Opinion: Charter Review Committee Retreat Exemplifies Bad Government
Photo: Sierra Club
I didn’t attend the Charter Review Committee retreat on September 6 at the North Amherst Library, but I have seen the results and they aren’t pretty. I actually can’t imagine a less democratic, less transparent, or less thoughtful process for decision-making. The purpose of the retreat was to narrow the list of about 200 suggestions for revisions to the charter that the committee received from the public. The committee voted on those suggestions with little to no deliberation on each. Those that were voted down, many of which had substantial public support, will not likely receive any further consideration by the committee as it prepares its recommendations for the Town Council.
Background
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 (e.g. see here and here) to get public feedback to inform its recommendations for revisions to the charter that might improve the efficacy of local government, but to date, has had almost no discussion of problems with the charter or of things that might not be working well.
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 Aprill 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 and offered substantive recommendations for how government could be improved.
Democracy and Transparency Absent at Charter Review Retreat
Attending the retreat were Charter Review Committee Chair Julian Hynes, and members Raphael Rogers, Erika Mijlin, Bernie Kubiak, Meg Gage, Andy Churchill, Ken LeBlond, and Markus Smith. (No ninth member has been appointed (see also here) to fill the vacancy on the review committee created in January when Dan Muscat resigned.)
See the table of the votes taken and ranks given to suggested charter amendments on September 6 and completed on September 11. (1= high priority; 2=medium priority; 3= low priority; A=abstain; F=flagged topic. Tentatively, five members needed to rank an item 1 or 2 for the item to be moved forward.)
To see which of the 16 recommendations made by the League of Women Voters of Amherst and the 50 recommendations made by a group of 43 residents writing in the Amherst Indy were supported by the Charter Review Committee, take a look at this color coded chart of the votes (compiled by me) of the votes taken by the Charter Review Committee. Some votes are in flux if there were abstentions or if items were “flagged”, but overall, most proposed amendments that promote public participation or limit the powers of the council or town manager were blocked from further consideration. The addition of a ninth member to the committee might have influenced a large number of the items that had four votes against, which was enough to disqualify it from consideration.
I cannot report on exactly who voted for what because, at the moment, no such record has been released.
The all-day charter retreat took place in-person, and not virtually, and no recording of the meeting has been made available to the public. The Feedback Subcommittee provided the table of about 200 proposed amendments to the Charter Review committee one business day before the retreat, with little chance for them to review it before voting on the items.
The taking of official votes during a day-long retreat was arguably a violation of Open Meeting Law, based on its lack of transparency and accessibility to the general public. Retreats are not conventionally used for making final decisions, but instead are a place for discussion. This has been the practice of the Town Council in all of their retreats. Though topics are discussed, and sometimes straw votes are taken to get the sense of the room, no final votes are taken. At this retreat though, votes that were taken were deemed official.
The chart of proposed amendments used during the meeting was not placed in the meeting packet. Nor is there a packet posted for the retreat at all. And there are no minutes posted for the retreat (or for any meeting of the Charter Review committee at all), though most minutes have been approved. There is no evidence of the minutes of the outreach sessions held by the Charter Review Committee in any packet or on the website, and no recordings of three of the four sessions. Public comments submitted to the committee since June on the committee’s comment link were not available in the packet or on the website nor were any comments from current or former councilors, except those of Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke.
Last but definitely not least egregious, is the fact that the votes of members were not recorded with their names. At the Charter Review meeting on September 18, members balked at Chair Julian Hyne’s suggestion to record their names with their votes, seemingly unaware that a record of all votes taken is required of all public bodies under Open Meeting Law.
Not Democratic
The formation of a “feedback subcommittee” of the Charter Review Committee a few months back was in effect a mini-coup, enabling a group of council allies to take control of the substance of the committee away from the Chair, Julian Hynes. The feedback subcommittee is composed entirely of close allies of the Council President or Town Manager: Andy Churchill, former Chair of the Charter Commission and current at-large candidate for Town Council, member of the editorial board of the Amherst Current; Ken LeBlond, colleague of Council President Lynn Griesemer and Amherst Forward PAC organizer; Bernie Kubiak, close ally of the Town Manager, former resident member of the Finance Committee, hiring committee member for Town Finance Director, member Transportation Advisory Committee, hand picked by Manager to update the town’s bylaws, and former town manager of several towns; Marcus Smith, close ally of Amherst Forward PAC leadership. This group of four could not be more biased in support of the status quo and the goals of the Amherst Forward endorsed council majority. The fact that the Charter Review Committee was stacked by the council with these strong council allies and that it is unlikely to appoint anyone to fill the existing vacancy who is not an ally is, not just undemocratic but Trumpian.
It is arguable that Churchill should step down from the committee based on being a candidate for town council. He should absolutely not be involved in writing the committee reports considering his close relationship with the council president.
