Council Passes Gaza Ceasefire Resolution at Tumultuous Meeting

Steinberg’s Amendments Blaming Hamas Rejected

Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, March 4, 2024

This meeting took place in hybrid format at the Amherst Regional Middle School Auditorium to accommodate the several hundred members of the public in attendance. Eighty-eight more attended on Zoom. The meeting was recorded and can be viewed here. 

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

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

After almost three hours of public comments and another two hours of council deliberation, which included several proposed amendments, the withdrawal of the co-sponsors’ support, a reconsideration of two amendments, and a re-vote on the original motion, the Resolution in Support of a Ceasefire in Gaza was passed by a vote of 9-3-1. The resolution was co-sponsored by three Amherst Town Councilors and 760 Amherst residents, and was endorsed by 60 local community organizations and businesses.

At the start of the meeting, Council President Lynn Griesemer announced that there would be two hours devoted to public comments, and all who wanted to speak would have to sign up (if present in person) or raise their hands (if on Zoom) prior to the start of the comment period. Over 50 people in the room and 20 on Zoom signed up to give comments. 

Majority of Public Comments Support the Ceasefire Resolution
Of the 80 people who spoke, 67 supported the resolution. All but eight were Amherst residents. Many identified as Jewish or Palestinian. Several speakers had lived in Israel or Palestine or had relatives in Israel or Palestine. Four of the 13 people speaking against the resolution were not Amherst residents. All 13 identified as Jewish.  A sampling of the public comment can be found in a separate article.

The main arguments offered by supporters and opponents of the resolution are summarized below.

In Support of The Resolution

• Too much death and suffering. 
• All solutions begin with a ceasefire.
• Death and destruction and the resulting famine are being enabled with US weaponry and US dollars.
• Mass killing of children is unconscionable.
• Collective punishment including the mass displacement and imposed famine are war crimes.
• Palestinian lives matter.
• Genocide and killing are not Jewish values.
• Council had already passed a resolution condemning the Hamas attack on Octobeer 7, mourning the victims, and expressing solidarity with Amherst residents who had lost friends and family in the attack. It is now time to acknowledge that loss and suffering of Amherst residents with ties to Palestine.
• Local children are traumatized by the news coming out of Palestine.
• This is no time to be silent.
• Broad support for resolution from local Jewish and Palestinian communites.

In Opposition to the Resolution

• Some opposed calling for a ceasefire at all while others objected to language that did not explicitly name Hamas as the cause of the ongoing hostilities.
• Resolution is unfair to Israel.
• Resolution will not have any impact on ongoing hostilities.
• Hamas is to blame for the hostilities.
• Hamas’ goal is to wipe out the Jewish people.
• Resolution is antisemitic.
• Israel was attacked and has a right to defend itself.
• Resolution does not address how to break the cycles of violence and help establish a longterm peace.
• Hamas does not accept Israel’s right to exist.
• Giving advice on foreign affairs is none of the council’s business.

Council Discussion
Here is a summary of the two hours of council deliberation that followed public comment.

The intent of the original resolution was nearly subverted when a motion was passed 8-5, with two added amendments saying that Hamas is partly responsible for the deaths of civilians in Gaza due to  hiding military targets among civilians and continuing to fire rockets into Israel. These additions caused the three councilor sponsors to withdraw their support, arguing that the language of the resolution had been carefully chosen to avoid blame, recrimination, and identifying causes of or solutions to the ongoing conflict.  The aim of the resolution, they said, was to call for an end to the bombing, an end to the siege of Gaza, a release of all hostages, and a release of all humanitarian aid that was being blockaded at the border. Councilor sponsor Pat DeAngelis (District 2) further explained, forcefully, that a core aim of the resolution is to show solidarity with Palestinian people everywhere, especially in Amherst, and that each of these proposed amendments would undermine that goal.

The council then voted to reconsider their previous vote to adopt the Hamas amendments, and the original resolution eventually passed by a vote 9-3-1, with councilors Andy Steinberg (at large), George Ryan (District 3), and Freke Ette (District 1) voting no, and Jennifer Taub abstaining.

