Charter Review Committee Seeks Funds to Support Consultant and Outreach 

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Charter Review Committee, December 18, 2024

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Andy Churchill, Meg Gage, Ken LeBlond,  Bernie Kubiak, Raphael Rogers, Erika Mijlin. Marcus Smith attended part of the meeting. Absent: David Muscat
Staff: Athena O’Keeffe 

This meeting was held on Zoom.  It was recorded and can be viewed here.

Committee Process and Organization
Bernie Kubiak provided a written summary of a proposal for the committee to organize  its work in two areas: (1) engaging a consultant and (2) seeking input from a wide variety of Amherst residents.  The summary was not available to committee members or the public prior to the meeting but it was screen-shared during the meeting.  

Consultant Services  
Consulting services comprise a sizable portion of the supplemental budget request that Julian Hynes submitted on behalf of the committee to the Town Manager, who advised that if approved by Town Council, funds would be available in late January or February at the earliest. The town manager also has asked for more specific information on how the requested funds will be used. Hynes will be working with the Town Manager and the Finance Director to develop more specificity.  Kubiak suggested that while waiting for funding, the committee should develop a list of specific services that would be sought from the consultant.   

Collins Center consultants worked with the original Charter Commission and therefore are familiar with the town and the process.  They also have worked with other towns on charter revisions.  Kubiak noted that the Collins Center, based at UMass-Boston, is a state agency and therefore it is not necessary to go out to bid for their consulting services. 

Seeking Input from Residents 
Kubiak proposed that there are four categories of residents, whom he characterized as “stakeholders”:

• Municipal officials, including present and former Councilors, Library Trustees, and School Committee members
  
• Town administrative staff (i.e., department heads)
  
• Established interest groups, e.g. League of Women Voters
  
• General public

Municipal Officials and Town Staff
Kubiak volunteered to work with Athena O’Keeffe to develop lists of contacts for town officials and staff and to bring those lists to the committee at its January 16 meeting.  He suggested that members of these groups would be interviewed on a one-to-one basis. He estimated that each committee member would be responsible for interviewing two people within these groups.  There was support for expanding the staff group beyond just department heads to include others including teachers, fire fighters, and police officers.  Because all town government staff within this group ultimately report to the Town Manager, he should be consulted before the process begins.  Andy Churchill suggested that volunteers on town committees could be included within this group.

There was agreement that these interviews should be open ended and that it should be made clear that they are intended to be an initial discussion. Interviewees should be encouraged to submit written comments as well.

Interest Groups 
Discussion centered on what organizations should be included in addition to the League. Should they be confined to official groups only?  Kubiak suggested that he and O’Keefe could develop a list of interest groups to present to the committee on January 30, to include organizations such as the Business Improvement District, the Chamber of Commerce, realtors, and similar groups.  Erika Mijlin stated that this group should include other civic organizations and noted that the League can be helpful in the process of gathering public opinion because of its convening power.  

General Public 
Meg Gage said she is already being approached by townspeople asking when and how they can communicate their comments to the committee. Raphael Rogers urged that now is the time to increase public awareness of the process. 

There was agreement that the public should be told that everyone is welcome to communicate their comments by all available means, including public comments at meetings, email communication, and even phone messages.  In this regard an email address and a dedicated phone line should be instituted and all emails and messages received should be acknowledged promptly. Churchill suggested that a public forum be scheduled to hear initial thoughts and comments.  

The plan presented by Kubiak, and modified at this meeting, was approved by a unanimous vote.  O’Keeffe will post the plan, to be entitled “How We Begin,” with Meeting Materials on the committee webpage.  

Subcommittee Established
Mijlin noted that public outreach requires its own plan. Kubiak suggested that a public contact plan be developed and presented to the committee at the January 30 meeting.  An efficient and effective plan should include written materials, surveys, public meetings, and a reasonable timeline. The committee considered whether to establish a subcommittee to develop the plan, aware that such an action will impose legal parameters, including adherence to the Open Meeting Law.  

The committee voted to establish an Outreach Subcommittee of the Charter Review Committee to recommend to the Charter Review Committee strategies to engage the public by multiple methods and means; and to appoint Raphael Rogers, Erika Miljin, and Meg Gage to serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee would collaborate with consulting services, assuming that necessary funding will be available.

The committee has not yet reviewed a draft timeline that Hynes provided. Miljin said this should be within the scope of the subcommittee’s work and suggested that the subcommittee aim to have a reasonable timeline ready to present to the committee at its January 16 meeting.

Public Information About Charter Review Committee
The committee reviewed the latest iteration of a statement intended to inform the public about this committee and its work.  The committee accepted this version, with one modification: the paragraph that references a “resource bank” will be eliminated because it is unclear how resources will be compiled and made available to the public.  

Miljin noted that an important tool for public outreach is a website, and she questioned whether this should be within the town website or separate from it. Ken LeBlond noted that the committee should provide a contact link and questioned whether this should be established through the town system or as a gmail address; in any event, any link that is established must be monitored and any comments received acknowledged.  O’Keeffe said that however the contact link is established there should be a method to submit comments that would link to committee members’ emails. Because these issues are related to public outreach, the subcommittee may make recommendations for the committee to consider.  

Administrative Matters
Hynes noted that after the last meeting several committee members remained engaged in discussion.  He cautioned committee members that it is important to know the requirements of the Open Meeting Law and adhere to them so that there is no instance of possible violations.  

O’Keeffe reviewed relevant town policies on how to access her time and support.  She reminded everyone that for the sake of efficiency, all requests for help from other town staff should go through her.

Hynes said he will be contacting the town’s Social Media Director to explore ways to enhance public outreach.