Opinion: Shady Goings-on with Charter Review Committee Vacancy
Photo: Shutterstock AI generated image
It appears that Town Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier and Council President Lynn Griesemer have gone out of their way to prevent the vacancy on the Charter Review Committee from being filled, first by stating that the pool was insufficient to hold interviews and then by failing to sufficiently announce the opening or to notify previous applicants that they could again be considered. Additionally, members of the council advised Angela Mills, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager and the town official who processes applications to serve on town committees that the committee was not planning to fill the opening.
The Charter Review Committee has been short one of its nine members since Dan Muscat resigned in January 2025. The responsibility for filling the spot lies with the Town Council’s Governance, Organization, and Legislation (GOL) committee. At the latest Town Council meeting, GOL chair Devlin Gauthier denied that the committee was dragging its feet in filling the position. She insisted that the pool of applicants has been insufficient.
When asked by Town Councilor Jennifer Taub (District 4) if she had reached out to the residents who had applied but were not chosen, Devlin Gauthier insisted that all had been contacted and that the vacancy had been posted on the town bulletin board. Taub countered that she knew of at least one former candidate who was not contacted. Devlin Gauthier disputed this, but said she would recontact everyone. As a result of this late outreach, Darcy DuMont and Anita Sarro told the Indy that they applied again. They were two of the people who had applied in 2024, although Sarro withdrew before the interviews due to health concerns. The other candidates who had applied in June 2024 were John Varner and Patrick Meagher. They have opted not to re-apply.
Council President Griesemer has several times raised questions about whether the vacancy should be filled at such a late date, asserting that a new member may inhibit the work of the committee. GOL members decided to continue trying to fill the position, but to leave it vacant if no candidates were found soon. In actuality, the Charter Review Committee is just beginning its review of the charter after spending its first year deciding how to obtain feedback and holding outreach sessions.
After being contacted by Devlin Gauthier on July 22 about the vacancy and submitting an application, Sarro told the Indy that she was informed by Mills on July 28 that the council had decided not to fill the position. This was news to Charter Committee chair Julian Hynes. It turns out that before they reached out to earlier applicants and consulted with Hynes, Mills was approached by several councilors, including Griesemer, and told that the position would be left vacant.
Hynes and Sarro raised objections with Mills, who then apologized saying, “I had old information and was unaware that the council had decided to fill the position.” She told Sarro that the council would be in touch to schedule an interview.
Why is there so much dishonesty and behind-the-scenes maneuvering about filling one of nine positions on the committee? Are some on the committee and the council afraid of what a new member could bring to the discussion? Is the committee so divided that some are worrying about what recommendations might be made? These shady dealings raise doubt as to how seriously suggestions from the public and minority-opinion committee members will be taken. Those trying to control the process are part of the status quo. Are they afraid of new opinions upsetting the consolidation of power that currently exists in town government?
The committee expects to submit its final report to the council in January 2026. According to the 2018 Home Rule Charter, the charter must be reviewed every 10 years in years ending in 4. The next review will be in 2034.
Residents who want to weigh in with suggested changes to the charter can still submit comments here.
Who has the final authority to accept or decline changes to the Town Charter that are collected, developed and recommended by the Charter Committee? Do voters have the power to vote on recommendations? Or does the Town Council have the final say?
In the immortal words of Claude Rains, “I’m shocked! Shocked!”
This report is the best evidence why we need Charter reform and why this committee is not going to give it to us. According to the Charter, the Town Council has the final say on any recommendations coming to it from this committee.
And, in the immortal words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
When I first heard the Amherst slogan “where only the H is silent” I assumed that the powers-that-be were listening to all that input. However much that was true back then, it clearly doesn’t matter as much now. You can see it clearly in how many suggested changes to the charter are about increasing transparency and fair process. When I hear national leaders saying to run for local office, I have 2 thoughts: (1) yes, that’s important, because every successful autocrat started out on a local board or council, so train them young in civics, and (2) autocracy is subtle, starting with maneuvers one can see and feel on a local level. The fresh blood who might run for office and be future stewards and honest brokers are too discouraged by mishegas to enter that fray, and so the fraying continues. Our town leaders need to be much more squeaky clean, to serve as examples of democracy for current and future generations. I would not count Amherst government as a good example of transparent and customer-driven. Especially in our current national and global chaos, a little local fairness would be amazing.