Opinion: An Elected Mayor?

Many friends and colleagues who share my dislike of our current Home Rule Charter and the governance that emanates from it believe that an elected mayor should replace our current appointed town manager.  I am not so sure and would like to explain why in the hopes that those friends and colleagues will show me both why I am mistaken and why my proposed suggestion is inadequate or inappropriate. 

While I fully endorse the theory of electoral politics, I am most often discouraged by the practice of it.  Our Constitution did not originally believe in democracy and while subsequent amendments have appeared to remedy this defect they have only partially done so.  As we all know, the great 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are currently under attack. Reconstruction failed and gave birth to the Jim Crow South.  While we now have direct election of senators, and women can finally vote, the electoral college is still entrenched, and the drawing of Congressional districts is in the hands of partisan politicians.

In Amherst, town elections are dubiously representative because so many eligible voters don’t vote.  The last Charter Commission promised us more competitive elections and larger voter turnout, but neither has happened in the six years since the Council-Manager form of governance replaced the Representative Town Meeting/Select Board/Town Manager form that had been in place since 1938.

Also locally, we have an “overlay” on our politics.  Just as in zoning, an overlay changes the character of land by contradicting without removing the existing permissions and restrictions of the zoning bylaw, so too in local politics the existence of a Political Action Committee (Amherst Forward) changes the character of local elections by injecting money and anonymity into the process without changing the underlying assumptions of openness and equality. 

Since 2019 this has been adjudicated as the exercise of free speech and is perfectly legal. Amherst Forward is not obligated to reveal either the sources or the destinations of its political contributions, nor does it feel the need to engage in public discussion of the political agendas to which its supported candidates assure it of their allegiance.

So why would a mayor elected under these conditions be preferable to an appointed town manager?  I can’t see a reasonable response to this question.  I can, however, see reason to ask “who should appoint an appointed town manager?”  Right now, the Town Council appoints the town manager, and this is in violation of good government – the separation of powers and checks and balances.  Instead, I have been floating the idea of an elected Board of Appointments, which would take all governance appointments (including town manager) out of the hands of the Town Council and town manager.  Under this arrangement, ballots for town elections would contain two slates, one for Town Council and one for Board of Appointments.  All appointed positions would be filled by the Board of Appointments which would have no direct voice in the setting of policy, or enactment of legislation.  The town manager would appoint and supervise town staff. would make recommendations to the Town Council but would not be beholden to it.

There have been good elected mayors in our country’s history, some rascals, and many “bosses.”  I think we would find that political patronage is stronger with elected mayors than with appointed managers.  I would like to hear from advocates why I should want this.

Michael Greenebaum was Principal of Mark’s Meadow School from 1970 to 1991, and from 1974 taught Organization Studies in the Higher Education Center at the UMass School of Education.  He served in Town Meeting from 1992, was on the first Charter Commission in 1993, and served on several town committees including the Town Commercial Relations Committee and the Long Range Planning Committee.