Collins Center Presents Potential Work Plan for Charter Review
Photo: Blue Diamond Gallery
Report on the Meeting of the Charter Review Committee, February 13, 2025
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. The meeting was delayed due to technical issues with the zoom connection.
Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Andy Churchill, Bernie Kubiak, Meg Gage, Marcus Brown.
Absent
Ken LeBlond, Raphael Rogers, and Erika Mijlin.
As with all meetings to date, there were no comments from the public.
Julian Hynes welcomed Anthony Ward and Patricia Lloyd from the Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston, the state agency that the committee has considered hiring to provide consultative services. The Collins Center provided services to Amherst’s original Charter Commission, two of whose members, Meg Gage and Andy Churchill, now serve on the Charter Review Committee.
Collins Center Overview
Ward and Lloyd described the types of services the center offers as well as some observations they have made in their work providing services to municipalities throughout the state. The presentation included a PowerPoint presentation, which is viewable in the recording of the meeting.
The Collins Center was established in 2008 by the Massachusetts legislature to provide services to the state’s municipalities. As is stated on the center’s website, because it is a state agency the town can contract directly with the center without complying with the competitive bidding process otherwise required by the Uniform Procurement Act, MGLc 30B.
The presentation described a typical work plan, beginning with gathering input from stakeholders about how well the current system is working. Stakeholders include Town Councilors, members of boards created by the Charter, other elected and appointed officers, and the public. The work plan described in the presentation is similar to a plan the committee has been developing.
Trends in Municipal Government
The Collins Center has identified trends in local government, both predominant and emerging. First on the list of predominant trends is a reduction in the number of elected officials/boards combined with centralization of management under an appointed manager or administrator.
Other trends include emphasizing the budget process, requiring the development and maintenance of a long-term capital plan, acknowledging and adapting to emerging technology, and standardizing procedures for the conduct and operation of town administration and the operation of boards and committees, such as ensuring minutes are posted promptly. Another trend was to remove gender references, but Bernie Kubiak was quick to point out that Amherst has been ahead of this trend for some time.
Gage raised the concern she has heard from residents about transparency of attendance at Zoom meetings. Under current practice, the number and identity of the persons observing the meeting is not known, unless an individual chooses to make a comment, in which case they must identify themselves. Gage pointed out that any observer has the option to remain anonymous. Hynes noted that identifying observers who are not commenting is at the discretion of the chair.
Kubiak said that what is important is how to invite people in to government processes, including how to encourage others to run for office. He described it as sorting out the behavioral versus the structural issues in determining whether current processes facilitate discussion and decision-making and how to make the process more efficient and easier to understand and participate in.
Ward and Lloyd then described other, emerging trends that emphasize community engagement, including how residents may participate and stay informed about town policies, functions, activities, and procedures; resident initiatives; referenda; and recall of elected officials.
Beginning the Work
Ward and Lloyd advised that the committee should initially determine the major issues currently facing the town. The review should focus on who makes decisions and how the decisions are made, including Town Council, Town Manager, staff, and committees as well as other appointed and elected officials.
They acknowledged that some issues may fall outside the scope of the charter review, but nonetheless can be raised in the committee’s report. If the committee finds that an issue rises to a high level of discussion, the committee could recommend that the transition section of the charter include a directive to establish a study committee.
Churchill asked whether the section on transition from the former form of government (i.e., town meeting) should be eliminated. Lloyd felt that retaining the references to transition from the former form of government had historical value.
Kubiak urged that the Collins Center become familiar with Town Council’s charge to this committee because it directs that the focus must be on the operation and effectiveness of the Charter. Any major changes are separate.
Ward and Lloyd said that a good place to start is to review the report from the original Charter Commission. Once the committee has some preliminary findings, such as from interviews with town officials, these could be presented to the public for feedback.
Gage reminded the committee that at previous meetings, there appeared to be agreement that the focus is on listening rather than advocating for any position. Churchill added that the committee should connect the public’s expressed experience with relevant sections of the Charter rather that shaping questions around specific, technical points.
The Collins Center can provide a resource bank of questions that have been used by other towns, including comments on their effectiveness. Kubiak offered to revise his list of questions, and the outreach subcommittee will continue to work on the survey. Both the questions and the survey will be sent to the Collins Center for comment.
Ward said that because of their workload, Collins Center staff will not be available to attend meetings and provide services until mid to late March. Churchill noted that the committee was looking for a supportive relationship that would not require frequent attendance at meetings, but instead provide consultation, such as advice on interview questions and surveys. Ward agreed that he will provide a proposal, including cost, along those lines within a week. Hynes then will submit it to the Town Manager for inclusion in the supplemental budget request for this fiscal year. Kubiak reminded the committee that once the contract was signed and appropriated, funds will be available into the next fiscal year.
Request for Extension of Time
The committee discussed the fact that it will not be possible to complete its task or produce required reports by the original deadline of April, 2025 and that it is necessary to request an extension. Marcus Brown volunteered to draft request for an extension..
Hynes’ proposal for an extension to March 30, 2026 was met with objections. After a few more suggested dates, Brown moved that the request be for an extension until October 31, 2025. The motion passed 4-0-1 with Hynes abstaining. Churchill noted that this means that the final report would be due on that date. The committee tabled any discussion on dates for the preliminary and intermediate reports.
Future Agenda Items
Churchill asked that KP Law be invited to describe the different ways the Charter can be changed. Gage said that the outreach subcommittee will be working on the survey and questioned whether a summary of the allowed scope of changes should be included with the survey. This topic will be discussed at the next meeting. Kubiak will bring back the revised contact list and questions to be reviewed by Collins Center and will circulate them ahead of the next meeting.
I am grateful for Anita Sarro’s coverage of the meetings of the Charter Review Committee but I don’t know how I feel about them. The Committee seems unnecessarily timid and unsure of itself. It seems to have accepted the notion that it can propose only “minor” changes to the Charter, although this language is nowhere in the Charter or in the General Laws governing the amendment process. I am not aware of any “allowed scope of changes” other than the statement “the amendment procedure may not be used to change the composition, mode of election, or terms of office of the local legislative body, the mayor, the selectmen, or the city or town manager.” That leaves plenty of room for major proposals from this committee. The Collins Center’s preference for a rather technocratic approach to charter revision should be deferred until the committee has had an opportunity to take a large look at the charter and take as open questions such matters as “does the Charter concentrate too much power in too few hands?” and “are there sufficient safeguards (checks and balances} to protect democratic governance?” and “does the Charter, either deliberatively or inadvertantly, inhibit community participation in Town governance?”
The Collins Center may be right that the current trend is to concentrate management and reduce the number of elected boards and officials, but it is difficult to read that currently without chills. If we want ever to counter the concentration of power in Washington we have to start by doing so in our cities and towns.
So please, Charter Review Committee, use the power that is given to you (currently) once every ten years to be bold, to disagree constructively and within an etiquette of controversy and to propose charter revisions that will give our town a better governance. Once you have those revisions, that is the time to consult the Collins Center for the technical help in making them consistent with state law.