Before the council began its discussion of the ceasefire resolution, Griesemer announced that the three councilor sponsors, Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Ellisha Walker and Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) came to her with amendments, primarily to update the data presented in the resolution. She noted that the three councilors do not constitute a quorum of any committee, so there was no violation of the open meeting law (OML) when they met to make these amendments to their proposal.

DeAngelis then introduced their amendments to the resolution, which mostly updated the figures for the number of sponsors and the current death toll in Gaza. She said, “This resolution was created collaboratively with members of Amherst4Ceasefire, and the amendments were also collaboratively reviewed and accepted. We bring this resolution forward at the request of over 750 resident sponsors, along with 60 business and organizational sponsors. We also bring it with a heavy heart, because there is pain and division in our community. But most importantly we bring it with the clear conviction that this is not the time for silence.”

After the sponsor’s amendments were presented, Hanneke gave a statement in support of them. She said, “The Amherst Town Council has always stood strongly in support of human rights. Each December, the council passes the Human Rights Day Proclamation with its dedication to the fundamental proposition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ‘each one of us, everywhere and at all times, is entitled to the full range of human rights and that it is every person’s responsibility to uphold them.’ The universal human rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of person and the right to standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care. The Town Council has regularly adopted measures reinforcing our support for these rights without concern that we were acting on matters beyond our jurisdiction.

“Two years ago this month, the council adopted a resolution supporting Ukraine in condemning Russia for the horrific loss of life, suffering, devastation, and catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Five months ago, the council adopted a resolution in wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel, which supported equal measures of justice and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians. We grieved with the Israeli people and their loved ones, who have been savagely murdered or are being held hostage and expressed unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and its appalling acts of terrorism.

“This resolution recognizes the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza, calls for a ceasefire, and seeks adherence to international laws. We believe the town council and community continues to stand against injustice, which includes supporting unobstructed humanitarian aid, condemning the killing of civilians, urging the release of hostages and detainees, and ensuring that the U.S. government upholds its laws. We also request that you give the over 760 resident sponsors the courtesy of an up or down vote tonight.” Hanneke added that, because of the care and extensive public input that went into crafting the resolution, the sponsors preferred that any amendments be made as separate resolutions, so as not to change the intent of the statement.

Steinberg and Ryan Object to Voting at This Meeting
Councilor Andy Steinberg objected vociferously to the process. He stated, “I totally and completely want to express my respect for the work of the many people who’ve contributed to this, but I must say that once a resolution has been placed before the council, the council has a right to amend it.” He threatened to postpone the vote, invoking his right to postpone further discussion and subsequent vote until the next scheduled meeting under a provision of the charter that allows any councilor to stop discussion and delay a vote until the next scheduled meeting (also popularly known as the nuclear option). But he failed to do so before Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5) called the question, which required an immediate vote to end debate and which, if successful, would require an immediate vote on the resolution. But the motion to end debate was defeated 2-10-1, with only Cathy Schoen (District 1) and Devlin Gauthier voting in favor and Hala Lord (District 3) abstaining. The debate then continued.

Steinberg had more to say. He continued, “I am very much in support of having a resolution, but I think it needs to be the right resolution, and it needs to belong to the council. Unfortunately, we are operating under Open Meeting Law , so the council has all its debates in a public setting, but we have not had any discussion. Hundreds of people have been able to talk about this with the three sponsors, and the remaining members of the council have not been given the opportunity to see what was going to be proposed until tonight.” (Editor’s note: a draft resolution had been posted in the indy and on the amherst4ceaserfire Google Docs page since February 10. While it is true that a few technical changes proposed by the sponsors had not been available to the entire council until right before this meeting, the bulk of the resolution that was under consideration has been available to councilors for weeks.) “ I find the process to be very troubling, because several of us have been thinking about this and realizing that there are some amendments that we believe not only address the purpose of the resolution but make it stronger by working through statements made through public comment in favor of [the resolution] and by people who’ve had reservations. I think rushing this for tonight is actually contrary to the whole process, so I’m very concerned.”

