What Kind of Resident Oversight Board for the Amherst Police Will Best Serve the Town?  GOL Remains Split

Report on the Meeting of the Government, Organization and Legislation Committee (GOL), September 8, 2026

Present
Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5, Chair), Amber Cano-Martin (District 2),  Lynn Griesemer (District 2), Hala Lord (District 3), George Ryan (District 3)

Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Council)

The Government, Organization and Legislation Committee (GOL) continued deliberations on a proposed Resident Oversight Board (ROB) to investigate complaints about the Amherst Police Department. The board would also field complaints about CRESS, the town’s community responder service, but the discussion focused largely on resident/police relationships. The committee was charged with recommending, by April 1, 2026, one of two ROB models: a review model in which the APD would investigate police misconduct and the resident board would review the results, and an investigative model in which the ROB would conduct its own investigations. The consulting group that advised on the draft bylaw could not agree on which model was preferable and left that decision to the town. (Read their final report here).

While all stated their desire to find common ground, the committee appeared split on the core issue of whether the committee should have any power. Would the police continue to investigate their own actions with the ROB serving in an advisory role (the review model), or would the ROB have the power to conduct or order an independent investigation of complaints? Two committee members, George Ryan and Lynn Griesemer, favored the review model and Amber Cano-Martin and Hala Lord supported the investigative model. Chair Ana-Devlin Gauthier had objections to aspects of both models and sought an alternative. The committee discussed the pros and cons of both models, exposed major differences between the two approaches, and agreed to continue the discussion at their next meeting on Sept 22.

Public Comment
Public comment was offered by Erica Piedade, Martha Hanner, Debora Ferriera, and Pat Ononibaku.  Rani Parker submitted a substantial comment in writing. Read all the comments except for Ononibaku’s here.  All addressed the two models the committee is considering.  All comments advocated adopting an investigative model, deeming independent investigation necessary to establish trust in the process and in the APD. Hanner and Parker advocated rejecting both models and instead adopting a bylaw specific to Amherst’s needs that would build mutual trust and accountability.  

Ononibaku said she was exhausted by the town’s white power structure. She stressed that Amherst’s BIPOC community has been waiting four years (since the Community Safety Working Group (CSWG) recommended the proposal and the Town Council embraced it) for this committee to be created. She charged that the delay was disempowering her community.

Choosing Between Two Models
Chair Ana Devlin Gauthier noted the committee’s lack of progress (see also here) in reaching a recommendation for the Town Council. She observed that committee members agreed with and disagreed with different parts of both models and wondered whether GOL should just send the matter back to the council rather than forcing a decision that they were unable to make. She asked committee members whether they were ready to discuss the merits of each model and whether they believed they could reach a yes-or-no vote on one model or the other. The committee had received criticism from the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee and local social justice advocates for what they perceived as GOL’s slow-walking of the proposal and for considering the town attorney’s recommendation that the town not adopt an ROB.

George Ryan objected to the charge of slow-walking, noting that the committee was charged with choosing between two very different models and was also asked to consider the town attorney’s recommendation. (Editor’s Note: The CSSJC letter argues that the committee was charged only with choosing between the two models and that consideration of whether there should be an ROB is outside their charge). He believed the committee could arrive at a recommendation and just needed time to study both proposals carefully and for members to hear each other out.

Ryan summarized his understanding of why the town needs an ROB as follows:

1. Improving community trust in APD
2. Transparency
3. Accountability–people will be held accountable for their actions
4. Desire to protect anonymity of those involved in the process, which is protected by the Boston ROB but not in Cambridge.  He noted that people now won’t submit complaints to the APD because they fear retaliation, and so some protection of anonymity is essential.

Amber Cano-Martin agreed the committee could move forward, noting that the town currently has no basis to address complaints as they come up, and that ROBs in Springfield, Boston, and Cambridge already function well and can serve as models.  She supported arriving at a recommendation and sending the matter back to the council for a vote.

A long discussion followed of how to proceed.

Lynn Griesemer suggested that the committee begin with a discussion of the October 31, 2025 memo from the town manager, with draft language for the bylaw creating the ROB, saying,  “I think that there are several things in this document that we all agree with, and maybe we should find those things first.

Clerk of Town Council Athena O’Keefe suggested that they pick one model or the other and start the discussion. Ryan then moved to recommend the review model, but the discussion that followed meandered between the pros and cons of both models rather than focusing on the points of agreement Griesemer suggested they find, and it was unclear at the end whether that motion was still on the table.

Concerns and Questions
Devlin Gauthier said that she sees both models as problematic but was especially concerned about the proposed budget for the ROB, which she thought was beyond what the town could afford, especially given recent difficulties in funding the schools, which she said ought to be a priority.

Ryan worried that an investigative model would undermine trust between the police and the community, noting that the police already find criticism coming from the community as unwarranted. Ryan envisioned a situation in which the APD’s Office of Professional Standards would investigate complaints about the APD, as it does now, and the ROB would have the opportunity to review those findings and offer feedback to the APD. The ROB’s charge would be less about impacting individual cases and more about collecting data, watching for trends, and advising the police on what was working and what was not.

Lord responded that there’s already a deficit of trust in the community with regard to the police and without independent investigations of complaints, there will be little trust in the outcomes. “What’s the point of having a ROB  if all it can do is review police investigations of themselves? That’s just performative oversight,” she said.

Devlin Gauthier, Ryan, and Griesemer worried about the legal implications of a civilian review board sitting in judgment on the police, noting that it would create friction with police unions and do little to foster police trust in the community. They argued that the ROB cannot have punitive authority – that it should not be able to prescribe or impose consequences on the police but should offer observations on how the complaint process is working and recommendations on how it can be improved. They saw the board’s role as largely advisory.

Griesemer said the town’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigated 42 complaints last year. Those complaints are adjudicated by Pamela Nolan-Young, the director of the town’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. She said the town already has a place where people can file complaints about the APD: the HRC. 

But outgoing HRC chair Rani Parker noted in an email to the Indy that neither the HRC nor the DEI office has investigatory powers and that, in any case, the DEI office is part of town government, not an independent body recommended by the CSWG.

Ryan voiced concern about how an investigative model would protect the rights of all parties involved and ensure due process for police officers.  He said that the investigative model would be intolerable for the police.  

The APD opposes creating an ROB and, early in the process, its representatives dropped out of the stakeholder consulting group that developed the recommendations now under consideration.

The committee agreed to try to seek common ground and continue the discussion at its next meeting.

Devlin Gauthier asked members to carefully review the town manager’s memo from October 2025. Griesemer asked members to carefully review the town attorney’s memo.

The GOL did not discuss an August 6, 2026 letter from the CSSJC ,which offered a rebuttal of the town attorney’s memo and arguments in support of the investigative model. And Devlin Gauthier denied the CSSJC’s request to appear before the GOL at this meeting to share their perspective on the two models.