Charter Review Committee Continues to Plan Public Outreach

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Charter Review Committee, February 27, 2025

Present
Julian Hynes (Chair), Erika Mijlin, Andy Churchill, Bernie Kubiak, Raphael Rogers, Ken LeBlond, Meg Gage, Marcus Smith.  Guest: Samantha Giffen, Amherst Communications Manager.

The meeting was held on Zoom and recorded. There were no public comments. Approval of minutes from meetings held January 16, January 30, and February 13 was postponed until the next meeting.

Communicating Public Outreach
Julian Hynes welcomed Samantha Giffen, Amherst’s Communications Manager, who offered suggestions on how her office can support publicizing the committee’s efforts to gather public input.  She mentioned several methods, including the town website, the committee’s webpage, and the town’s social media accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, X, and the recently added Bluesky.  Giffen also would link to other media outlets, such as local publications, television stations and radio stations. She also would explore using other avenues, including student newspapers at Amherst College, UMass, and the high school as well as parent newsletters. It is still helpful, she said, to use traditional methods such as distributing flyers at high density apartment buildings and posters in public spaces.  If the committee is planning an event, she asked that information be provided to her at least two weeks in advance, although one-month notice would be ideal. 

Giffen urged the committee to take advantage of several town-sponsored events in the spring, starting with the Amherst Global Village Festival on April 4 followed by the Sustainability Festival, Town-wide Cleanup Day, and the opening of the Farmer’s Market.  All of these high-profile events offer opportunities to garner public input and give some urgency to developing the tools needed to take full advantage, including flyers and especially the survey that the Outreach Subcommittee has been assigned to produce. 

Giffen reiterated her desire to support the committee’s efforts and the committee expressed their intention to keep in touch.

Collins Center Proposal
The committee reviewed the proposal describing the scope of work and associated costs for a consultancy from the Collins Center at UMass Boston with an estimated total cost of  $15,000. Most of the work would be accomplished through emails, research,  and written guidance, although the proposal includes time for attendance at five meetings, presumably by zoom. Bernie Kubiak urged that requests for services be precise and set reasonable parameters. Erika Mijlin noted that it will be useful to have guidance on when some changes would require special acts of the state legislature and how to apply them to the committee’s charge. 

Recalling that the committee has committed to developing a survey to elicit public opinion, a task ,assigned to the Outreach Subcommittee, several committee members expressed a strong interest in receiving guidance from the Collins Center on developing the survey and how it can best be used. Hynes believes that the best process would be to have Collins Center review a draft survey produced by the Outreach Subcommittee.  Kubiak added that the Collins Center most likely can provide examples used by other towns. Raphael Rogers emphasized that the subcommittee, of which he is a member along with Erika Mijlin and Meg Gage, needs guidance on developing the survey, with input on what has been done and what works. Miljin said that the committee should prioritize the development of the survey in its work with the Collins Center.

The committee voted unanimously to accept the Collins Center proposal with a cost of $15,000 and submit it to the Town Manager and Finance Director as a Supplemental Budget Request for FY2025.  Hynes noted that any further request for funds would have to be submitted as part of the Budget for FY2026.

Dates for Interim Reports
At the February 13 meeting there was agreement that the completion date set by the charge, April 1, 2025, would be impossible to meet and required a request for an extension to October 31, 2025. . The committee therefore began to discuss when an interim report should be scheduled, assuming that only a single report would precede the final report. Kubiak reminded the committee, however, that the charge instead requires both an initial report and a preliminary report.. Marcus Smith noted that the initial report would be in the nature of a status report.  After further discussion, the committee voted that the initial report and preliminary report would be due May 31 and August 31, respectively.

Public Outreach Efforts
Mijlin displayed a proposed timeline for outreach efforts, emphasizing that this was her own work to stimulate discussion. The timeline was not posted with meeting materials on the town website. The timeline indicated that the survey would be done before three spring public events that could be town-sponsored events or stand-alone committee offerings. 

Hynes noted that the survey should be available at all public events.  He also raised a question for discussion: if, after survey results are collected and analyzed, should there be follow up with the public? Rogers said it would be informative to have an additional public outreach, perhaps around the time of the preliminary report, that could even include a second survey.  Ken LeBlond noted that surveys were a lot of work. Hynes suggested that follow up events might be more effective than a second survey. Brown noted that public comment, either at meetings or on the town website, are always available, but Hynes cautioned that those who use public comment avenues may not fully represent the range of public opinion.  Rogers again noted that Collins Center expertise and support is critical to the development of the survey. 

Input from Elected Officials and Town Managers ‘
Kubiak referenced the lists he compiled of the elected officials assigned to each committee as well as committee members and related staff. He also provided his suggested lists of questions to use during interviews. This led to a lengthy discussion about how interviews should be conducted. There was apparent agreement that the questions should be standardized to foster accuracy and consistency. Kubiak and Mijlin both encouraged seeking guidance from Collins Center on standardized questions and Mijlin volunteered to develop a method to categorize and analyze the results.  However, there was a range of opinions about whether the interviews should be recorded and transcribed; alternatively, interviewers could take notes and report results to the committee. 

Rogers advocated for recording the interview because it ensured that the record was accurate and avoided misrepresentation. There were concerns about how to keep the recordings secure, and Kubiak questioned whether the recordings and transcripts were creating a public record. Gage worried that recordings would cause the interview to become performative and questioned whether the interviewees should be given the opportunity to review the transcript and provide edits. Brown questioned whether interviewing town employees would implicate union considerations. On the other hand, if interviewers took notes and reported the results, might unconscious bias affect the process? Would such a process result in unintended variations in results?  There were differences of opinion as to which method would be more time-consuming. 

After many minutes of discussion with no clear resolution or consensus, Mijlin suggested that instead of interviews, the committee should consider using a standard written questionnaire. Kubiak agreed, saying that questionnaires are effective use of time and allows the person responding to give clear answers in their own words. Mijlin asked that this topic and others discussed tonight be revisited at the next meeting.