Charter Committee Reviews Elected Offices and the Role of Town Manager
Photo: Blue Diamond Gallery
Report on the Meeting of the Charter Review Committee, June 5, 2025
Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Andy Churchill, Bernie Kubiak, Raphael Rogers, Ken LeBlond, Meg Gage, Erika Mijlin. Absent: Marcus Smith. Guests: Patricia Lloyd and Anthony Wilson from the Collins Center.
Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Town Council and Committee Liaison)
The meeting was held on Zoom and was recorded. There were no public comments.
Outreach Subcommittee Report
The dates and locations of the long-planned public listening sessions have been finalized.These listening sessions (see also here and here) will be another opportunity for public input into the charter review process. The sessions will be held on the following dates:
June 18, Bangs Center, 7 p.m.
June 30, Bangs Center, 7 p.m.
July 9, Virtual session on Zoom, 7 p.m.
July 23, Bangs Center, 7 p.m.
Erica Mijlin reported that Samantha Giffen, Town Communications Manager, will assist in publicizing the events on printed circulars, the town website, and a separate dedicated website containing all supporting materials. Mijlin asked the committee for help in developing some FAQs that would explain the committee’s work, its purpose, its schedule, and other pertinent information. She reported that she is assisting in the distribution of the survey to present to former Town Councilors and selected committees and employees, with a return date of no later than July 31.
Meg Gage reported that she and Andy Churchill have begun working on a budget to meet outreach expenses. They and Julian Hynes will be meeting with Giffen to refine the numbers before submitting a request to the Town Manager.
Feedback Subcommittee
Churchill reported that the subcommittee is organizing comments that have been submitted to the committee by Article and Section. Then with input on organizational strategies from the committee’s consultant, the Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston, and from the town’s lawyers, KP Law, it will identify recommendations that can be implemented by Town Council and those that require a Special Act by the state legislature. Bernie Kubiak added that they are looking at all public comments on an ongoing basis; the subcommittee will be consulting the Collins Center for strategies for sorting comments.
Patricia Lloyd and Anthony Wilson from the Collins Center, walked the committee through a review of the next two articles of the Charter (see here for the committee’s review of Articles I and II and here for a discussion of the consultants’ role), stressing that this is a preliminary review and that the committee will delve more deeply into all the articles in future meetings.
Review of Article 3. Executive Branch
This article addresses the appointment, qualifications, powers, and duties of the Town Manager. Lloyd noted that it includes a residency requirement that Town Council can waive. Kubiak objected to the requirement because it could dissuade candidates but Raphael Rogers, Julian Hynes, and Gage disagreed, believing that proximity to town was important and that the ability to waive the requirement provided sufficient flexibility to take all circumstances into consideration.
Hynes also questioned the lack of guidelines for the Town Manager’s compensation. Wilson will research whether compensation guidelines should be included in the Charter. The Town Manager also is required to communicate regularly with the public, a strategy intended to foster transparency. Lloyd felt it was unusual and she encouraged the committee to seek the Town Manager’s input on whether he has found the requirement challenging (i,e. difficult to meet) or whether he feels that the Charter doesn’t make the requirement clear enough.
The Town Manager has the power to appoint both department heads and members of multiple-member bodies. Wilson noted that under the Charter, the Town Manager has absorbed all the functions of the Executive Branch, whereas these functions would have been shared with the Select Board under the Town Meeting form of government. With respect to the Town Manager’s ability to make appointments to multiple-member bodies, Rogers and Gage both noted that the committee has already received many comments asking for transparency in the process, specifically that the names of applicants be made public, subject to the applicant’s desire for privacy.
Churchill noted that a Resident Advisory Committee assists in interviewing candidates for multiple-member bodies. Gage, a member, said their function is to listen and ask a few standard questions. Kubiak wondered if the process is too lengthy and should be revised to make it easier to apply and be selected. Gage said that the Town Manager’s time constraints often delay the process.
Lloyd directed attention to the position of Community Participation Officer. Hynes commented that the current officer is the Town Manager’s assistant, who actively reaches out to the community. Rogers said some communities grant broader duties, such as dealing with citizens’ complaints. Mijlin is looking forward to public comments to gauge the community’s perception of this role.
Lloyd commented that the requirement for the Town Manager to have an annual review was a single sentence. Kubiak noted that the Town Council has a detailed process that includes setting measurable goals. It may not be necessary to amend the Charter to include a more detailed description of the process.
Article 4. Other Elected Officers
This article identifies the town bodies and officers other than Town Council, that are filled by election: the Housing Authority, Library Trustees, School Committee, and Oliver Smith Will Elector. The committee recognized the need to seek input from the people who are currently serving and who previously served in these capacities. When a vacancy occurs, Town Council appoints the replacement. Churchill noted that when the School Committee had three vacancies, eleven candidates declared interest. He went on to comment that he prefers a smaller Town Council. Kubiak also commented that there can be a more robust response to seeking appointment to a vacancy rather than running for office. This may not be function of the competition or the requirements of the Charter, but the difficulties of running for office. If there was a desire to make these positions (e.g. School Committee or Library Trustee) appointed rather than elected, the town would have to seek a Special Act of the State Legislature.