Ryan concurred. He stated, “I have no desire to vote this evening, but if this gets pushed through the way it’s going, I will vote No.”  He acknowledged the “very real pain” of those in the community who feel they’ve been marginalized and said that the council should “recognize the terrible loss of life that continues even to this day. That is a measure I could support wholeheartedly. But this measure at the moment is not that measure.” 

Councilor Pam Rooney (District 4) also expressed misgivings about not being able to “tweak the resolution.”

These arguments were countered by Devlin Gauthier who said, “One of the key things this town has taught all of us is that humanity is to be valued. We value it with our actions, advocacy, and words, and for this particular body, we value it with our votes. There is so much humanity wrapped up in this resolution, and I want to share my gratitude to those who have shared your humanity with us. If we postpone this vote, we will have more amendments, because the numbers will have to be updated again.”

Walker pointed out that a version of the resolution has been available for several weeks (see editor’s note above). She then stated, “I firmly believe that as an elected representative, it is our moral obligation to speak out against injustice wherever it occurs. The ongoing violence in Gaza affects all of us, regardless of our geographic distance.”

Steinberg was not satisfied and maintained, “I am still having problems with this entire process as being so out of line with any process we’ve ever had on any other consideration of an action, because there have been significant amendments that we did not have in advance. I understand the desire to have a vote now, but I think that you are violating the OML by demanding that we consider a motion without having an opportunity for due consideration and deliberation, which is what the charter expects that this council do. This process of now forcing an action is just totally out of bounds. I think that I would probably have grounds for complaint to the Attorney General about this.”

Steinberg Offers Poison Pill Amendments
After complaining that he didn’t have time to study the latest amendments to the resolution, Steinberg said, “The problem is that I had a series of amendments that I had prepared for the original motion that I thought would strengthen the original [resolution] by making sure it was factually correct, and that it was going to have the ability to get the entire council together, and I think the entire community together to be in support. “ However, he added “There’s an atmosphere here that is very uncomfortable for me.”

He then proposed amending the original resolution by adding two statements:

Whereas Hamas positioned its military assets in Gaza such that many Gaza residents are in harm’s way, and

Whereas fighting continues on both sides with Hamas firing rockets into Israel, Israel attacking Hamas, and noncombatant citizens of Gaza and Israel displaced from their homes, injured, and killed.

He explained that he felt that there needs to be recognition that the war in Gaza “requires the joint action of both the Palestinians and the Israelis acting in a totally outrageous way.” He said his amendment “calls on both the Palestinians through Hamas, and particularly Hamas, because I think there are many innocent Palestinians who have been injured by the outrageous actions of Hamas and the Israelis.”

The two amendments were approved with an 8-5 vote with Walker, DeAngelis, Hanneke, Devlin Gauthier, and Lord voting no.

That vote led DeAngelis to move to remove the names of the three councilor sponsors and 760 community sponsors from the resolution. She stated, “This is no longer our resolution.” She then shared a statement she received from an unamed constituent. “My hope is that the council will vote on the resolution as written, without stripping it of its parts that acknowledge Palestinian civilians are equally deserving of protection under international law, and these rights can never be conditional. I ask you to pass this resolution without stripping it of its basic, important acknowledgment of our grief and humanity.” DeAngelis then added “We have just failed to recognize that humanity. We have tried to place blame instead of listening to the voices and honoring the lives of Palestinian people. I am ashamed of us.”

Supporters of the resolution in the audience clearly agreed shouting “Shame, Shame” prior to being quieted by Griesemer. 

Rooney said she did not understand why the two added points were objectionable. She asserted that they did not diminish the fact that the town of Amherst endorses a ceasefire. She added, “I find it hard to believe that every person that endorses this resolution cannot accept those changes.” Taub also maintained that the original resolution’s central calls – for a permanent ceasefire, release of hostages, and delivery of aid to Gaza were not altered or diminished.

