The purest form of democratic governing is practiced in a Town Meeting. In use for over 300 years, it has proven to be a valuable means for many Massachusetts taxpayers to voice their opinions and directly effect change in their communities.
Here in this ancient American assembly, you can make your voice heard as you and your neighbors decide the course of the government closest to you, according to “Citizen’s Guide to Town Meeting” by William Francis Galvin, secretary of the Commonwealth.
The arguments made by those seeking to create a charter commission would be funny if there weren’t so much at stake. They advocate for the elimination of Town Meeting, core to the New England tradition of democracy, as a way to promote greater participation in government.
They argue that Town Meeting is obsolete and ineffective, yet Town Meetings govern 296 of Massachusetts’ 351 communities. They say Amherst is too large and too complex to be run this way, yet dozens of communities our size and larger are governed by representative Town Meeting, including three of the Commonwealth’s 20 largest municipalities.
Having solicited voters’ signatures with a call to study ways to improve local government, they now argue that voters should elect candidates who are committed to wholesale change, no study needed.
Particularly odd, for an effort claiming to advocate for more effective democracy, is the preference for slogans over specifics. Calls for change are exciting, but change can mean many things. Think Sanders or Trump.
Speaking of Sanders, I had to laugh when I saw an ad supporting a yes vote with an inspiring quote from that admirer of Town Meeting, where “people come out, and they argue about budgets, and they come out and vote.” Bernie proudly shouts that special interests “don’t buy Town Meetings.”
Another striking advertisement was the coupon for voters, with instructions on how to vote and whom to vote for. No information provided or needed, just clip and take to the polls. This seems a pretty pale form of citizen engagement, though perhaps an accurate reflection of the type of government a charter commission might offer us.
The less funny aspect to this disinformation campaign is what’s at risk. Establishing a charter commission will have a negative impact on the search for a new town manager. The multi-year process will create divisions and uncertainty that make it harder to address important issues we face regarding infrastructure, schools, town-gown relations, and more. If the effort to eliminate Town Meeting succeeds, the system we get will have less civic engagement, with fewer townspeople understanding or paying attention to local government.
The ability of ordinary citizens to petition government to act on a concern will almost surely be restricted, since council forms of government are normally much less open to such citizen petitions. With decisions in the hands of a small group of elected officials, money will enter local politics as those with resources seek to guide who is elected.
Readers can visit townmeetingworks.org for more detailed information, and to read commentaries from Amherst residents opposed to creating a charter commission.
Those of us who plan to vote no on question 1 on March 29 still need to vote for candidates to serve on the commission if the yes vote prevails.
Those promoting a charter commission argue that candidates who value Town Meeting don’t belong on the commission. That’s odd. If a constitutional convention were held, who would you want to participate, those who see strengths as well as weaknesses in our present system, or those who only see the need for change?
If a majority does vote to create a charter commission, I hope we will elect people genuinely open to dialogue about what can be improved and what should be preserved. I hope voters take the time to learn about candidates and make their individual choices. Here’s who I’ll support.
Maurianne Adams, a strong advocate for affordable residential neighborhoods, whose academic work is dedicated to promoting diversity and social justice.
Meg Gage, founding director of two national nonprofits for 35 years, and community organizer who helped establish the Amherst Cinema and win two school overrides.
Frank Gatti, who provides the perspective of a longtime member of the Human Rights Commission.
Robert Greeney, a 22-year resident of a downtown neighborhood where he raised four children while actively involved in many aspects of the community.
Jenifer McKenna, business owner, therapist, active in town in many ways, and above all, wise and compassionate.
Janet McGowan, a trained mediator who asks smart, important questions.
Chris Riddle, who often disagrees with me, but always encourages me to think again.
Diana Stein, former Select Board member has worked effectively with people from many different factions in town politics.
Gerry Weiss, former Select Board Chairperson, whose knowledge about all aspects of our government will be very valuable.
Jim Oldham is a Town Meeting member from Precinct 5.