The full committee worked from proposed amendments provided by the feedback subcommittee and listed according to charter articles, that were otherwise not organized in any way. The list of proposed amendments didn’t indicate how much support each one received from the public, whether they were supported by the League of Women Voters (whose mission is good government in Amherst) or any other group submitting comments. Each proposed amendment was counted as one recommendation, and the 199 public comments included on the League of Women Voters survey (see also here) were not considered at all (as recommended by the Feedback Subcommittee).
The strong bias of the Feedback Subcommittee came through at the September 11 post-retreat meeting to vote on articles 6-11, when members’ voices were recorded in voting.
Not a Thoughtful Process
The members voted on each proposed amendment at the retreat as high, medium or low priority for inclusion in the report to the Town Council, without any discussion of the criteria they were using to make those decisions. There was lack of clarity on why members abstained on votes and why they “flagged” items, on whether a majority of five was needed to move itmes forward or simply a majority of those voting. There was no separate category for proposals that members supported but thought were more appropriately taken up in the Council Rules than in the Charter. Often those items were just voted down with no notation about why.
Though rationales existed on the committee’s own website for many of the proposed amendments, those rationales were not included in the chart, nor provided for discussion, since the feedback committee stated they didn’t have time to include them. The League of Women Voters background materials included all of their rationales but they were not referenced.
Many of the proposed amendments, especially ones suggesting something new be added to the Charter, had never been discussed before by the committee and most had not been discussed in any depth, since the committee has only had one fairly cursory run through of the entire Charter.
Stay tuned to find out who voted for what, if that turns out to be possible.
These partisan and anti-democratic proceedings will only support the demise of democracy in Amherst. With pro-democracy amendments discarded without deliberation, we are sure to see a government that is even less transparent, less accessible, and less accountable than what we have now. The committee is required to hold a public hearing on its recommendations. There is still opportunity for the public to show up and express their outrage at this corrupt process.
Darcy Dumont is a former Amherst Town Councilor from District 5.
DarcyDumont’s commentary is depressing but not surprising. I would use the cliché “the fix is in” except the fix has never been out. I feel badly for Chair Julian Hynes, who has valiantly but futilely tried to institute democratic practices but has been rather like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Those in power in town government know that their power is based upon the deeply flawed Home Rule Charter and there is no reason to expect them to either recommend or approve substantive improvements that threaten that power. (I say “recommend or approve” because, as with the Town Council under the Charter, the same people recommend and then approve those recommendations.)
The monied and propertied interests that currently control town governance may have good reason to think that Amherst voters don’t care much about principles of good government. In Amherst, as in the United States and, indeed, much of the world, “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” can be found mostly in civics textbooks and sometimes in constitutions but rarely in practice. We will discover on November 4th what Amherst voters think about good government.
I agree with Mike. The refrain is so familiar: citizen committees don’t listen, don’t try to hear what we say! Complaints from the solar bylaw committee made up of local experts indicate that they spent many meetings composing fully documented proposals totally ignored by Town Hall! And now The Public Art Commission received a proposal three years ago that was funded by the Cultural Committee and no action. Lies have become publicly acceptable, compromise impossible, action only on what the same 7 of 13 desire. . . . .
Thanks, Darcy, for this troubling account of the charter review process that appears bent on protecting the status quo.
You are right about the Open Meeting Law violations. Committee members should review MGL c. 30A, §22(a):
“A public body shall create and maintain accurate minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions, setting forth the date, time and place, the members present or absent, a summary of the discussions on each subject, a list of documents and other exhibits used at the meeting, the decisions made and the actions taken at each meeting, including the record of all votes.”
Why the secrecy?
Kudos to the League of Women Voters for at least trying to conduct a fair and transparent public review of our broken local government.
Darcy, we’ve never met. Yet you claim to know my intentions. You are misinformed and don’t research before you write or you are a purveyor of disinformation about me. How Trumpian, in either case.
An Amherst Forward organizer? Wrong. I’ve donated to them. It’s been while as you likely know but you failed to share that tidbit because it doesn’t fit your lightly researched narrative.
A *former* colleague of Lynn Griesemer’s? Yes, and? You also seem to infer that I might a friend of the town manager. No. I have had three conversations with him in my life. They all had to do with the Amherst Trivia Bee when I co-ran it for three years. In fact, Darcy, put together a team and compete against mine at next Bee to raise money for the Amherst Education foundation.
The feedback committee is made up of the only four people who volunteered for it, in addition of their volunteer responsibilities to the larger committee. Since I wasn’t a member of the only other charter review subcommittee, I volunteered to share an equal load. Guess you should’ve watched that recorded meeting. That’s your prerogative but please consider doing your work before slinging your barbs. Otherwise, you just add to the online incivility that we all read about each day. You also seem to a player in it.
