Council Reluctantly Extends Deadline for Charter Review Committee Final Report

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, October 6, 2025 (Part 2 of 3)

This was a hybrid meeting held in Town Hall. It was recorded.

Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Andy Steinberg, Mandi Jo Hanneke, and Ellisha Walker (at large), Cathy Schoen and Freke Ette (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), George Ryan and Hala Lord (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5). Absent: Bob Hegner (District 5)

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk)

Nothing was easy at this 5-1/2-hour council meeting. Julian Hynes, chair of the Charter Review Committee, came before the council to ask for an extension of the committee’s report deadline from October 31, 2025 to January 5, 2026. After considerable debate the council approved the extension by a vote of 9-3. The committee’s request for an extension notes that “the committee has continued to work diligently to fulfill our charge, and while we have made significant progress, we believe this short extension is essential to ensure the quality and completeness of our final report.” The request mistakenly states that a preliminary report was submitted in May, and Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke called out Review Committee Chair Julian Hynes for the mistake, noting that no reports from the committee have been submitted thus far. She also stated that when the committee was given an extension to October 31, the council was assured that their work would be completed by then. By granting another extension, the council would not be able to act by the end of its current term.

Hanneke noted, “The process was intended to be completed in one council term. I do not believe it would be wise to put as the very first action of a brand new council a 90-day deadline to review a report and act. I know that budgets and finances are going to be a major issue beginning in January.” 

Andy Steinberg agreed with Hanneke, saying, “We have a whole process that is established by Mass General Law, and I’m really concerned that not having [the experience of how this form of government works] is going to be a big mistake. I really am concerned about granting an extension.”

Hynes explained that the committee is currently creating the initial report with the suggestions for changes to the charter that it has adopted as well as potential wording recommended by the Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston through Article 2 of the charter. He said the committee has been prioritizing outreach over sorting through feedback and working on the report, with some members pushing back on deadlines to enable collecting more feedback from residents. 

George Ryan agreed with Hanneke and Steinberg. “I’m kind of inclined to say no, you’ve had more than enough time, and it’s time for you to give us the report so that we can actually act on it,” he said.

Hynes replied that, if the extension was not granted, the council would receive only the initial report in the form of a list of suggestions with potential draft language and a recap of community feedback. It would not be a complete, final report.

Jennifer Taub said, “October 31 is three weeks away. I would hate to get a rushed report. [The Charter] is not really something we’ve discussed as a council very much. I’m not sure the next council would be less prepared than this council to receive the report.” 

Hala Lord also supported granting the extension. She said, “I know what I’ve heard from the committee members that it was a lot more work than they had anticipated. Maybe next time, we’ll make sure they have a budget so they can hire some people to do research and outreach.”

Hanneke continued to point out the inefficiency of the committee.  “Part of my concern about an extension is that the new council will face yet another request for an extension. It took the body approximately two and a half months from the date we appointed them to even meet. This committee spent 11 months basically only listening and not even discussing potential changes,” she said. “It just doesn’t seem like the committee has had a sense of urgency to meet the deadlines that were clear from day one.”

Council Clerk Athena O’Keeffe noted that if the council did not grant an extension, the report from the committee might not be in the form that the charter specified that it should be in and would likely need further development before the council could take final action on it. 

The most forceful support of granting the committee an extension was expressed by Ellisha Walker who said, “I feel frustrated that we won’t just simply grant them an extension. Our trouble is getting people to serve on committees. This is an extremely large time commitment. These are residents who have jobs and families and other commitments. I’m not sure every committee member was able to attend every single meeting. I understand that it might be an inconvenience to us, but I’m sure it’s been a huge inconvenience to them to have to do all of this legwork for the benefit of the town. Ultimately, it benefits our entire community to have these documents done thoroughly. I think it’s worth the wait.”

In the end Steinberg, Hanneke, and Ryan voted against granting the extension, which passed 9-3. Hynes assured the council that the committee would “absolutely be done by January 5. We will not be asking for a third extension. I can guarantee you will have a much clearer final report than if you voted to end on the 31^st of October.”

Debt Authorization for Middle School Roof Referred to Finance Committee
The council unanimously referred the debt authorization for repair of the Middle School roof to the Finance Committee. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is scheduled to vote on October 28 to approve the funds to reimburse the regional school district 61.95% of the project cost. The cost to Amherst for the new roof would be $3.4 million. Shutesbury has already voted to support its share of the project, and Pelham is having a fall town meeting on October 15. The towns in the region have 60 days after the MSBA vote to accept the reimbursement. The Regional School Committee voted unanimously to support the project. 

As submitted, the proposal does not include replacing the roof over the auditorium, which, although also leaking, is not old enough to qualify for reimbursement. Council president Lynn Griesemer suggested that the Finance Committee discuss paying for replacing the roof over the auditorium from free cash. Ryan agreed that planning to do the whole roof makes sense to take advantage of the economy of scale. 

Acceptance of the MSBA reimbursement means the building must serve educational purposes for at least 20 years. School Finance Director Shannon Bernacchia stated that, if the town planned to use it for another purpose, it should consult with the MSBA about possible financial liabilities before repurposing the building.