Charter Committee Begins Review of Town Financial Policies

Report on the Meeting of the Charter Review Committee, June 26, 2025

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Meg Gage, Erika Mijlin, Raphael Rogers, Marcus Smith, Andy Churchill, Ken LeBlond. Absent: Bernie Kubiak

Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Town Council and staff liaison to the committee)

Guest: Patricia Lloyd, Edward J.Collins Jr. Center for Public Management

There were no public comments.

Outreach Subcommittee
Erika Mijlin reported that she, Raphael Rogers, Andy Churchill, and Julian Hynes attended the first listening session on June 18 at the Bangs Center where there was a small turnout but an  interesting discussion. Churchill will prepare a summary of the comments received. The next listening session is scheduled for Monday, June 30. 

Mijlin also reported that she had handed out fliers at the Farmer’s Market and at the Amherst Pride event promoting the public listening sessions and the committee’s website. She asked other committee members to distribute fliers or staff a table at the market. Meg Gage will send information to several neighborhood lists. Committee chair Julian Hynes requested better coverage on the town social media outlets but Mijlin reminded him that control of those sites rests with the town. She also mentioned that the Daily Hampshire Gazette had an article on the listening session. The committee would welcome coverage in the Gazette, the Amherst Indy, and the Amherst Current.

Gage, Churchill, Hynes, Ken LeBlond, and Marcus Smith will attend the next listening session on June 30. Athena O’Keeffe advised that as long as the committee members do not discuss matters among themselves, the Open Meeting Law would not be violated. Rogers reminded the committee that the purpose is to hear from the public and not for discussion among the committee members. 

Feedback Subcommittee 
LeBlond summarized his review of charter review final reports from several towns that varied widely in format and content. He displayed a portion of the Framingham final report  formatted on a table that listed Article and Section; the recommended change; and the reason for the change. It did not contain any narrative or discussion of differences of opinions, and it was not clear whether the recommendations were the result of consensus, majority vote or the opinion of a single person. Smith suggested that a notation system could be developed to identify the source of each proposed change—what comes from internal discussions, what is a recurring theme in public comments. Churchill added that the final report could also include the text of the Charter, showing tracked changes.

LeBlond also referenced two other towns’ reports. Cambridge included  an appendix of over 30 pages containing every public comment it had received. Churchill suggested this information could be made available on the committee’s website. LeBlond further reported that some towns included the results of surveys of key stakeholders (councilors, committee members, and other town leaders), usually using a question-and-answer format, They noted that some charter review committees were active for three to four years.  

The subcommittee members favored the Framingham format because it was straightforward and easily digestible by the public. They also suggested that the final report include a section detailing all outreach efforts, as Somerville did in its Community Engagement Summary, in order to “show off” the committee’s efforts. 

Review of Article 5, Financial Policies
Before beginning the review, Patricia Lloyd, consultant from the Edward J Collins Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston, noted that, although some elements are prescribed by state law, generally the Charter is intended to be flexible, not prescriptive. She urged the committee to talk with the Town Manager, Town Council, and Finance Committee members before recommending changes. She described a sample operating budget calendar that begins with a review by department heads in December moving towards adoption by June 25. 

The Charter establishes a Budget Coordinating Group (BCG) consisting of the Town Manager and representatives from Town Council, School Committee, Regional School Committee, Library Trustees, and others that Town Council and the Town Manager deem necessary. The BCG coordinates the budget process, establishing guidelines and the calendar that includes deadlines designated in the Charter, ending with the Town Council adopting a budget no later than June 30. This process raised several questions and comments.

Role of the Budget Coordinating Group
Hynes noted the frequency of financial shortfalls and questioned whether the BCG should consider this when establishing guidelines and priorities. Lloyd said that it would be difficult to predict shortfalls but it is reasonable to incorporate forecasting and priority-setting.

Hynes questioned whether the BCG can legally set budgetary limits on the Regional School Committee’s budget. Lloyd referred to a March 2025 guidance paper from the state on regional school budgets. The Regional School Committee’s budget is outside of the town’s budget, but they are related. She encouraged the committee to discuss the role of the BCG with the Town Manager.

