Opinion: An Elected Mayor for Amherst?

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. Recently, Raymond La Raja, a professor of political science at UMass, has advocated this in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

I do not agree. While I fully endorse the theory of electoral politics, I am often discouraged by its practice. Our Constitution did not originally embrace democracy, and while subsequent amendments have appeared to remedy this defect, they have done so only partially. 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 eight 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. In zoning, an overlay changes the character of land use by contradicting, rather than removing, the existing permissions and restrictions of the zoning bylaw. 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 democracy. Since 2010, this has been recognized as an exercise of free speech; it 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, which violates good government principles: the separation of powers and checks and balances. Instead, I have proposed an elected Board of Appointments to take all governance appointments (including the Town Manager) out of the hands of the Town Council and the Town Manager. Under this arrangement, ballots for town elections would contain two slates, one for the Town Council and one for the 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. Neither the Town Council nor the Town Manager would have a voice in appointing the members of the many Boards and Committees, including the Finance Committee and the Planning Board.

A case might be made for exempting from the purview of a Board of Appointments the School Committees, the Library Trustees, and the other positions that have traditionally appeared on town election ballots, but my inclination at the moment is to include them among those appointed by an elected Board of Appointments. Such a board would have great power but would relinquish that power to elected and appointed officials once they have been sworn in. The board would have no voice in policy, land-use, or budget matters. All the powers currently exercised by appointed bodies will continue to be exercised by them, except the powers of appointment. Thus, the influence of political action committees and the potential for patronage would be greatly reduced, and a significant separation of powers would be restored in Amherst.

Neither Mr. La Raja’s idea of an elected mayor nor my idea of a Board of Appointments could occur without the approval of the voters through the long process of charter reform with which Amherst is now familiar: voters agreeing to establish a Charter Commission and electing its members, and then voting to approve or disapprove the charter it proposes. The Charter Review Committee, appointed by the Council President once every ten years, was apparently intended to provide a limited opportunity to improve the Charter by vote of the Town Council. This process, now in its final stages (the council must now vote on the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee) has been a disappointment, since the gaping flaws in the Charter were barely addressed by the committee.

Between now and 2034, the Charter allows not even this feeble process, so the establishment of a Charter Commission is the only remedy available to the town. In theory, I would love to see the town engaged in this process; however, Amherst today is very different from how it was in 1993, when I was elected to the Charter Commission, or even ten years ago, when voters accepted the Home Rule Charter crafted by the latest Charter Commission. I am not sure that either Mr. La Raja’s idea of an elected mayor or my idea of a Board of Appointments would get much purchase among Amherst voters, whose expectations of town governance seem to be pick up the trash, plough the snow, and fix the potholes. Separation of powers does not seem to be on that list. If elections in Amherst worked well, I could see the point of an elected mayor who is responsible to the voters, not the Town Council. But as we have seen throughout our national history, the separation of powers is precarious, sloppy, and slow. That’s because it is democratic. Right now, the United States and, indeed, much of the world, appear to be re-evaluating their commitment to democracy. An elected mayor might offer one approach to enhancing democracy in Amherst; a Board of Appointments might offer another. Is enhanced democracy what we want? 

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