Opinion: This Is The Moment When We Can Bring Equity To Our Town

I appreciate the comments I have read and heard challenging the interpretation of section 2.10(c) of the Charter, following Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke’s invocation of that section to halt debate on Monday night. But I have a more fundamental question: what was the reason for including such a rule in the first place? In what circumstance would it be useful and positive? Surely there were other tools available to Councilor Hanneke, the least of which would have been stating her reasons before invoking the rule and allowing other Councilors to express their opinion as to its validity. How can a rule that aborts a discussion possibly be used for good, especially one that can be wielded by a single individual?

The same meeting contained two other disturbing moments. First, the CSSJC member who was critical of Chief Livingstone was quickly and soundly criticized by the Chair. She did not deserve to be admonished; he did not require protection. Secondly, the Chair attempted to stop the CSSJC meeting from continuing, even threatening to expel their members from the Zoom. How quick we are to cut off discussion that does not comport with what we deem acceptable.

Rules are supposed to further process, to enhance and support discourse. They should permit diverse voices to be heard and meetings should be managed to use the rules properly. Yes, some control must be exercised to allow for balanced discussion. But when a topic so significant and so delayed is finally being discussed and important, and passionate points are being made, what good can come from abruptly cutting it off without even an explanation?

Let me be clear: while I and others can deplore what Counselor Hanneke did and her belated justification for it, while we can dispute the interpretation of the rule and the rule itself, the problem is much larger. I value greatly some of the Councilors who work to bring balance and equity to decision-making, but I also see some who have become too comfortable in their roles, displaying power and using agenda-setting and time management at the expense of good government.

Full disclosure, I voted in favor of adopting the Charter. I believed that the Town Meeting format had lost its usefulness, was unwieldy, and was dominated by a handful of voices. I believed that people of good will would be elected to work to make the town better, to improve collective decision-making, to guarantee that the door stayed wide open to true community engagement. Instead, we are left with a system that incorporates rules with the potential to obstruct, managed by individuals, including an unelected mayor, who use those rules to protect status quo and resist meaningful change. Clearly, I was naïve and I deeply regret it.

I recognize that those charged with the responsibility to govern must balance many competing needs and interests. But sadly, it appears that Amherst values dogs, trees, and a library project that is destined to be a white elephant more than it does its people. Elizabeth Warren reminds us, “show me your budget and I’ll tell you your values.” What does our way of spending and allocating money say about us?

Dr. Demetria Shabazz said at a recent CSSJC meeting, “this is the moment.” This is the moment when we can change and bring equity to our town and all its services and make it a place where everyone benefits from the choices made. But that requires an effective town structure and leadership in the Town Manager’s office and town governance truly committed to the betterment of everyone in town and not merely maintaining the façade. Do we not have all the evidence we need to conclude that the moment requires rethinking and reforming how town governance is structured and administered and taking a long and hard look at those who are entrusted with its care?

Anita Sarro is a nurse and retired healthcare attorney and longtime resident of Amherst.