Here are important facts about Amherst’s charter efforts in advance of the town’s March 29 vote: 3,574 people signed a petition for the town of Amherst “to revise the present charter or adopt a new one.” And this: 2,012 of those signing, or 56 percent, did not vote in the last three town elections and only 303 of them, or 8 percent, had voted three times in the last three years.
People under 40 make up 59 percent of Amherst registered voters but only 10 percent of petition signers were under 40. That’s not a very representative effort from the start.
What does this tell us? To me it suggests that the majority of petition signers are not interested in local politics, do not support the democratic process inherent in Town Meeting that has sustained the town for over 250 years and do not seem to realize the consequences of disengagement from the small civic responsibility of voting required to preserve government by, for and of the people.
I hope that those of you reading this will also read the web pages for Amherst for All at www.amherstforall.org, and Town Meeting Works at www.townmeetingworks.org. Then take note of who is running for the Charter Commission and their role in the Amherst community should Question 1 result in a “yes” vote.
Amherst is a unique town that by all accounts has been and still is a very desirable place to live because of or despite a Town Meeting government.
Question 1 on the ballot reads: “Shall a Commission be elected to frame a Charter for Amherst?”
My question is: Why turn over the apple cart, (Town Meeting) to discover the bruised ones, jeopardizing those that are good, when it is possible to move them around gently in the cart? Avoid the considerable expense of money, time, and goodwill that a charter revision will entail and vote no on Question 1.
Melissa Perot
Amherst
The author is an Amherst Town Meeting member.
A recent letter by an Amherst Town Meeting member provides reasons to vote no on the Amherst Charter question, alleging that those of us who support it “do not support the democratic process.”
Let me explain why I support the charter. First, in my experience, Town Meeting does not serve the residents well. Over 10 years ago, I was active in getting sewers extended to my street — Chapel Road. A report commissioned by the town recommended these sewers, but no initiative to install them came from the Department of Public Works or from Town Meeting.
In the process of advocating for a necessity for the residents of Chapel Road and for the town (our septic tanks were over part of the town water supply), I tried to contact every Town Meeting member. About half were not available. They did not answer after repeated calls and had no voice message system.
When the matter was brought forward, the main concern of Town Meeting was not about public health or rational development, but a fear that the extension of the sewer line would lead to building one or two more houses in our area. There were no available building lots and no buildings resulted from the extension of the sewer line, but the irrational anti-development bias of Town Meeting almost defeated the needs of the residents.
Second, there is no accountability in town government. I have lived in Amherst for over 40 years, and have donated at least $10,000 to preserve conservation land, yet, I have had to appeal decisions of the Conservation Commission to the state. My dealings with other departments, especially the Building Department, have been frustrating. There is no recourse or oversight as to how they treat (or mistreat) residents.
I can only speak for myself, but my support for an examination of our form of town government is motivated neither by a wish to undermine the democratic process or to encourage development. It is merely a wish to have an accessible government which functions effectively on behalf of the town residents, including a format that provides oversight when a part of that government malfunctions.
In my extensive experience with the existing Amherst town government, there is no way to “pick out a few bad apples.” The system is broken and must be fixed.
Marilyn Denny
Amherst
It’s time to let the cat out of the bag. Despite its cheerful, benevolent-sounding moniker and messaging, it’s time to pull back the curtain on the truly stellar marketing campaign called “Amherst for All” that is now “Amherst for Change.” It’s time to ask, who is “all” and what is meant by “change?”
AFA was started by a handful of developers and friends, two of whom recently lost their bid to rezone four properties in a residential neighborhood that would have allowed for the building of a large apartment complex.
This rezoning request, seen as destabilizing to the neighborhood and detrimental to long-term residents and abutters, was challenged at Planning Board and then overwhelmingly voted down by Town Meeting.
Although Town Meeting members come from all walks of life and political leanings, many are committed to a balanced, smart approach to development that does not sacrifice Amherst’s neighborhood communities and the town’s quality of life in the process.
Born out of the failure of their Town Meeting bid to rezone, AFA was created ostensibly to study our town’s government but primarily as a means to put an end to Town Meeting.
Time and again, Town Meeting has stood up to the power of big money on behalf of residents. Town Meeting has sought balance in its role as part of Amherst’s government, weighing the costs and benefits of proposed development projects against their impact on the community and residents.
And Town Meeting is far too big for any one group with any one agenda to manipulate and influence.
