Two major decisions with long-term consequences face Amherst voters Tuesday. Whether to create a Charter Commission to study town government, and whom to select as commissioners? These questions need separate, thoughtful scrutiny.
The changes Amherst needs can be made under the current charter without the cost in money, morale, time, divisiveness, or negative impacts on the search for a new town manager that are likely outcomes of a full-scale commission.
A commission is needed only if one’s intention is to throw out the current balance of power that has worked so well for our small town tied to a large university, engaged our residents as active citizens, enabled off-campus students to live as responsible neighbors, balanced competing economic interests with quality of life concerns and provided advocacy for social services and residential neighborhoods despite the pressures for new housing, rezoning and development.
I urge voters to say no to the establishment of a charter commission because I think such strong measures are unnecessary at this time and that needed change can be achieved within our system.
If we don’t vote no, we open the floodgates for changes such as a mayoral system with a smaller, less representative council and the elimination of Town Meeting, all changes that require a commission.
But a vote of no must be coupled with a vote for commission candidates who, if the commission comes into being, will counter inaccurate claims that Town Meeting is inefficient or unrepresentative; will argue on behalf of the balance of executive with legislative power that has maintained this small college town with its many vulnerable “pocket neighborhoods” and attractive “small town” streetscapes and green spaces; who will protect these assets which not only define Amherst’s quality of life but serve as economic magnets not acknowledged by those who call for radical change to accelerate development.
To maintain this balance of perspectives, I urge voters to elect commissioners who value Amherst’s unique quality of life and who see Town Meeting as the place where that quality is assured. I am one of those people and you will recognize others by listening to and reading our statements.
I would greatly prefer that we make a public commitment to incremental change that will improve our current system. Our charter enables Town Meeting to meet more frequently.
It allows for an elected rather than appointed Planning Board, important because “planning” has been ground zero for citizen distrust about the long-term and irreversible effects of re-zoning. Elected rather than appointed boards and committees would balance the concerns of people affected by zoning and other policy decisions before proposals even get in front of Town Meeting.
For example, it was Town Meeting members, and not appointed committees, who wrote the citizen petition for a Rental Permit Bylaw that was later taken up by town boards and whose enforcement now serves Amherst well.
If, like Town Meeting, executive boards and committees were elected rather than appointed, they might become less homogeneous and more accountable to broader public interests in their decision-making processes.
Too often, boards and committees present unanimous decisions rather than arguments on different sides of an issue, leaving it to Town Meeting to shoulder the responsibility, and too often the blame, for making tough decisions through open debate.
The proponents of a commission claim that Town Meeting is not representative while ignoring the demographic homogeneity of Town Hall, boards, committees and their own organizations. They also ignore the fact that demographic representation involves economic, family and residential factors far beyond the scope of a Charter Commission.
The demographic argument obscures an understanding of “representative” that reflects different perspectives based on differing life-situations or personal and economic “interests” such as business organizations and developers, homeowners and people in schools and town workforce priced out of affordable Amherst housing, to mention only a few.
This is the kind of representation that gets exercised (we call it democracy) more in Town Meeting than in Town Hall. Town Meeting is now the only place where, meeting as a representative legislature, we learn how people will be affected by policies and can be persuaded to balance competing concerns.
Proponents of the Charter Commission have misled us by suggesting that “study” and “change” necessarily require the radical overhaul reserved by law for a Commission.
I urge that you vote no to the business interests who have, for the third time, called for a Charter Commission – and that you also vote for people who will work tirelessly to maintain the balance of power so vital to our local democracy in Amherst. Please visit www.townmeetingworks.org for thoughtful commentaries on these issues.
Maurianne Adams is a Town Meeting representative who has lived in Amherst and taught at the University of Massachusetts for 43 years.