Public Forum
The Charter stipulates that a public forum must be held no later than March 1 in which the Town Manager and Town Council present their goals and priorities to the public. Churchill said the committee has received public comments, especially from school advocates, that by March, a lot of decisions have been made and there is not an opportunity for the public to have meaningful input. They question whether the purpose of the forum is to get public input or rather to offer the proposed budget as a fait accompli. Lloyd suggested the committee consider adding an additional, earlier public meeting to the budget calendar. Mijlin asked if it is possible to bring more definition and shape to the requirements of the forum but Lloyd cautioned that a forum must comply with legal requirements as well as established Town Council rules.

Budget Submissions
Budgets from the Library Trustees, School Committee, and Regional School Committee must be submitted to the Town Manager by April 1. The Town Manager then must submit a proposed budget to Town Council by May 1 that includes his recommendations for all municipal, school, and library components. Hynes proposed that the departmental budgets that comprise the municipal budget should also be available on April 1. Lloyd said that the Town Manager would have knowledge of those budget components before May 1 and suggested that he be consulted to learn how this process occurs in practice.

Hynes raised a question about how the Regional School Committee budget was handled. He referred to a state law, G.L.c. 71 section 34, that he interpreted as requiring that budget to go directly to Town Council as the authorizing authority, but it appears that the budget instead goes to the Town Manager and Finance Committee before going to Town Council. Lloyd suggested referring this matter to the town’s legal counsel, but did not believe it was necessarily a violation for Town Council to seek input from the Town Manager and the Finance Committee before reaching its decision. Smith believed that because the Finance Committee is a member body of Town Council its role fits into letter of the law, and further, since the Town Manager is required to submit a proposed budget that includes consideration of the Regional School assessment, he is entitled to receive the budget. O’Keeffe said the Regional School Committee budget and assessment first goes to Town Council before being referred to the Finance Committee. 

Resident Members of the Finance Committee
The majority of the Finance Committee are town councilors who have the right to vote on all measures. The Charter permits including appointed members of the public who have a voice in the discussion but no vote. Two issues were discussed: first, should the resident members have a vote, and second, should they be elected rather than appointed? Churchill said there were several public comments that proposed giving resident members the power to vote. Hynes advocated for the positions to be elected. Gage said it was an interesting discussion as to whether certain leadership positions needed a specific level of expertise or should be filled by popular vote. Smith commented on the difficulty of getting enough people to run for Town Council. Churchill recalled that this provision was included after careful consideration of the options and he continues to believe the current design is appropriate.

Capital Inventory and Capital Improvement
The Charter contains requirements for deadlines and a public forum for these categories, similar to the operating budget. Hynes noted that capital inventories he has reviewed lack the level of detail that the Charter requires, such as listing mileage and maintenance and repair history of vehicles. He asked what recourse is available if Charter provisions are not followed. Lloyd said that adherence could be addressed by Town Council when they set the Town Manager’s goals and expectations. There are only a handful of towns that include enforcement provisions. She suggested asking Town Council whether this level of detail is necessary. 

Hynes then asked whether this section should include reference to how unexpended funds allocated for capital improvements are managed and reported. Lloyd suggested consulting the Town Manager. Churchill said the Joint Capital Planning Committee has a prioritized list so perhaps unexpended funds could be reallocated. O’Keeffe said that it is usually a matter of not having to borrow, rather than having unexpended cash on hand.

Additional Comments
Hynes proposed that the Charter require a level of detail in the operating budget that is similar to the detail required in the capital budget. O’Keeffe said there is an “open checkbook” on the town website that includes expenses, and salaries are also posted. Hynes said Northampton’s Charter requires that the budget be detailed but Smith said his reading of Northampton’s Charter requires explanations only to explain variations in the budget. 

The Charter requires that town finances are subject to an independent audit. Churchill said one public comment suggested that in addition, the town seek periodic performance audits to ensure that the town is getting value for money.

Regarding future agenda items, Rogers asked that at the next meeting, committee members consider how they will collectively analyze input from all sources before considering how it should be reported. Gage agreed and emphasized the importance of listening to public comments. Lloyd verified that the Collins Center will continue to provide annotated articles of the charter to facilitate the committee’s discussions even though a representative will not be attending future meetings. She urged that the committee work towards consensus on all matters.