It’s virtually impossible to buy or control the disparate voices of over 200 residents from across town, on any issue.
There’s a reason why approximately 80 percent of the towns and cities in Massachusetts continue to operate under town meeting including municipalities much larger than Amherst such as Lexington and Brookline.
The name “Amherst for All” sounds lovely and the advertising has been brilliant; Mad Men’s Don Draper would be proud. But connect the dots. On Tuesday, vote for the residents of Amherst and vote no on Question 1.
C. Brown
Amherst
I find it disheartening to read the spate of letters (some by friends) in adamant opposition to establishing an elective Charter Commission to study models of town governance. These advocates of the status quo bear an unflattering resemblance to the obstructionist tactics of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
There is good cause for concern regarding the accountability of representatives to the citizens whose interests they serve. I grew up in a small Massachusetts community with open town meeting, truly one person, one vote. Amherst is much too large to accord each citizen the right to voice and vote one’s opinion in a meeting. Given that we must have a representative form of governance, I choose to have my vote informed by reasoned argument and stated policy, not by personality and biography.
Amherst’s present government gives town meeting executive power, but my representatives are not held responsible for articulating perspectives or positions. Surely we can find consensus around a form of governance that combines in one small body elective representation both at large and by district whose members are required to be non-partisan and accountable for their perspective on issues of common concern?
I would prefer to retain a town manager (rather than a partisan mayor) to work in collaboration with a representative town council. Most of all, though, I want more accountability from our elected representatives than we have at present in Amherst’s town government.
Dale Peterson
Amherst
If you are a good citizen like I am — one who thinks she understands the issues and votes consistently, but isn’t quite sure what the Charter Commission in Amherst is all about, then we are in luck.
Why? Because the League of Women Voters — in their usual non-partisan and informative way — on March 14 sponsored an educational forum and candidates night. Participants heard from Michael Ward, director of Municipal Services for Public Management at UMass Boston, who explained what Charter Commissions are meant to do and what possible options exist for town government.
And then the residents who are running for nine Charter Commissioner positions had an opportunity to answer questions.
We were able to get acquainted with them to help us understand what they each could bring to the Charter Commission.
The program was recorded by Amherst Media and has been rebroadcast several times. It can also be viewed online.
Trish Farrington
Amherst
After reviewing election records in the town clerk’s office, I have concluded that Amherst residents feel disconnected from their system of government.
Over the last five years, there has been a precipitous drop in voter turnout in local elections. From 2006 to 2010, turnout averaged 20 percent of registered voters, but since then it has dropped to an average of 10 percent. In 2015, voter turnout was 7.35 percent.
There is good reason for 90 percent of voters to feel that their votes don’t matter, because the ballot does not present them with many choices.
Over the past 10 years, 33 percent of precincts have not had enough Town Meeting candidates to fill the open seats. Another 27 percent of precincts have had either the same number of candidates as seats or just one more candidate.
This year, four of the 10 precincts don’t have enough candidates, so 12 seats will be filled by write-ins.
This unwillingness of residents to run for Town Meeting has persisted despite the fact that the number of signatures required to get on the ballot was reduced from 10 to one.
Many Town Meeting members are dissatisfied with the institution. Six of the 10 reform candidates for Charter Commission in the March 29 election are current or former Town Meeting members.
Over the past 10 years, an average of 29 percent of Town Meeting members have failed to show up for scheduled sessions. During that time, an average of 12 Town Meeting members a year have resigned their seats. Many residents elected to Town Meeting by write-in votes decline to serve.
Nick Grabbe
Amherst
I believe Amherst for All is proposing an unnecessary study of town government. The feeling of this group is that Town Meeting is an inefficient and outdated form of government for Amherst.
These studies and changes have been proposed three times and rejected by voters each time. I believe these studies have been rejected because the Town Meeting is an inclusive, democratic form of government. We all know democracy is inefficient and slow, but it is essential for a strong community. Changing the form of government guarantees nothing. I believe the quality of community life in Amherst is based on participation and the feeling of being part of it, not being excluded from it as might be proposed.
So what would be the benefit of studying our form of government? I think this study will result unnecessary controversy. So please vote no on March 29. Don’t even establish a committee to study our form of government. It is working well for all of us.
Merle Howes
Amherst
The writer served as a Select Board member from 1965 to 1975.
I was surprised to read that Amherst for All believes that a change in the way Amherst is governed has outstanding support from the town. They point to the number of signatures on their town Charter Commission petition as an indication of this.
