Indy Rewind Opinion: The Chamber of Commerce Home Rule Charter Debate

With the mandated once-every-ten-years Home Rule Charter review around the corner, and with the League of Women Voters Amherst’s own charter review series set to begin this weekend, we are resurrecting Michael Greenebaum’s early reservations about the charter that were shared at an Amherst Chamber of Commerce Debate on March 8, 2018. Greenebaum has since expanded on his concerns, based on his observations of the charter put into practice and in response to an Indy invitation to readers in November of 2022 to reflect on areas where the charter needs to be improved. Greenebaum’s responses can be found here, here, and here. Also responding were Darcy DuMont (see also here, and here, and here), and Anita Sarro, Public responses of the League of Women Voters Amherst’s initial survey on the charter can be found here.

The Indy continues to welcome reflections and comment on how the charter is working well and where it could stand to be improved.

Amherst Chamber of Commerce Debate on a Home Rule Charter, March 8, 2018
I’ve been at this a long time.  In 1993, I was elected to the first Charter Commission, so this is my 25th year of advocating for our representative town meeting.  Tonight  I am speaking especially to undecided voters, or those unclear about the issues or how this vote might affect them.  This debate is really a tale of two charters – the one we have now and the one that Amherst For All wishes to replace it with. (editor’s note: Amherst For All, the PAC that endorsed and organized for the Vote Yes campaign on the charter, morphed into the PAC Amherst Forward, after the charter was adopted)

Current Charter
Under our current charter, control is diffused throughout the system in a way that no part of government or no individuals can have unchecked control.

The Town Manager has a significant sphere of independent authority and appointing power but he/she is appointed, supervised, evaluated and if necessary dismissed by the Select Board.

The Select Board reviews, modifies, endorses and forwards the manager’s town budget and all other warrant articles to Town Meeting.

Town Meeting approves the town budget with or without amendments but it cannot change line items within it.

It almost always approves the town budget but sometimes it adds items that the Select Board chose not to include.  In recent years these have included:

• a higher level of human services support
• restoring school library aides
• opening the War Memorial pool

Town Meeting can only act on articles presented to it by the Select Board, and the Select Board has no recourse if Town Meeting disapproves a motion.  But the voters do – they can force Town Meeting to reconsider its vote.  This happened in January 2017.  Thus, the branches of town government are independent and interdependent at the same time.

Proposed Charter
The proposed Charter is confused, incoherent and lazy in these areas which are so well and even delicately balanced at present. It centers control in a single body and allows a quorum of seven councillors to act and make decisions for the town.  Sometimes this can be as few as four councillors.  But it is incoherent about how this works or what kind of body the council is.

In Section 1.3 it is a legislature

In Section 2.1 it picks up the responsibility for “policy leadership,” a clearly executive function, and so described when Amherst For All was hoping for a mayor.

By Section 2.5 the council is described as predominantly an executive body: “Except as otherwise provided by the general laws or this Charter, all powers of the Town shall be vested in the Town Council as a whole. . .”This kind of statement is called boilerplate – standard legal language when a formal act is too lazy to spell out what it means.

Right now our elected officials have staggered three-year terms.  Every year voters fill one or two positions on the Select Board, School Committee and Library Trustees, and eight or so candidates for Town Meeting members from their precinct. Under the proposed charter, we vote every two years instead of every year – 20 positions on the city ballot and who knows how many candidates?  Not only that – all positions are open every two years; every two years there can be a complete turnover of all town boards – how’s that for policy leadership? What guidance does that give the Town Manager, all of whose acts and appointments must be approved by the council?

The proposed charter suppresses democracy.  Voting is no guarantee of democracy – ask President Xi of China.  You can only vote for someone on the ballot, and who is on the ballot depends on who chooses to run, or who is chosen to run.

The smaller the body the more easily influenced or even infiltrated the ballot can be.

This charter is for a long time.  It cannot be substantively changed without another charter commission.  No mayor, no reduced council size in 2024 or any other time without a charter commission.  This is important to emphasize because at one time Amherst For All was saying that if we didn’t like the charter we could change it.  No we can’t.

This is a terribly important vote. It will impact not only how Amherst will be governed in the future but also how, if ever, Amherst can mend the serious rents in our social and political fabric.  How are we going to be able to devise and support an etiquette of controversy that will let us debate, disagree, and decide as a single, diverse community? That’s what Town Meeting does.  That’s what Town Meeting is.

Closing Remarks
Disagreement is the foundation of democracy, but it makes democracy inherently fragile, under threat from both those who don’t trust the people and those who don’t trust government.

How can democratic governance protect itself from both autocracy and populism?  There is no better answer than Representative Town Meeting.  It is ironic that the positive, optimistic vote at this coming election is NO.  A NO vote keeps a legislature that is accountable, responsive and capable of self-renewal. 

Back in the 1990’s, I was a critic of town meeting, ready to give it some tough love. There was a Town Meeting Study Committee in 1996 which proposed 28 improvements 15 of which were completely or substantially adopted.

IN 2001, Town Meeting approved the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee which has provided support to members and voters through Warrant reviews, neighborhood Warrant discussions, opportunities for voters to meet and question the candidates for Town Meeting, and an opportunity to visit sites impacted by proposed changes in the Zoning Bylaw.

In 2016, Town Meeting approved the Subcommittee on Policies and Procedures which, for the first time provided a mechanism to study modify and improve Town Meeting’s operations.

And last fall, perhaps the most important committee of all, the Town Meeting Advisory Committee, was approved.  Since most articles on the Warrant are brought by their advocates (which is perfectly fine), the new Advisory Committee will provide independent analysis of the benefits and impacts upon such matters as particular populations, the character and streetscape of the town, travel and parking, municipal services and affordability. Not only that but the Subcommittee on Policies and Procedures has on the table 57 other suggestions from town meeting members and other residents.  Amherst For All talks about a status quo, but Town Meeting is a dynamic legislature, with the capacity and desire to continue self-improvement.

Why give all this up for a council that can decide the future of the town with 7 votes.  That only needs to meet once a month?  That is more susceptible to being controlled from without?  Whose membership and policies can be upended every two years?

Why give this up for elections that are held half as often with 20 positions on the ballot and who knows how many candidates?

Why give this up for procedures of petition and voter initiative that are more difficult than they are now?  

Why give this up for the opportunities to speak at open hearings and meetings that we have right now?

I believe strongly in Town Meeting, but I do not love it.  I do not enter its sessions with great joy, although I often leave them with great admiration.  From time to time, I check myself to see if I am being overly influenced by sentiment or nostalgia – something that comes easily at my age – but I do not think so.  I believe in our great experiment in democracy;  I know it is not easy. I know that opponents can drive us crazy.  I know that participation is always more demanding than delegation to others. 

I do love Amherst.  When my family and I came here 48 years ago, we were amazed to have cows over our back fence in North Amherst!  I was amazed at Town Meeting – citizens arguing about a hundred dollar expense!  It didn’t take me long to realize that Town Meeting is the new thing, participatory democracy is still a new thing, a rare thing, a crucial thing, but a fragile thing.  On March 27, please vote NO to preserve it.

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 Committee.