As a former Amherst School Committee member and chair, I am writing to let Amherst voters know there are two open School Committee seats that will be filled in the town election on Tuesday.
We are lucky to have two excellent candidates running: Laura Kent and Anastasia Ordonez.
Laura brings special education expertise and has served onff the Wildwood Building Committee and the Elementary Education Visioning Group.
Anastasia brings nonprofit budgeting and marketing expertise and has worked to raise awareness about the importance of early literacy and brain development.
Both have children in the schools, lots of energy, and are good listeners and communicators.
And don’t forget to vote yes on the charter question at the bottom of the ballot.
Andy Churchill
Amherst
I am writing to express my support for School Committee candidate Anastasia Ordonez. Anastasia is a Latina with two young children in the Amherst public schools and she understands firsthand how important it is for all children to have access to a quality public school education.
She is personally committed to seeing all children succeed regardless of what language they speak at home or the neighborhood they live in. She has more than 15 years of experience connecting communities to information and the tools they need to help make change happen.
She has managed complicated campaigns for national nonprofit organizations with varying budgets. Anastasia’s professional skill set will help get many projects off the ground to benefit all our children and she is dedicated to keeping stakeholders’ perspectives on the table in School Committee deliberations.
Most importantly, Anastasia has worked with people who stand on opposing sides of issues — from health care reform to early learning initiatives — and she knows how to bring people together to move a community forward.
Henry H. Chang
Amherst
The expression “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” would be apt if things weren’t broken in Amherst but, sadly, that is not the case.
The fact that we can’t keep small locally owned businesses viable in Amherst is evidence of our broken-ness. Small town politics may be quaint and fun for people who have free time and strong opinions but it isn’t very effective.
Have you noticed that we no longer have Amtrak train service in Amherst? Northampton has it now — even though we have more college students we lack negotiating power in such a process. I find myself jealous of Northampton and its mayor. How great to have a representative mayor and spokesperson who can effectively negotiate in the best interests of their town. Maybe the slow process of Town Meeting is more communal but it overlooks the fact that the rest of the world has deadlines to meet and bills to pay.
As the owner of a small business it took me two years and added $200,000 in costs to build my primary care doctors’ office in Amherst. If only I had that money now to improve staffing at the front desk or give more free care to those who can’t afford it. Let’s face it: small, locally owned businesses are more likely to have heart and provide discounted services to the community, but few of us remain. If we continue to chase out businesses we have no tax basis with which to support our excellent schools and community services.
It is time to come up with an effective and efficient form of town government. And it is reasonable to research what would best suit a unique town like Amherst. While change is hard, stagnation is costly to us all. Let us look with open eyes and consider valid options for a healthier, more effective Amherst.
Katherine J. Atkinson, MD
Amherst
On Tuesday, Amherst voters go to the polls! Attention is on the charter, but we also vote for Town Meeting. All voters can’t be in Town Meeting, so we elect representatives. Find out about each candidate’s stand on the important issues and vote accordingly.
This week’s Bulletin contains brief candidate statements. Only 75 percent participated, but mine is the only precinct with 100 percent participation. Go Precinct 8!
There’s anti-development, pro-affordable housing, laudable attendance records, anti- and pro-new school, and, oh, here’s one for diversifying the tax base. Voters don’t so much select representatives as reject one or two. And you’d better hope most of the candidates share your priorities. For about 70 percent of Amherst voters, it’s worse. Fully half the “races” are uncontested. This cycle, voters in precincts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 have no voice, and the rest of us have very little. And 13 seats will be empty.
People can argue that town meeting has benefits, but it fails its core mission to provide for representative democracy.
Tom Davies
Amherst
I find it disconcerting to hear blanket statements such as that all of the candidates on the Amherst For Change slate are in favor of abolishing Town Meeting. The fact is that these nine candidates are running for the Charter Commission because they believe Amherst deserves a town government that is more efficient and responsive.
They have a diversity of views, but are excited to research other forms of government around the commonwealth and learn from what works. This doesn’t necessarily mean ending Town Meeting, but being open-minded enough to consider other forms of Town Meeting that may be better for Amherst.
