Charter Review Committee Plans Outreach to Town Officials and Residents

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Charter Review Committee, April 17, 2025

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Andy Churchill, Bernie Kubiak, Raphael Rogers, Ken LeBlond, Meg Gage, Marcus Smith, Erika Mijlin.

The meeting was held on Zoom and recorded. 

Public Comment
Martha Hanner advised that the committee’s final public survey be available not only online but also in hard copy and widely distributed at town events and outreach sessions. Drawing on her experience interacting with town staff, she also advised that when soliciting town staff input, they should be asked if they believe their expertise is used appropriately and whether communication is adequate.

Darcy Dumont, a former Town Councilor who was active in the League of Women Voters survey and development of recommendations for the Town Charter Review, had two comments: (1) to limit the term of the Town Council President to a maximum of two terms, each of two years, and (2) to ensure that all Councilors have equal opportunity to serve on the same number of committees. 

Committee Review of the Charter
Julian Hynes asked the committee to set a date to begin its discussion of the Charter. However, several members felt that such a discussion should not proceed until other steps were taken. Meg Gage noted the committee has not yet considered the subcommittee’s timeline for feedback that she felt should take priority. She suggested that the committee should first develop and distribute the questionnaire to elected officials and staff and the public survey, conduct some outreach sessions, and vigorously encourage responses before explicit discussions of the Charter. Other members agreed that such feedback would guide their discussion. All committee members except Hynes agreed that setting a date to discuss the Charter was premature. Raphael Rogers urged that the committee focus on public outreach.

Public Opinion
Gage and Andy Churchill shared a list of the comments received on the public feedback link; the list was not posted prior to the meeting. Churchill said the 84-item list shows the range of topics received so far; they include shortening the lame duck period, imposing term limits, and creating a standing building committee. Hynes wanted the committee to review and discuss the items in some detail, but Rogers questioned whether the time would be better spent planning public outreach, especially listening sessions. Gage agreed that the pressure is on to promote the charter review process and reach out to the public.  She volunteered to write an article drawing attention to the website and public feedback portal to begin the public outreach process. 

Erika Mijlin said that the compiled list was useful information because it could reveal themes and could help shape listening sessions and the public survey. Kubiak agreed the list is valuable in understanding themes but said he believes the Collins Center can be helpful in understanding the themes. Churchill noted that some themes repeatedly show up, such as term limits, but this small sample may not fully represent public opinion.  Ken LeBlond volunteered to help with the subcommittee’s work and to help Gage with an article for the Amherst Indy and the Amherst Current.

Gage noted that the list contained comments from 25 respondents and incorporated some comments from the survey done by the League of Women Voters. Hynes noted that the League’s survey was completed by over 400 respondents, 

Input from Elected Officials and Town Staff
The committee discussed several versions of a questionnaire. Proposed formats by the Outreach Subcommittee, as well as those submitted by Churchill and Hynes were shared at this meeting but not posted prior to the meeting.  Kubiak had proposed a series of open-ended questions at a meeting in January and therefore was available. 

Rogers explained that the subcommittee’s version, based on a prior draft submitted to the subcommittee by Mijlin, is intended for both elected officials and town employees and included a list of specific topics of interest. Mijlin said her list (not shared at this meeting) was developed after a conversation with the Collins Center. It includes a brief summary of what the Charter now states, not to be leading but to inform. LeBlond expressed concern that identifying specific topics of interest was leading and could skew responses. Kubiak asked why the open-ended questions that he developed were not shared with the Collins Center or included in this version. He believed that it was not relevant whether a town employee lived in Amherst. He felt that the purpose of the questions to elected officials was to understand what they experienced under the charter; the Subcommittee’s questions would not do so, he said, but it could be suitable for town employees.

Marcus Smith expressed concern that the questions were leading; he added that the survey should not be used both for officials and employees. Rogers said this was only one option for the committee to consider. Mijlin said she did not ask Collins Center to review any draft questions but that the draft she produced was similar to the format used by other towns. 

Hynes presented his version, intended for both elected officials and town staff, that he said is user-friendly and would yield useful information. He also said that the contract with the Center has not been signed yet, although much material is available in the public domain and they have been receptive to conversations. His Google-based form includes open-ended and forced-choice questions as well as selected topics of interest, including the budget process because it is of great interest in the community.  

Churchill suggested that instead of a list of selected topic of interests a questionnaire could include the Charter table of contents as a more neutral list of topics. Kubiak deemed both the Subcommittee version and Hynes’ draft inadequate for elected officials. 

Churchill pointed out the difficulty of reviewing documents that are not distributed or posted prior to the meeting. Hynes agreed and said from now on, any document a member wants to share should be sent to Athena at least 24 hours prior to the meeting so that it can be posted. If it is not posted, then the document should not be discussed, he said. 

Gage said that Kubiak raised some good points in advocating for two separate questionnaires, one for elected officials and one for town staff. Hynes felt that a single questionnaire is sufficient if it asks the respondent to identify their role. Staff opinions are valuable, he said. Smith urged two separate forms because the focus of the questions are different. Rogers shared Churchill’s written comments that included open-ended questions that could work for both groups. Churchill said the questions were generic and could be used for initial data-gathering that could lead to a more probing follow up survey.  Kubiak continued to press for separate forms for elected officials, perhaps further divided among Councilors, Trustees, and School Committee members. 

The committee reviewed Kubiak’s questions. Hynes noted that the questions do not include some topics that are popping up in the community, such as Town Manager authority and the budget process. Kubiak reminded the committee that these questions were written early in the process; the purpose is to allow the officials in an open-ended format, to raise those issues that are important to them. Public opinion is important, he said, but it is also important to see what rises to the surface for those who work directly within the Charter.

To bring one issue to a close, the committee voted to develop two surveys, one for elected officials and one for staff. The vote was 6-1-1 with Hynes opposed, Churchill abstaining.

The committee also voted unanimously that all relevant documents be submitted prior to the next meeting for posting in the Document Center and that the meeting on April 24 will start with a discussion to resolve whether the survey format should include open-ended questions,  scaled or forced-choice questions, or both.