Council Discusses 9 of 22 Proposed Changes to the Town Charter

Report on the Work Session of the Amherst Town Council, February 9, 2026

This meeting was held in person, was accessible via Zoom, and was recorded.

Present
The Town Council’s Work Session was attended by all thirteen Town Councilors; Mandi Jo Hanneke (President, at large), Jill Brevik and Cathy Schoen (District 1), Amber Cano-Martin and Lynn Griesemer (District 2), Hala Lord and George Ryan (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), Ana Devlin Gauthier and Sam MacLeod (District 5), and Andy Churchill and Ellisha Walker (at large). Also attending were Town Manager Paul Bockelman, Town Clerk Athena O’Keeffe, and Laura Goldberg from KP Law. Several members of the Charter Review Committee also attended: Julian Hynes (Chair), Marcus Smith, Meg Gage, Erika Mijlin, and Bernie Kubiak. Andy Churchill, now a councilor at-large, also served on the Charter Review Committee.

The work session was called to consider the recommendations and related material in the Charter Review Committee’s Final Report. The work session did not include any formal votes, but Council President Mandi Jo Hanneke held a nonbinding poll on each recommendation discussed.  

The Final Report includes a section titled “Beyond the Charter” that summarizes comments heard repeatedly from the public that the Town Council is unable to act on and that would require either a special legislative act or an elected Charter Commission, such as recommendations for replacing the Town Manager with an elected Mayor or reverting to a representative Town Meeting. It also included other significant comments, such as a request for a fully staffed team of community participation officers. Prior to the meeting, Hanneke sought councilors’ input on several of these topics and summarized them in a memo that included proposed referrals to various committees.

The Charter Review Committee offered 22 specific recommendations, summarized on pages 5 and 6 of the Final Report, and further explained in a chart that describes the recommendations, the original language, and the committee’s rationale (pages 7 through 16). However, instead of referencing the original Final Report, the discussion centered on a version Hanneke presented that incorporated her additional, mostly technical, modifications to some of the recommendations. This version is not publicly available.

For this work session, Hanneke selected nine recommendations that in her judgment, would generate the most discussion and addressed them in that order. She did not announce if/when the other 13 recommendations would be discussed. A public comment period halfway through the meeting yielded only two comments. Meg Gage discussed how the Charter Review Committee approached its work. Anita Sarro spoke in support of two recommendations, modifying the right to postpone and incorporating public dialogue into the Charter.

Article 5, sections 5.3 and 5.4(a), the Budget Process Timeline and Public Forums
Section 5.3 requires the town to hold a public forum on the proposed budget, and Section 5.4(a) requires the Library and School budgets to be submitted by April 1. Recommendations would modify 5.3 to add a second public forum earlier in the process and add the municipal budget to the April 1 deadline in 5.4(a). These recommendations were made in response to public input that pressed for earlier, more complete information and opportunities to provide timely comments on the budgets. The municipal budget was added to 5.4 to bring it into parity with the other two budgets. The Town Manager said it would not be possible to have the municipal budget available on April 1. The library and elementary school budgets must be received by the Town Manager by April 1 so that they can be incorporated into the municipal budget and presented to the Town Council by May 1. The Regional Budget must be approved sometime in April so it can be passed along to the other three towns in the region in time for their spring Town Meetings. Attorney Goldberg noted that some towns do not specify dates but instead describe a process and leave timelines to be developed through rules or policies. Bernie Kubiak suggested including the ability to waive any specific dates. Lynn Griesemer urged that the Finance Committee be consulted before the council acts on the measure.

The nonbinding poll showed five councilors supporting both measures, 6 preferring to define the process in policy or rules rather than the Charter, 1 opposed,  and 1 unsure.

