Councilors Move Toward Adopting Small Tweaks To Town Charter

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, February 23, 2026, Part 2

This meeting was held exclusively over Zoom due to the blizzard and was recorded.

Read Part 1 here. 

In the fourth and final hour of its February 23 Zoom-based meeting, Town Council completed the discussion of the Charter Review Committee’s recommendations begun at its February 9 Work Session.Councilor Cathy Shoen (District 1) had left the meeting by that time but all other councilors were present. Marcus Smith, a member of the Charter Review Committee, was also present, as was Athena O’Keeffe, Clerk of the Council. A document entitled Council Meeting Discussion Items, provided in the meeting packet, contains both proposed changes from the Charter Review Committee and further modifications suggested by Council President Mandi Jo Hanneke, following a review by the town’s attorney KP Law (pages 1 – 5). It also contains the tally of councilors in support of or opposed to each of the recommendations that were considered at the Work Session (pages 6 – 10). 

As she had done duringthe Work Session, Hanneke sought feedback on each recommendation using straw polling by a show of hands rather than by roll call vote. Because polls are not binding votes, neither the preferences of each councilor nor the totals for or against each recommendation were recorded in the town’s minutes of this meeting. Councilors were not required to indicate their preferences and therefore some polls did not have 12 responses.

Public Forums
Three of the recommendations pertained to sections of the charter addressing Public Forums. Section 2.13 requires the president to call at least two public forums per year. The Charter Review Committee recommended that the forums be “designed to facilitate two-way communication” and that the public be given at least 14 days’ notice. Hanneke said KP Law proposed a further amendment that put the agenda and format in the hands of the president rather than the council, as the committee had proposed. She added that these changes could be included in the Rules of Procedure rather than the Charter, allowing for greater flexibility. The results of the straw poll were Churchill, Brevik, Cano-Martin, Walker, Ryan, Lord, Taub, Devlin Gauthier, MacLeod supporting changes to the Charter; and Hanneke, Rooney, and Griesemer supporting changes to the Rules of Procedure instead.

The same changes were proposed for Section 4.2(e), requiring the School Committee to convene a Public Forum at least once a year. The results were Churchill, Taub, Brevik, Cano-Martin, Walker, Lord, and Devlin Gauthier supporting changes to the Charter; and Hanneke, Rooney, Ryan, Griesemer, and MacLeod supporting these changes in the Rules instead.

Section 1.7 defines a Public Forum as “a meeting during which more than one-half of the meeting time on the agenda is devoted to public comment.” The Charter Review Committee recommended eliminating this definition, observing that in many forums public comments did not fill the allotted period, resulting in wasted time. The results of the poll were Churchill, Devlin-Gauthier, Cano-Martin, Taub, Griesemer, Brevik, Rooney, and Ryan supporting the measure. 

Public Dialogue
The Charter Review Committee proposed a new Section 8.1:

By majority vote of the respective bodies, the Council, School Committee, and Library Trustees may hold a Public Dialogue session jointly or individually at a time and location of their choosing. At such Public Dialogues, the convening bodies and their respective management and staff, as determined by the Town Manager, School Superintendent, and/or Library Director, shall welcome all interested individuals for an informal dialogue session. Public Dialogues are meant to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly interact with elected officials and town staff. All Public Dialogue sessions shall comply with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. 

The Rules of Procedure contain identical language except that it applies only to Town Council. Churchill and Marcus Smith, both members of the Charter Review Committee, noted that this recommendation was intended to increase opportunities for public interaction and input; putting it in the Charter raises awareness and perhaps use of this provision.

Hanneke objected to it in its entirety, saying that placing it in Article 8 (Public Participation Mechanisms) makes it an outlier, since all sections of that article pertain to actions that the public can initiate; Public Dialogue must be initiated by Town Council and already exists in the rules. Cano-Martin asked if it could be amended so that it could be initiated by residents, but Hanneke countered that then it would be the same as the existing Section 8.1 where an open meeting can be called if requested by the signatures of at least 200 adult town residents. In response to a question from Taub, Griesemer said that Town Council has held one open meeting of its own accord concerning the supportive housing development at 132 Northampton Road, and that it was very productive. Brevik asked if the two provisions–Public Dialogue and Open Meeting–could be combined and renamed Public Dialogue.. Devlin Gauthier asked whether this should be referred to GOL to refine the wording, and Hanneke said that she would address the need for referrals after all of the recommendations had been discussed. Hanneke called for a show of hands to support amending 8.1 to incorporate some of the language of Public Dialogue. Cano-Martin opposed; all other Councilors supported it.