For example, over 200 towns in Massachusetts have open Town Meeting, while the number with “representative” Town Meetings has dwindled to 35. While Amherst has one of the biggest town meetings in the state with 240 seats, some towns have just 50 Town Meeting members.
In Tuesday’s election it’s important to look at why the candidates are running for the Charter Commission. The Amherst For Change candidates joined thousands of their fellow residents in signing the petition to place the charter question on the ballot; many candidates are against the commission being formed and are essentially running to limit the commission’s effectiveness.
Do these candidates want Amherst to have a government that works in the 21st century, or are they afraid of change? Please vote for: Andy Churchill, Tom Fricke, Nick Grabbe, Mandi Jo Hanneke, Phil Jackson, Bernie Kubiak, Maureen Raab, Irv Rhodes and Julia Rueschemeyer.
Ellen Brout Lindsey
Amherst
In this crazy political year it turns out that our little Amherst is not devoid of political divisions. I am, of course, referring to Tuesday’s vote on the creation of a Charter Commission to study and put forth improvements for our form of government. Over the past few weeks I’ve read letters by supporters of Amherst’s current Town Meeting that say, in essence, Town Meeting works because it is the most pure form of democracy and we don’t need a review.
And I’ve heard worse: collusion with mysterious yet unidentified moneyed forces on the part of those who support the creation of a commission. I find this offensive on several fronts: First, the democracy purists ironically oppose even the creation of a commission and a vote downstream on a future proposal; on the second charge, some of the proponents are good friends of mine, decent people who have spent tireless committee years working in the system, and this collusion innuendo is misplaced. We are better than that.
The population of Amherst is roughly 38,000, with approximately 50 percent between the ages of 18 and 24 (read students). The petition to create the commission was signed by 3,457 people, and it is a safe assumption that most of the signatures were from permanent residents. If that many people sign a petition in a town this small, they deserve a hearing in the form of a vote to create the commission and on the commission’s proposal in a few years.
Selecting those open-minded enough to consider alternatives is essential. Read these candidates’ profiles before voting. In two years if you don’t like the proposal, then vote it down.
Paul Bobrowski
Amherst
Over 3,500 Amherst voters, twice the number that participated in the last town election, put their names on a petition calling for a commission to study Amherst’s government and recommend changes.
Town government, which has a sizeable and immediate impact on all of us, tends to get ignored. It’s “inside baseball” – elections are held at an odd time, most positions are self-appointed with little or no effort to generate interest. Voter turnout reflects this indifference. One result, argued well many times in letters to the editor, is a less than representative Town Meeting which goes on for days, to the point where a quarter or more of its members simply don’t show up. It’s instructive that the only other representative Town Meeting in the area (South Hadley, a college town) manages to transact its business in one night.
The Charter Commission offers the opportunity to propose a different shape for town government, to redefine roles and responsibilities. But that choice is contingent on two decisions to be made at the town election: to say yes to the commission and to select nine individuals who are committed to the task of an honest evaluation of things as they are and things as they may be. The Amherst for Change website has information on nine individuals (my name among them) who’ve made that commitment.
It’s interesting to note that the municipal modernization bill, filed by the governor, will allow the formation of charter commissions by vote of the Select Board. For now, Amherst voters will make the determination about the commission and its makeup.
Bernie Kubiak
Amherst
On Tuesday we have important opportunities to make a difference by voting for town officers, representatives to Town Meeting, the Charter Committee and its membership – I count on you all to cast your ballots.
Also I hope you will vote to seat the Charter Commission and vote for commissioners who will work to offer an alternative to the status quo. I have served many years in elected office in Town Meeting, Town Meeting Coordinating Committee and on the Select Board. I have been appointed to various boards including the Planning Board, the Comprehensive Planning Committee, Puffer’s Pond 2020 and the Public Transportation and have learned a lot about the aspirations, needs and expectations of our neighbors and how often they are frustrated.
