Charter Committee Considers Adding Listening Sessions

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Charter Review Committee, July 10, 2025

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Meg Gage, Marcus Smith, Ken LeBlond, Erika Mijlin. Absent: Andy Churchill, Bernie Kubiak, Raphael Rogers. Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Town Council and staff liaison).

The meeting was held on Zoom and was recorded. 

There were no public comments.

Outreach Subcommittee
The third of four listening sessions was held on July 8, the only one to be conducted on Zoom. Erika Mijlin facilitated and Ken LeBlond also was present. Mijlin reported that the comments were similar to those the committee has received before, centering on the themes of public participation, transparency, and the appointed Town Manager versus an elected Mayor. Chair Julian Hynes pointed out that these comments are relevant to three charter articles: Article 3, the Town Manager; Article 5, Financial Policies and Procedures; and Article 8, Public Participation Mechanisms. Although the turnout of 11 residents  was less than hoped for, it was better than the attendance at in-person meetings. The committee considered having another virtual session, although a decision was not made.

Mijlin reported that one of the commenters criticized the committee for not reaching out to marginalized groups, including BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) residents. Mijlin asked if this could be accomplished by reaching out to leaders of community groups or by having additional listening sessions. Gage observed that the committee had turned over the responsibility of collecting individual input to the town communications department and perhaps the committee should take it back. 

Hynes recalled earlier discussions about holding sessions at different locations in the community, including public parks and apartment complexes. But Mijlin reminded everyone that the committee has no budget and the Bangs Center was chosen as the site for sessions because it does not charge a user fee. Hynes will contact the town to see if the town is willing to waive user fees for other town-owned locations, such as Groff Park or Mill River.

The next scheduled session will be in person at the Bangs Center on July 23. Gage and Hynes volunteered to attend and encouraged committee members who have not attended any of the sessions to be present at this last one.

Ken LeBlond voiced support for scheduling another Zoom-based listening session. He also cautioned the committee that those committee members attending a session should maintain the “mask of objectivity” and not give any indication of personal opinion. He also reported that the Feedback Subcommittee will be scheduling a meeting soon.

Article 6, Administrative Organization
Although representatives from the Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management were not present at this meeting, they provided comments to further discussion of Articles 6 and 7. 

The Town Manager may propose any reorganization of town agencies, subject to Town Council’s approval or rejection (but not modification) after it has been reviewed by an appropriate committee and presented in a public forum  (Section 6.1). 

Smith questioned whether the section is complete. Smith suggested that the section be strengthened beyond its current permissive stance. Gage noted that it lacks any process whereby the public or a town department could propose a change, but others pointed out that alternative means are available. Town Council could advocate for a department, a referendum could be conducted, or Town Council could exert its influence through the budget process. 

Gage questioned how this section applies, mentioning the example of the Community Participation Team, which was established to “promote and support diverse resident participation with their Amherst government.” Originally consisting of three people, after attrition it now is down to a single person who has several other duties, rendering the “team” practically nonexistent. Was this a reorganization of a town agency that should have gone through the procedure as described, or was it a personnel decision that is better left to Human Resources, Gage asked. Smith proposed clarifying the definition of “agency” to determine the section’s application. 

When the town promotes or appoints individuals, it is required to post the position for at least 14 days on the “Town Bulletin Board,” a term defined in Article 1. The committee considered whether this requirement in Section 6.2 is overly prescriptive and should be more fluid. Athena O’Keeffe reported that Human Resources believes this requirement placed barriers to the hiring process, including the ability to post internally. Mijlin questioned the rationale of the requirement. Was it to prevent bypassing sufficient public notice? Smith suggested that a guideline should be laid out for posting content that is consistent with best practices, but that the guideline should not be in the charter.

Requirements for the Board of License Commissioners (section 6.3) drew no discussion but the Collins Center commented that “there does not seem to be much public or staff input into this provision.”

Article 7, Elections
There are two bills pending in the Massachusetts legislature that would, respectively, allow lawful residents to vote and approve ranked choice voting. Both have been referred to committees. The Charter Committee does not expect either to become law in the near future and did not take them into consideration in the context of this discussion.

When and how often town elections should be held generated discussion. Should they occur on even or odd years? In the fall or the spring? Hynes said he strongly favors having elections in the fall, and holding them concurrent with presidential elections when more people vote. This advantage would outweigh the concerns about causing confusion, especially for students and other temporary residents who do not follow local politics. In that case, he said, they can refuse the separate local election ballot. 

The Collins Center, however, cautioned that “.. the state has not approved regular elections held in the fall of even numbered years in order to avoid the administrative and legal challenges of overlapping local elections with state and federal elections. This could change in the future, and communities may pursue Special Acts to petition for fall elections, but the outcome is uncertain. In the meantime, changing the terms of office for elected officials to three years would likely necessitate moving elections to spring.”

Both Mijlin and Smith mentioned receiving public comments criticizing the requirements for collecting signatures because they created unnecessary barriers. Section 7.3 addresses requirements for placing the name of a candidate on the ballot but there are similar issues with other provisions, such as how to initiate a referendum. 

According to section 7.4, the town’s five districts should each hold comparable numbers of “inhabitants.” Hynes advocated that the term be changed to “voters,” believing that will lead to greater parity. But Gage countered that government should benefit everyone, voters and non-voters alike. The District Advisory Board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring uniformity but does so only every ten years after receipt of the federal census. Mijlin suggested that the data should be revisited more frequently and should include consideration of other relevant factors.

The committee recognized that the requirement to publish candidate statements on the Town Bulletin Board (section 7.6) set a minimum standard, but candidates should be encouraged to seek out other outlets, such as Amherst Media.

The meeting ended for lack of a quorum when Mijlin had to leave.