Julian has a tough job and I admire his effort. We don’t all agree with each other or with him. We aren’t expected to.
Ken LeBlond
Ken,
It’s admirable that you contribute so much to Amherst. Glad to speak with you anytime.
I didn’t imply you had a connection to the Manager. I just know you didn’t mention the Donahue Institute in your application for the Charter Review Committee. How many years did you and Lynn Griesemer work together? And your application for the Charter Review Committee states, “I actively volunteered for three recent town-level campaigns for either ballot measures or town-wide candidates.” They were all Amherst Forward or Amherst Forward endorsed campaigns, were they not? Matt Holloway’s campaign was and you were in his inner circle.
Are you alleging that any one of the four of Kubiak, Churchill, LeBlond and Smith are not
very strongly aligned with Amherst Forward.? We are not stupid.
I did notice that you all voted against amending the Charter to limit Lynn Griesemer’s term as President of the Council. I guess she is President for life.
A while back Marcus Smith also tried to claim he’s a neutral party, when he is married to a member of the Amherst Forward leadership team and has been a strong supporter of Amherst Forward.
The 4 “feedback sub committee” members did not volunteer for the outreach sub committee in early days because they were savvy enough to wait for the creation of a sub committee that would deal with the substance of the Charter Review Committee’s charge. That was obviously planned and intentional.
The huge number of questionable circumstances surrounding the process followed before and during your Charter Review deliberations leave me and others no choice but to assume bad (meaning unfair, undemocratic, untransparent, unparticipatory, minimizing, delaying, etc.) intentions.
There is no reason why there should not be some representation of the Amherst Forward PAC’s opinions on the Charter Review Committee but it should not dominate the committee, as it does now. Why on earth are Lynn Griesemer and others so afraid of what would happen if we had a fair and representative Charter Review Process?
Let us not lose sight of what is essential here, that is, that the public has, in assorted forums, indicated its strong disappointment with the way Amherst government is working (or more accurately, not working) under the existing charter. They have voiced a strong desire for improvements to the charter that would make government more accessible, more transparent, and that would increase opportunities for meaningful citizen participation. So it is distressing to learn that decisions were made at the retreat that will remove from further consideration suggested amendments addressing that which is of greatest concern to the public and further, that these votes to remove from consideration were not recorded – apparently in violation of open meeting law and in spite of an appeal to do so by the committee chair. The public has recognized several ways in which our govenment is ineffective if not broken. Their concern will only grow as the Charter Review Committee seems unconcerned about appearing to be overseeing a corrupt process.
I remember when this website claimed to not allow personal attacks in its comments or posts. Yes, Marcus and I are married. We have two very active kids, two full time careers, and no local family – we barely see each other most days. I would also hope that this publication is not inferring that a husband and wife must have the same political affiliations, options, and interests. Let’s also remind readers that’s Amherst has no political parties and everyone is, in fact, independent. I have never met Ken or Bernie, and have never had a 1 on 1 meeting with Andy. However, Darcy you and I served together on ECAC and had several 1 on 1 meetings during that time, and Julian and I had a long 1 on 1 meeting during the last election cycle. By the logic of these accusations are you both “closely connected to Amherst forward leadership?” Can you see how if this was played out further, no one should talk to each other in public or work in the same place for fear of being accused of being “aligned” with some made up political factions? Isn’t talking with each other and knowing each other outside of politics exactly how we work forward on complex issues?
If we can step back from personal accusations for a moment, I urge everyone to reread Darcy’s piece, focus on the facts that she accurately summarizes, and consider whether the retreat – and by extension the entire process beginning with the Town Council’s restrictive charge to the committee and throughout the review to date – fostered the qualities of transparency and democracy that we look for in our town government. Ignoring 200 comments submitted to the League or 50 comments received by the Indy is inconsistent with a democracy that values varied and even conflicting input. Failing to fill a committee seat that lay vacant since January and eliminating the potential to hear another point of view also undercuts a democratic process. When important documents such as the feedback subcommittee’s table are not posted prior to the meeting where they will be discussed and voted upon, transparency is undermined. And how can a “retreat” at which votes are taken without identifying individual voters, recording the event, or promptly posting official minutes be considered a transparent process.
As Darcy points out, there will be opportunities for input, but will they be enough to affect the outcome given the committee’s activities to date? I have my doubts, because the type of flaws that the retreat demonstrated are not isolated to one committee. The retreat is an example of the defects in a government system that allows the few to dominate over the many. We are at a critical point in Amherst politics with a critical election looming. If we truly share the values of democracy and transparency, we have to ask whether our current form of government and the people implementing it are capable of upholding those values. And if not, then it is time to enter into a deeper conversation than the tightly-controlled Charter Review Committee process allows.
Anita Sarro is a retired attorney and has reported on Charter Review Committee meetings for the Indy.