Article 2, New Section 3.2, Town Manager Responsible for Communication
This recommendation would add to the Town Manager’s responsibilities the obligation to develop a comprehensive strategy for communicating with residents, using all available media channels. Councilor Cathy Schoen (District 1) felt that this obligation already exists in the Charter, and any need for improvement could be added to the Town Manager’s goals. Hanneke questioned how the requirement to use “all available media avenues” could be fulfilled. Councilor Jennifer Taub (District 4) noted that the website, the portal for all official town information, could be made more user-friendly and kept up-to-date. Schoen agreed, noting that accessing information often requires knowing which committee oversees the matter. Gage said this recommendation was intended to make clear that the town was open to all forms of communication, and Erika Mijlin added that, although communication could be addressed elsewhere, putting it in the Charter elevates its priority. Councilor Amber Cano-Martin (District 2) noted that communication encompasses not only the diversity of media channels but also communication with diverse communities. Councilor Pam Rooney (District 4) felt that section 2..2(v) covered the requirement adequately except for the specific requirements of use of diverse media and communication with diverse communities. Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5) was in favor of language that was “the more general, the better” in order to avoid inadvertent Charter violations. The nonbinding poll resulted in 12 supporting the concept but all were concerned about the specific language.

Article 2, section 2.6(d)(v) Concerning Hybrid and Fully Remote Meetings
This recommendation would add new requirements for meetings. requiring that the chair of any municipal committee meeting announce the number of participants, and requiring that anyone speaking remotely have the option to be visible on the broadcast.

Attorney Goldberg advised that the state Open Meeting Law requires only that the public have access to a town-sanctioned meeting but does not require public participation. Granting the right to speak and be seen requires vigilance, and committees will need training. The town must decide what level of risk it wants to take on. Marcus Smith said that the committee based this recommendation on public input. Griesemer, however, considered this recommendation indefensible; it should not matter who is in the audience, noting that it is impossible to determine who is watching on television or through YouTube. In her view, the current system provides some protection. Councilor George Ryan (District 3) believes something with this level of specificity belongs in a policy document rather than the Charter. Rooney agreed it did not belong in the Charter but supported the intent. Devlin Gauthier was concerned about the implications of permitting visuals; the prohibition against hate speech is so narrow that harmful things can be and have been displayed. She believes participation in public comment periods is sufficient. MacLeod reminded councilors that they already accept the risk of being exposed to harmful visuals from in-person attendees but added that while reporting the number of participants is not burdensome, it may not belong in the Charter.Taub felt it is informative to know the number of participants and reminded everyone that some committees, including the Planning Board, do this routinely. Mijlin asked councilors to consider the widely expressed public opinion that town government is opaque; she added that reporting the number of participants, even if it fluctuates, is a fact about the meeting. 

The nonbinding poll showed that all but one councilor (Hanneke) supported announcing the number of participants, but the majority were opposed to showing visuals, even with an opt-out process. There was strong support for making any changes through policy rather than as a Charter amendment.

Article 2, section 2(a), Term Limits for Town Council Officers
This recommendation would limit the President and Vice President to a maximum of four consecutive one-year terms. It was offered to accommodate different leadership styles and encourage more diverse participation. Attorney Goldberg advised that partial terms should not be counted if term limits were applied. Cano-Martin supported the recommendation but suggested the limit be set at three years instead of four. Councilor Jillian Brevik (District 1) supported the three-year limitation, adding that there should be a three-year waiting period before the individual was again eligible. Devlin Gauthier agreed with the three-year limit but would impose only a one-year waiting period. Ryan objected to any limitation, saying it is up to the councilors to decide their own leadership and the decision should not be taken out of their hands. Schoen also opposed any limits, citing the value of institutional knowledge. Cano-Martin reminded councilors that while it is important to trust elected officials, they are exercising not only their own judgment, but are also representing the community. The nonbinding poll showed a clear majority in favor of term limits of some duration for officers.