I am voting for the charter and for commissioners who believe that democracy requires inclusivity and is best served when there are different ideas to be considered. I want to learn if we can find a better way to include us all: I want to have an option to the status quo when we all next vote to consider whether we can improve things and do better.
Aaron Hayden
Amherst
I’m writing this letter in support of Laura Kent for School Committee. She is the parent of two young children attending our public schools, and I really appreciate that she has a vested interest in making our schools succeed.
I am confident Laura would be an asset on our School Committee. She truly appreciates the diversity of our schools and embraces the advantages that diversity gives our students to learn and grow together. She has dedicated her time since 2013 as a volunteer in our schools and she believes strongly in the importance of family engagement and positive collaborative relationships.
In this critical period for our schools (and our town), it is imperative that we vote in a candidate who will advocate for the success of our students, actively listen to our community, and improve communication. Laura has pledged to do this.
Emily Ziomek
Amherst
At our recent League of Women Voters presentation on the proposed Charter Commission, there were nearly 20 candidates on stage and only 67 in the audience from an average of my three countings. Hardly a standing-room-only event.
If the charter commission proposal becomes a reality, suspicions will grow that a “middle-ground” widely acceptable change in local government will be elusive. A wise old saying says “change for the sake of change has no absolute merit in itself.”
Before pointing my finger in disgust at anyone in public office at any level, I would first turn my finger toward the very people who fail to build a government-of-the-people by not voting or by not devoting their creative thinking to develop better government at every level. It’s quite easy to swell the number of citizens who show up to vote. Simply fine non-voters $50 for each time they don’t vote.
If instead of a sad charter commission started by those promoting special interests, we might begin a citizens movement by squeezing our own imaginations to produce a brilliant and more attractive Amherst by 2030.
My goals for Amherst 2030: A monthly changing downtown to attract more out-of-towners to spend their dollars here more frequently. Our downtown would become a changing gallery.
A public education system second to none that reaches everyone from cradle-to-grave.
Planning that moves away from copy-cat development to land use that promotes more person-to-person socializing.
More well-organized family-to-family dinners to love our neighbors and integrate the valuable differences among us.
What are your dreams for Amherst 2030?
Alan Root
Amherst
I am a strong supporter of Town Meeting and I am urging a no vote on Question 1 Tuesday. I am also a strong supporter of neighborhoods, believing them to be the heart and soul of our town. At the same time, I am not anti-development or anti-developer.
Neither is Town Meeting. In the early 70s, Town Meeting defeated a major highway, the Northeast Bypass, that would have separated Mark’s Meadow School from the community it served as an anchor. In later years, Town Meeting defeated an effort to build a major hotel and conference center in the midst of North Amherst’s fragile community. However, it has since supported the development of the Mill District, which is enlivening and improving the North Amherst Village Center.
Development done well has been essential to Amherst; development not done well has found a hard time of it. But also in the early 1970s, the Amherst Select Commission on Goals report created the template for all subsequent development: the creation of Village Centers as hubs of our social and commercial life. This requires a trade-off: more density in our village centers for more open space surrounding them. And this trade-off touches other thorny issues: student housing, tenant-landlord relations, mixed use and neighborhood impact.
None of these issues should influence a yes or no vote Tuesday. The only issue is how these matters shall be decided. If you believe, as I do, that Town Meeting has an enviable record of impartiality in these matters, and if you believe, as I do, that it is the voice of the people, not a small group, that should decide these matters, I hope you will join me in voting no on Question 1.
Michael Greenebaum
Amherst
A Charter Commission should actually look at what is working and what isn’t, and make recommendations that will benefit the town as a whole, not merely factions in the town. I was dismayed to see that two apparent “slates” of candidates have emerged. What should be an opportunity to unite the community threatens to become a partisan battle.
If you want to encourage compromise and flexibility, vote for a selection of candidates from both “slates.” Whatever your feelings about changing town government, you should vote for Amy Gates, the single candidate who is not included in either slate.
