Opinion:  Is the Fix in on the Once-in-a-Decade Charter Review?

We know many of the concerns of Amherst voters regarding the Amherst Home Rule Charter that has been in effect for six years (see e.g. here, here, here, here, and here). Why, after five months, have none of them been discussed?  Why after five months is the committee still debating how they will study the efficacy of the charter rather than studying it? 

The fix appears to be in on the once-in-a-decade charter review. My thought is that those who value the status quo have done everything possible to stifle the process. Like what, you might ask? 

Well, what would I do if I wanted to minimize the effect of Amherst’s charter review? Each of the following have been attempted by either the Council President or her allies on the Charter Review Committee or by the Clerk of the Town Council on the President’s or the Town Manager’s behalf – to limit the process –  though a few have been squelched along the way.

If trying to minimize the impact of the 2025 Charter Review, as Council President, I would… 

• Compose the Charter Review Committee charge myself, without help from other councilors

• Write into the committee charge a requirement that the Charter Review Committee report to the council early in its process so that I can direct them away from certain topics. (This proposal was quelched by the Government, Organization and Legislation Committee (GOL) in the redrafted charge).

• Write into the committee charge a limitation on the scope of the review, even though it it should not be limited. Repeat this declaration often and get my husband to write an article about it in The Amherst Current. (This limitation of scope was also squelched by the Charter Review Committee after discussions of practices in other communities).

• Appoint a GOL (the council committee in charge of the process of recommending appointment of the members of the Charter Review Committee) that is composed entirely of my allies, appoint myself to that committee, and volunteer to be in charge of everything about the charter review.
  
• Create selection guidance for Charter Review Committee members that requires that the committee include at least one member who has experience developing a charter (i.e. a former Charter Commissioner) and plan to get that former Charter Commissioner on the committee and elected chair. (See 2/22/24 GOL meeting at 1:21.)

• Create selection guidance that omits the need for members of diverse perspectives and replace that with “diverse life experiences”. Act like I don’t know what diverse perspectives means. See 2/22/24 GOL meeting).

• Recruit experienced allies of the Council President and/or Town Manager to serve on the Charter Review Committee who will aggressively support the status quo, or better yet, support more consolidation of power in the Council President and Town Manager.

• Closely watch the pool of applicants and find it insufficient until enough of my allies have applied to be a majority.

• When a majority of allies on the Charter Review Committee is unclear, propose changing the composition of the committee from seven to nine members. 

• When selecting applicants to recommend, choose only allies and newbies or relative newbies. Eschew applicants whose opinions generally differ from those of the current majority on the town council.

• When filling any later vacancy, take as long as possible. If necessary, go through the whole selection guidance process again to slow things down.

• Spend as much of 2024 setting up the committee as possible, limiting the time potentially available for actual deliberations on charter content.

• Set the agenda for the first meeting, with the election of chair the first item on the agenda, even though members don’t know each other. Be ready with an ally to nominate for chair and plan to bowl over the newbies with his experience. (This was squelched by members who nominated Julian Hynes as temporary chair.)

• Arrange for KP Law, the town’s attorney who answers to the Town Manager, to advise the committee on its scope. If that presentation is delayed due to pushback from the committee, keep pushing it at every opportunity until it happens. (This was quelched by the committee which asked to delay KP Law presentations until later in the process.)

• Tell the committee members that they should not speak to each other between meetings, even if not a violation of the Open Meeting Law. (My allies know they can speak with each other to plan, but the newbies don’t. I don’t want them engaging with each other between meetings.) (This was squelched by an email from the clerk acknowledging to the committee that they can speak to each other between meetings as long as not in a group comprising a quorum). 

• Intimidate any member who sends an email to the full committee with an item s/he is putting it in the packet by accusing that member of an open meeting law violation.

• Tell the committee that they cannot have contact information for the other members of the committee. (This was squelched after several committee discussions).
  
• Tell the committee they cannot meet without the Clerk of Council present. (Apprently squelched by the clerk agreeing that she doesn’t have to be present for whole meetings.)

• Urge my allies to take control of the substance of the committee’s work.

• Urge my allies to minimize the Collins’ Center direct involvement with the committee and attendance at committee meetings since they are a more liberal influence. 

• Urge my allies to require that KP Law to “look over the Collins’ Center’s shoulder” in case the two entities’ opinions differ.

• Urge my allies to slow down the process wherever possible, delay discussion of the substantive issues so that few issues will end up in the final report.

• Urge my allies to ignore the League of Women Voters 16 recommended amendments and earlier report to the extent possible even though LWVA outreach was to over 400 residents, and to ignore League principles.

• Urge my allies to set an early date for the final report of the Charter Review Committee to minimize the time they have to address topics.

• If any member resigns in protest, urge my allies to pretend it didn’t happen.

In spite of a two year long study by the League of Women Voters  that included a survey,  multiple public forums,  and a list of consensus recommendations, and a series in the Indy that raised all kinds of questions, the charter committee has yet to take up any of the serious questions, concerns and suggestions that have been raised to date, suggesting that this committee will produce little improvement to the charter.