Article 2, New Section 2.9(c), Town Council Hiring Own Attorney
This recommendation would permit the Town Council to hire its own legal counsel to give them the ability to obtain a second opinion. Attorney Goldberg reminded councilors that KP Law is the attorney for the town, not the Town Manager, and renders opinions based on how the law applies to the facts. She said it was unusual to have two separate attorneys, and differing opinions could create an unusual imbalance. Cano-Martin thought it was good to have the option to seek a second opinion, even though it would be used rarely. Schoen and Ryan did not support the recommendation due to cost concerns. Bockelman was concerned about the effect of having conflicting opinions. Brevik and MacLeod needed more information. The nonbinding poll showed the majority opposed the recommendation.

Article 8, Section 8.4, Extend Voter Veto Signature Period from 14 days to 21 Days
Schoen supported the recommendation, noting that this provision is rarely used. Hanneke pointed out that extending the time would conflict with other provisions, such as the 14-day period for a bylaw to take effect. She said bringing this type of referendum should be “difficult but not impossible.” Gage and Churchill, both members of the Charter Review Committee as well as the original Charter Commission, could not recall the reason for the 14-day requirement; Gage strongly favored the change, Churchill did not. Nine councilors were in favor of the extension, two opposed, and two were unsure.

Articles 1 Section 1.7 Definition of Measure and Article 2 Section 2.10(a) Number of Votes Needed to Pass Various Measures
The recommendation sought clarification of the definition of “measure” to make it uniform and inclusive of actions of Town Council. Likewise, there is a lack of clarity regarding the voting requirements for actions: some measures require a “majority of those present,” while others refer to “present and voting” or “majority of the full council.” Hanneke noted that if a measure requires a majority of those present and voting, an abstention is equivalent to a no vote; she added that councilors should vote yes or no on every measure. Schoen advocated for making measures effective by majority vote, except for those requiring a supermajority. Ellisha Walker proposed taking more time to consider various options and to look at it more holistically. All councilors voted to support unifying the definition of measure; nine supported voting measures to be based on those present; there was consensus that these two related issues should be simplified to the extent possible.

Article 2, Section 2.10(c), Right to Postpone
The Right to Postpone allows a councilor to halt discussion of a topic and defer it to the next meeting. The recommendation would increase the number required to three councilors. Ryan acknowledged that this right can be frustrating, but suggested that pausing momentum can be useful. Councilor Hala Lord (District 3) disagreed, saying that when it has been used in the past, it has caused harm. Brevik noted that the provision does not require the user to give a reason before shutting down discussion; councilors have a responsibility to do the homework and come prepared to vote she said, and advocated for the right to be exercised only if there is a majority voting in favor. She concluded that its use should be difficult but not impossible. Schoen said that the ability to postpone by majority vote already exists, and this section is the “torpedo.” Hanneke recalled that she had invoked the right before. Cano-Martin, Churchill, and Taub spoke in support of the change and MacLeod suggested an increase to requiring support from four concilors. Ultimately, 11 supported the recommendation; Ryan opposed, and Hanneke was unsure.

Article 2, Section 2.3(a) Allow Non-Management Town Staff to Serve on Town Council
KP Law addressed this recommendation extensively in its memorandum, noting that while it would not require a special legislative act, it could raise conflict-of-interest issues. Five Councilors supported the recommendation, three opposed, and seven remained unsure.

Legal Pathways to Finalization
The rest of the meeting was devoted to Attorney Goldberg outlining the legal processes for the final adoption of changes to the Charter. None of the 22 recommendations were those she defined as “major,” requiring a specific special act or an elected Charter Commission. Massachusetts law provides two options for finalizing the changes that the Town Council accepts: either a legislative act approves all changes, or the matter is presented to the voters at the next municipal election in 2027. It is unlikely that the Secretary of State would approve placing the matter before voters alongside the statewide election this year. Griesemer commented that when there is an option to put a matter to voters, failing to do so opens the Town Council to criticism. Hanneke reminded councilors that final votes must be taken on all proposed changes by the end of March, and that she intends to incorporate these votes into each upcoming meeting.