Mangala Jagadeesh
Amherst
I am disheartened by the exclusive tone that “Amherst for All” displays now that the petitioning is done. When courting my signature, I heard from three separate petitioners that improvements, while maintaining the Town Meeting form of government, would be seriously considered by the proposed Charter Commission. These comments were made after I expressed my support for the Town Meeting form of government, which I believe allows all citizens the opportunity to have their voices heard most effectively.
Now I read that “Amherst for All” only recommends voting for candidates for the Charter Commission who “clearly support the goals of providing a real alternative to the status quo.” I am disappointed by this need to control the makeup of this committee. I believe it should represent the whole community, with its differing viewpoints, when discussing these important Charter questions. Is this Amherst for all, or Amherst for some?
Van Kaynor
Amherst
Vincent O’Connor, a candidate for School Committee, is not fit to represent us or any children in this town.
He was the contact person who knew within hours the identity and whereabouts of the negligent owner and handler of the pit bull that bit our daughters on their first day of school in 2014. He refused to share that information. The girls had stitches and Steri-strips and had to take a full course of rabies shots unnecessarily.
O’Connor could have prevented their pain, discomfort, potential vaccine side effects along with the unnecessary expenditure of over $12,000 in health care costs, parents’ time off work and public funds our police force spent dealing with this case.
Nine days later, O’Connor relinquished the dog to Animal Welfare, but still refused to share information. By then, it was too late.
The dog was sadly killed due to the circumstances. Her owner cowardly abandoned her to fate and is still protected by O’Connor’s silence.
This public letter would never be out had O’Connor come forward with the information and the dog within 24 hours, which he had the ability as well as a moral and civil duty to do.
He, instead, chose to protect perpetrators of a crime instead of its victims. O’Connor’s actions in this regard make it clear to us that he is not qualified to serve on any other body responsible for the well-being of Amherst’s students.
Amherst government has been known to send messages about injustice.
We now ask Amherst people to send a message that it is not OK for a representative to protect criminals while allowing harm to come to our younger, most precious residents.
Renata Shepard
Sean Gilsdorf
Amanda Seaman
Amherst
I am compelled to write after reading letters and columns that say we do not need a Charter Commission because nothing is wrong with our current form of governance. These folks obviously subscribe to the saying “Amherst: Where Reality is an Option.” If they believe there is nothing wrong, they are not paying attention.
Yes, there are many wonderful things about Amherst. I have been a professional planner in this town for 20 years and I have paid attention to the issues and participated in many public meetings discussing the issues. Here are a few things that I am sincerely troubled by.
When I came here there were 56 police officers. Now there are 45. UMass by comparison has 61. Talk to any firefighters and they will tell you that they are tired, exhausted and over worked because they are short staffed. We’ve needed a new fire station, to meet basic federal standards of response times, for decades, but that’s never happened because there is no money. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We can’t keep businesses in downtown because we need a real parking garage. But where will that money come from?
Both my children have gone through the school system here, and while it is still good, I’ve watched it slowly decline over the last 14 years with many less offerings for languages, arts, athletics and extracurricular activities. Again, budgets are shrinking.
People complain about the fact that full-time residents are outnumbered by college students. If losing 35 percent of our families over the last decade because they can’t afford to live here doesn’t set off alarms, we are not paying attention. We have a serious housing crisis.
I use the analogy that if you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out immediately. However, if you slowly keep raising the temperature, the frog will cook.
This has been allowed to happen because we have a form of government that is part time, not representative and has no accountability. Consider the fact that over the last 10 years 90 percent of the candidates for Town Meeting are elected. Few seats are contested, so there is no way to hold anyone accountable for votes. This has had a significant impact on voter turnout.
We have a structural imbalance in the town’s finances. Preserving open space is great but we have to balance that because already over 50 percent of our land mass is either not taxed, or taxed at below market rate. Compare us to Northampton who has a 33 percent smaller population, yet a 31 percent larger municipal budget, while we have a 30 percent higher tax rate. If there is no accountability in our government, then it will be difficult to live up to the great potential that we have. Vote yes Tuesday for the Charter Commission.
Neils la Cour
Amherst