However, I was assured that signing the petition only meant that I supported having the proposition of the creation of a Charter Commission be put on the town ballot. That seemed like a fair argument. It seemed to me that town citizens should have the opportunity to vote on this proposal.
My signature, however, in no way indicated my endorsement of a change of government. I also believed that a Charter Commission would investigate various forms of town government. To this end, I would expect people of varying viewpoints to be on the commission.
This experience makes me wary of signing petitions, as clearly, they can be used in a different way than was presented at the signature request.
Mary Sayer
Amherst
In a March 11 column in the Bulletin Amherst for All writers ask “why have a commission at all if the goal is not to come up with a robust alternative for the voters to consider?”
“Robust alternative” examples are Northampton, Easthampton and East Longmeadow, all of which have a mayoral form of government. Writers state that “through the most democratic of exercises — the almighty citizen petition process — thousands of our Amherst neighbors are asking to do away with the status quo in favor of a more responsive, accountable, and year round governance structure ….”
That’s an interesting statement since the 3,500 petition signers had a variety of reasons for signing the petition, and not all of them were for a “robust alternative.” Although 16 percent of Amherst voters signed the petitions, 84 percent did not.
Amherst For All lists Northampton as an example of a “robust alternative” even though it is experiencing challenges similar to Amherst: declining school enrollment, closing of a number of downtown shops, vacant storefronts and high taxes and fees.
Challenges confront all communities. When Amherst For All is asked specifically how a mayor/council form of government will be more efficient than a manager/select board/town meeting, there is no answer, other than claiming it just will be more efficient.
It will be more costly. The Northampton model has a mayor, chief of staff, nine councilors, nine school committee members and a finance director. Amherst has a manager, five select board members, five school committee members and a finance director.
Amherst For All suggests that no one knows “who’s in charge” in Amherst. However, many know who’s in charge — on a day-to-day basis, it’s the manager. With the unfortunate passing of John Musante, many tributes came from people in Amherst and across the state who were very aware that he was Amherst’s outstanding administrator.
Will another form of government be diverse? More or less representative? The Charter Commission will receive $5,000 from the town. Petitioners are requesting an additional $30,000 in town funds to pay for a consultant to develop a “robust alternative” to Amherst’s present form of government.
On March 29, voters first will decide if they want a Charter Commission, and second, regardless of their vote, decide if they want members with diverse viewpoints to serve on the Commission.
Marylou Theilman
Amherst
The author is a Town Meeting member representing Precinct 7.
Supporters of Amherst for All are playing with fire. They may set in motion a chain of events with unpleasant consequences.
If it becomes possible to make a career and a substantial part of a living in elected office, campaigning, direct and indirect, is likely to go on the year around.
Amherst could be subjected to more spin, bloviation, and creative accounting than ever before.
Campaigning, of course, is expensive. Thus people and organizations with money could gain privileged access to elected officials through their campaign contributions. This is a form of legalized bribery that we have so far avoided at the local level.
Politicians dread being blamed for raising taxes, and yet they want to be esteemed for providing services and amenities. The usual solution is to borrow money in the name of a town. A little more every year, a lot more — who knows?
If debt service eats up a significant part of the annual budget, Amherst could become known as the Springfield of the north, and perhaps even some day pass into receivership.
Robert Erwin
Amherst
I am running for the Amherst Charter Commission because I love Amherst and know that its governance is an essential part of its character.
When electing Charter Commissioners on March 29, I hope Amherst voters will vote for candidates who also love the town, who know the town and who will make recommendations about Amherst government based on balanced information and impartial assessment of its strengths and shortcomings.
I have lived in Amherst most of the last 60 years and have been involved in numerous town matters, formally and informally. I’ve seen an enormous amount of change, mostly for the better. I know what makes Amherst special, what makes it work, and what needs more work. I am ready to do the work.
My husband and I frequently walk the many trails around Puffers Pond and east of the golf course. We were delighted recently to see that a dangerously missing board on the footbridge crossing Mill River was repaired in less than 24 hours after I reported it. This is the kind of responsiveness and high standard of safety that is usual from Amherst’s professional staff and that I have come to expect.
My candidacy is based upon my care for the town in which I grew up and raised my own children. I am eager to join a Charter Commission whose members share both my appreciation for Amherst and my willingness to look at its strengths as well as those issues we can address to make it even better.
Meg Gage
Amherst