School Committee members are elected for two years, a term that Hynes believes is too short. Lloyd said that as discussed at the last meeting, it is difficult to hold elections for a three-year term in the fall because the state does not allow local elections held on even-numbered years when state and federal elections are held. In response to Mijlin’s question, Lloyd agreed to research whether the length of term for a school committee member is controlled by state law. Mijlin also noted that nothing prohibits multiple terms. If the terms were four years, they could be staggered. All such changes may require a legislative Special Act.
Elections for Library Trustees tend not to be competitive, and Hynes questioned if the number of tustees should be reduced. Lloyd said that any reduction in the number of trustees could require a legislative Special Act. Lloyd noted that this legislative process could take time and advised that if the town were to seek one, the request should be narrowly drawn to maximize the possibility of a timely and favorable outcome.
Lloyd noted that under the Charter form of government, a Housing Authority is usually appointed, not elected. She will research this further. Hynes stressed the importance of having a tenant member.
In response to a question from Gage, Lloyd confirmed that if the town wanted to change its elections to March it must seek a Special Act.
Rogers expressed his hope that the public knows that this review process is happening and that comments are welcomed.
As a former 11 year Deputy Mayor (1987 to 1991) and Village Councilor (1983 -1991, 2009-2010) from a town in Westchester County, New York I would like to support the comment above about reducing the size of the Council from 13. Note as follows: (1) 13 members is without precedent across Westchester’s 44 municipalities or across New York State or Connecticut. (2) This larger size just weakens the voice of any one councilor and that weakens the success of so many issues as well. (3) So many members lengthen meetings. 13 members is simply too large. My town councilor experience was “at large” or representing an entire town with 8,000 residents and a board of 5 councilors. Amherst has much smaller districts so asking one member to serve each district should not be a huge challenge. Campaigning door to door is much easier! Councilors should be assigned to important projects if only as a liaison role because this gives the public added transparency and responsiveness. In 1985 I worked with the Irvington NY DPW to start a 6 item curbside recycling program that was one of the first in New York State. By the 1990’s Westchester County built a MRF and recruited participation from all of its 44 towns and villages. Recycling rates in Westchester are now over 60%. Where is Amherst on this issue? Waste hauler reform has been unrealized for years. Councilors should be assigned to specific issues such as the DPW , Fire Station and Senior Center Projects. The longer it takes to complete these projects the more they will cost taxpayers. Millions of dollars more. And so the total picture is of a large 13 member council with key issues not succeeding when that talent could help advance the research, planning, financing and advocacy that these issues deserve. One final thought is that some will say councilors should not be engaged in these issues but yet we see our Council comment, opine and vote on all sorts of operational and administrative issues. One evening it was reported that many councilors commented about the positioning of sidewalk infrastructure for a new public building. Do we need to see the Forest for the Trees?
Reducing Council membership to five is a bad idea given there are no checks nor balances in our Charter. All political power now rests in a sharply divided board representing a sharply divided town. As a citizen I feel powerless on issues that affect me on a daily basis. Town Meeting is the ultimate democratic government where all sides of issues a fully explored openly and in depth. I don’t see either negotiations nor compromises emanating from our current form of government. A five-member board would be an Animal Farm.
I agree with Hilda that under the current charter a smaller Town Council is a bad idea. But under a charter with separate and independent powers and genuine checks and balances a smaller Town Council with term limits, and no standing committees might be a distinct advantage. As I have mentioned elsewhere an Appointments Board to assume the powers of appointing residents to the Planning and Zoning Boards and all the other vital committees in town would permit the Town Manager to appoint and oversee Town Hall departments and administrators and would permit the Town Council to assume its legitimate legislative duties. Our current charter is a mess by design because town leaders, bruised by disapproving votes in Town Meeting, felt that the way to avoid that was to concentrate powers in a few like-minded hands, and the consultants whom they chose to advise them in writing a new Charter were happy to oblige them.
An independent Planning Board and a professional Planning Department in Town Hall do not need a standing committees of Town Council to duplicate or oversee their work. We can expect such a Planning Board to vet proposals from the Planning Department and to prepare them for discussion and action by the Town Council which may decide, by vote to approve, deny or return for revision such proposals. Thus councilors would be relieved of the responsibilities of serving on duplicative standing committees,
I would also recommend an independent Finance Committee appointed by the Appointments Board for the same reason. The current spectacle of the Town Council essentially making recommendations to itself is embarrasing, inefficient and provides only the illusion of democracy.
Of course, if this idea were ever considered the question would be how an Appointments Board is chosen. I would think the town could consider such a board to be elected since it would have tremendous powers. Could that happen by amending the current Home Rule Charter? I don’t know. But I think that something like this would be worth petitioning the voters to establish a new Charter Commission to accomplish.
These are valuable comments that the Charter Review Committee should hear and consider. I am sure others have thoughts that are relevant to many of the issues that come up when thinking about our current form of government. I urge everyone to submit comments, either at one of the open sessions listed above (the first one is coming up soon – June 18 at the Bangs Center in the Large Activity Room) or on the feedback form at https://www.amherstma.gov/FormCenter/Town-Council-33/2024-Charter-Review-Committee-Feedback-215