, pointing to the experience of offering comments at meetings.  She questioned why a person offering comments on Zoom is only heard but not seen and why everyone attending on Zoom cannot see who else also is present. Participants are made invisible.

Parker is an active member of the town’s Human Rights Commission and joined it because she saw it as a powerful way to engage in town government, but instead it resulted in frustration. After putting years of work into developing a bylaw, it has yet to be presented to the Town Council.  She asked, who is listening? Why serve on committees if their work will not matter? People are not being heard.

Adrienne Terrizzi said the charter desperately needs amending, believing that the current form of government is inefficient, lacks transparency, and has insufficient checks and balances. She agreed with Parker’s criticism that the work of committees is often ignored.  She noted the low turnout at the listening sessions and believes that the public is ignoring the review process. Terrizzi questioned how the committee can complete its charter review and submit its final report by the current deadline of October.

Both Parker and Pat Ononibaku advocated replacing the town manager with an elected mayor who would be responsive to the public and be held accountable through the voting process. Ononibaku said the town manager has too much power and no accountability; he is not approachable and some residents hesitate to speak up for fear of retaliation.

Ononibaku noted that the committee was not gathering input from minorities. She urged that they reach out to marginalized communities and offered to help facilitate that effort by circulating information through the Black Business Association of Amherst Area. Rogers agreed to provide written information for that purpose.

Ononibaku described the current form government as concentrating power in too few people. For instance, she urged that the position of Town Council President be rotated among the members rather than remaining with a single individual. She also shared a perception similar to that expressed by Parker, saying that her experience serving on two committees made her feel disregarded and disrespected.

Ononibaku also criticized how the Town Council treats the School Committee, saying that the latter should be treated as an equal rather than being “bossed around.” She added that the Town Council and town manager only care about the white majority business community and listen only to those with money.

Mijlin, Rogers, and LeBlond thanked all who attended and welcomed more feedback. Comments can be submitted either by attending the last listening session on July 23 at 7 p.m. at the Bangs Community Center or by submitting written comments through the feedback form on the committee’s web site..

For information about the Charter, the committee, and the review process, see the Charter Review Committee’s web page.  Read the town charter here.