Charter Review Committee Will Emphasize Public Outreach

Report on the Meeting of the Charter Review Committee, December 12, 2024

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), David Muscat, Marcus Smith, Andy Churchill, Meg Gage, Ken LeBlond,  Bernie Kubiak (on zoom)  Raphael Rogers (on zoom), Erika Mijlin (on zoom).  Athena O’Keeffe (Staff).

This hybrid meeting was held in the Town Room of Town Hall. There were no comments from the public. The committee approved minutes of the meetings of October 10 and 24. 

Discussion of Approach to the Review of the Home Rule Charter
The committee spent the bulk of the meeting discussing how to approach the review of the Charter. Rafael Rogers emphasized that a primary purpose of the committee is to increase public awareness and understanding of the Charter and to solicit opinions, not to impose our individual interests or desire to change.

Erica Mijlian agreed and asked the committee to define its goals. She noted that while each member may have areas of interest, the goal should be to develop well-informed questions for public outreach through interviews, surveys, focus groups, and similar strategies. 

Bernie Kubiak added that although the Town Council’s Rules of Procedure are technically not within the scope of the committee’s charge, they provide a window into how the council sees its implementation of the Charter and whether to prioritize some sections of the Charter.

Julian Hynes cautioned that tonight’s discussion is not to debate specific sections of the Charter but to prioritize and identify areas of focus for public outreach.

Rogers said that there is always a tension between our personal interests and our need to listen to and work with the public.

Muscat added that an important part of the committee’s task is to educate the public about the Charter, not to focus on the exact words on the page, but to understand how the Charter works and how their comments relate to the Charter’s provisions.  

Several committee members expressed concern about how questions should be framed to avoid leading or loaded questions. How is the Charter working now?  What is the lived experience? Mijlian advised finding general categories of inquiry and formulating general, non-leading questions.  She noted that different audiences will hear questions differently, for instance councilors will hear and respond to questions in ways that the general public may not.  She also noted that any survey should allow for open comments because topics may be included that the committee has not had in mind.  

Churchill noted that different audiences could require different questions and said that a consultant could be helpful in crafting thoughtful questions.

Mijlian expressed some concern about involving a consultant.  She noted that there is a clear difference between reviewing a Charter legally as opposed to eliciting an understanding of what it is like to live under this form of government.  

Kubiak reminded the committee of its charge and said that a two-tiered approach would be helpful, first to elicit general discussion about the lived experience and then to take that understanding to “get into the weeds” and determine whether the system is working well under relevant law.  He reiterated that a consultant could be helpful.

Hynes agreed that the charge means that the committee should gather input and then develop recommendations for change.

Hynes agreed that the charge means that the committee should gather input and then develop recommendations for change.

Muscat noted that we can make any recommendations for change.  He noted that reports from other towns can be very helpful adding that he had briefly reviewed the report from Bridgewater. He suggested that committee members divide up the available reports and summarize their findings at a future meeting.

Rogers asserted that the general public needs to have the same opportunity to do the kind of review that the committee is doing.  When committee members have an “interest” in a certain section, what does this mean?  An interest to change it?  To educate the public on it? To clarify its meaning?  Mijlian emphasized that the committee’s process is very important.  Ultimately, the committee will produce a report; it must be evidence-based.  Opinions of the committee and lawyers inform, but the evidence must come from all sources, including the public – that is where it is critical to craft good questions that will elicit informative answers.  

Andy Churchill noted that Article II of the Charter, Legislative, is important, especially with respect to the Town Council size, term, term limits, and limitations on town employees holding office.  Muscat noted that the opinion of councilors on these topics would be good to have.

Hynes observed that the Right to Postpone has generated much comment. He also noted the importance of Article III, especially administrative powers over the annual budget and awarding of contracts.

The committee briefly discussed terms of office, as it relates to both the Town Council and the School Committee.  Some felt that the current two year terms were too short and that staggered terms could be helpful in transition.  Bernie Kubiak noted that Select Board terms were 3 years, but that could be a matter of state law. 

Meg Gage stated that when the election for town offices was changed from spring to fall, it meant that new councilors took office in the middle of the budget cycle; she asked whether that was a matter of state law.

Ken LeBlond noted that there is no option for recall of elected officials.  Kubiak noted the need to discusshow the budget is developed.  Hynes questioned why Town Council can delete or decrease an item in the Town Manager’s budget but cannot increase.  Kubiak said that Town Council can request an increase but cannot require it.  He again noted that this was an area where a lawyer or consultant could be helpful.

Gage noted that participatory budgeting is already in the charter, but has not been acted upon.  Kubiak suggested that the committee find out from the Finance Committee or Town Council why there has been no action on this provision.  

Marcus Smith asked for more clarity in the Charter on whether Amherst is a city or a town, noting that the terms are used loosely. Technically, Amherst is a city known as the Town of Amherst.  It is bound by laws that apply to cities. For instance, it may be why town elections were moved from the spring to the fall. The committee noted that it is important to have an understanding of what is legally permissible and what is prohibited so that the public can be informed.  Kubiak repeated how legal input would be helpful in understanding legal limitations, both for the committee and the public. 

Churchill said that there are some provisions that no longer apply, particularlyArticle X, Transition Provisions.  

Hynes suggested that the committee prioritize Articles II, V, and VII in its public outreach.  Churchill urged that outreach be more general rather than prioritizing specific articles.  Hynes noted that there is a Google form for Public Input that committee members can use to suggest questions.  The next meeting will focus on formulating questions for public input and completing the portions of the agenda that were not addressed at this meeting.

Request for Funding
Hynes asked the committee to approve a proposed letter to the Town Manager requesting $30,000 in funding for the committee to undertake public outreach and hire a consultant. The committee generally approved the content of the letter but suggested that (1) the reference to “free cash” as the source of funds be eliminated; (2) the amount requested be increased, and (3) the line items be eliminated so that a single amount is requested to cover expenses, including hiring a consultant and paying for expenses associated with outreach activities.  The letter, as amended, was approved unanimously.

Website Statement of Purpose
Muscat presented a proposed addition to the Charter Review Committee’s Website. He proposed this change based on his concern that the statement was incorrect and did not fully explain the distribution of powers that are described under state law.  The statement relies solely on Section 10 of Chapter 43B but the correct interpretation requires consideration of all sections of that chapter.  A suggestion was made that instead of the statement, the website should have the entire charge to the committee plus a link to Chapter 43B. Muscat stated that this may not be an adequate remedy.

Because of the lateness of the hour, Hynes called for a vote to continue discussion at the next meeting on December 18.  Other agenda items that the committee did not get to were postponed until the December 18 meeting.  Muscat, Gage, LeBlond, Smith, Mijlin, Rogers, and Hynes voted yes; Churchill and Kubiak voted no.  

Gage noted that there are two versions of the Charter Review Summary for the Public posted with the meeting materials; a first draft and a revision submitted by Andy Churchill. Gage asked that any further comments be given to her by December 16 so that this topic can be addressed at the December 18 meeting.