Public Comment at Meetings
Section 2.6(d)(ii) requires Town Council to have a public comment period at all of its regular meetings. The Charter Review Committee recommended two changes: (1) that the requirement be extended to regular meetings of all committees of Town Council and (2) that additional public comment periods can be provided for any agenda item at any regular meeting. Hanneke recommended eliminating the latter provision because it already exists in the Rules of Procedure. Taub, MacLeod, Cano-Martin, Devlin Gauthier, Walker, Brevik, and Churchill supported the recommendation. Hanneke, Griesemer, Rooney, and Ryan supported the first provision but not the second.

District Meetings and At-Large Attendance
The Charter Review Committee recommended two amendments: (1) increasing the number of District meetings per year from 2 to 3; and (2) requiring At-Large Councilors to attend at least one District meeting over their two-year term. Hanneke, an At-Large Councilor, objected to the latter, saying that District Councilors would have to consult with At-Large Councilors before scheduling meetings to avoid scheduling conflicts. 

Devlin Gauthier said that it should be up to At-Large Councilors to attend a District meeting or to hold their own. Ryan said that this requirement could not be enforced and Devlin Gauthier reflected that this is a broader issue about how to ensure that Charter provisions are followed. Churchill agreed there are no “Charter police” but these provisions set expectations. Smith said that meetings encourage community engagement. At the call of the straw poll, all 12 Councilors supported the recommendation.

Voting on Bylaws
Section 2.10(a) addresses how proposed bylaws may be acted upon. The Charter Review Committee recommended making clear that no bylaw may be passed at the same meeting in which it is first introduced unless it is an emergency measure. This reinforces existing language requiring that a proposed bylaw must be read at two separate meetings. All 12 Councilors were in support of the recommendation.

Resident Participation in Town Council Committees
The Charter Review Committee recommended amending Section 2.6(e) to state that all Town Council standing and ad hoc committees “may include members of the public, who shall have a voice but no vote in the committees’ deliberations.”  Hanneke pointed out that this contains some technical variations from an existing Rule of Procedure. The straw poll resulted in Rooney, Cano-Martin, Brevik, MacLeod, Walker, and Taub supporting the change to the Charter; MacLeod (sic), Churchill, Griesemer, and Devlin Gauthier supporting it in the Rules of Procedure; and Ryan opposed.

Resident Members of the Finance Committee
Section 5.5 establishes the Finance Committee and includes a sentence stating that the committee “may include members of the public who shall have a voice but no vote…”. The Charter Review Committee recommends changing the “may” to “shall.” Hanneke offered another option that would eliminate the clause giving resident members a voice but no vote. Devlin Gauthier was concerned that making this mandatory could cause the committee to be out of compliance with the Charter, since it is sometimes difficult to recruit suitable candidates. The straw poll had multiple options: supporting the change from “may” to “shall” in the Charter were Churchill, Cano-Martin, Walker, Taub, Devlin-Gauthier, and Rooney. Supporting the change but placing it in the Rules of Procedure instead of the Charter were Griesemer, MacLeod, and Ryan. Cano-Martin supported the removal of the “voice but no vote” clause; and Hanneke was opposed to the recommendation.

Multiple Member Bodies
Section 1.7 includes a definition of Multiple Member Bodies. The Charter Review Committee recommended adding a sentence that explicitly removes fromthe definition the Resident Advisory Committee or any committee formed by the Town Manager to provide advice within the scope of the Town Manager’s functions. KP Law suggested a clarification that this sentence refer only to those functions that are within the Town Manager’s “sole authority.”  Hanneke, Ryan, Churchill, Griesemer, MacLeod, Brevik, Rooney, Walker, Devlin-Gauthier, and Cano-Martin supported the recommendation. None were opposed.

Posting Vacancies 
Section 6.2 requires posting any municipal vacancy or employment opportunity on the town bulletin board for at least 14 days before it can be filled. The Charter Review Committee recommended eliminating this section. All 12 Councilors supported the recommendation.

Next Steps
Hanneke intends to bring forward a single motion at the next meeting on March 9 covering all recommended changes to the Charter, similar to the proposal in her January 9 Proposed Plan of Action. The motion will identify next steps for each recommendation, such as referral to GOL, KP Law, the Town Manager, the Finance Committee, etc. McLeod understood the need for efficiency but was concerned that some discussion would be lost. Hanneke said the discussion would happen after receiving the results of the referrals, adding that counselors could propose shifting some issues from one category to another. She stressed that the motion would be introduced and discussed on March 9 but no vote would be taken until the next meeting on March 23.