Walker explained why she wanted her name to be removed as a sponsor. She said, “I have met with a lot of residents from this town, some of them being Palestinian residents, and my goal is to uplift and center the Palestinian residents of Amherst. We are unwilling to make amendments like this, because there is no justification (offered in the original resolution) for what is happening. And so trying to add sentences that sort of hint at a justification for the loss of life that is happening in Gaza does not center the Palestinian residents in Amherst who are losing family members and loved ones. This is belittling and silencing their voices. We have already approved a resolution that states some of the things we are now adding to this resolution. It is unnecessary.”

Council’s Quandary and Revote
Schoen pointed out that, with no sponsors, there was no resolution to vote on. Council Clerk Athena O’Keeffe agreed, noting that the charter states that resolutions must have a councilor sponsor. 

Rooney said, “I do not want to see this resolution turn to dust. I think it’s so close. I would be happy to be a sponsor, but the reactions in the audience suggest that something is worse than nothing. Maybe we don’t have a resolution then.” 

The council then voted  unanimously  to remove the sponsors’ names from the resolution  This produced further outcry from the audience and Griesemer announced that the meeting was adjourned.

However, the meeting did not end.

Ryan then offered to sponsor the amended resolution, but the noise from the audience led Griesemer to call a recess. When the council returned, Schoen stated that if she had understood that the sponsors would not accept any changes to the resolution, she probably would not have voted for Steinberg’s suggested amendments. She noted that the impact of the resolution with its 760 resident sponsors is “much more powerful than 13 councilors. I’m not saying the council doesn’t matter,” she said. I appreciated the changes and I thought they were good ones, so I did not perceive that there would be this result.” She then moved to reconsider the vote on Steinberg’s amendments. Rooney seconded the motion.

Ryan objected strongly to the whole process. Addressing the audience, he said, “It violates everything that this council stands for in terms of how it does its business. There’s a constant back and forth, constant interruption, a constant involvement in our business. It’s not proper. And so we are being bullied and harassed into these actions, and I personally resent that deeply. The fact that I cannot make my own informed judgment in good conscience apparently, is beyond the comprehension of most of you. And so you are constantly undermining that democracy by your refusal to let us do our business. The fact that we don’t always do what you like is not our problem. You don’t have any sense of shame. You’re so full of your own self-righteousness that you will tell us what to do. But you are not the only citizens of Amherst. You are just one small portion thereof.”

He continued to his fellow councilors, “The idea of reconsidering a vote we just held because we’re being harassed and bullied is simply not acceptable.” Steinberg agreed, saying, “ I feel like I haven’t been heard.”

Devlin Gauthier noted that the sponsors were under no obligation to keep their names on something they don’t agree with, and despite Ryan’s and Steinberg’s objections, the vote to reconsider the vote on the amendments passed with only Ryan voting no.

It then became clear that the sponsors would not support any resolution containing either of Steinberg’s additions, and the motion to keep them was defeated by a vote of 5-8 (Ryan, Steinberg, Taub, Ette, and Rooney voting for retaining them). The original resolution with the sponsors names added back was then passed by a vote of 9-3-1. Taub abstained, and Ryan, Steinberg, and Ette voted no. During both votes, Griesemer passed on her turn to vote, waiting until all other councilors had voted before adding her vote to the winning side “reluctantly.”

Ryan and DeAngelis justified their votes with passionate speeches. Ryan said, prior to the vote, “I would urge my colleagues to maintain their fortitude. This needs to be a more balanced resolution. We represent everyone in Amherst, not just the people in this room, so I hope you will vote to keep these two [amendments].” 

DeAngelis replied, “We cannot be balanced on this issue. We need to stop blaming -listen to the people who are being destroyed and who Netanyahu has said are animals and he would not rest until they were destroyed. Hamas sickens me because of how it uses Palestinian people for its own power, but Netanyahu is doing the same thing. What are we balancing—human lives?”

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

.