AMHERST — Describing both the flaws in the current form of town government as well as extolling its virtues, speakers at the Charter Commission’s first public hearing May 12 agreed that elected officials need to be held more accountable and that there should be more clarity about how decisions are made.
But the comments from more than 30 people showed deep divisions about whether accountability and responsibility should mean preserving the 240-member Town Meeting as Amherst’s legislative body, possibly in a reduced form, or eliminating it in favor of a mayor and town council.
Longtime resident and retired Amherst College physics professor Robert Romer said Town Meeting can work well, though it does not always, and that the commission should recommend retaining and improving Town Meeting.
“Town Meeting is sometimes quirky or messy, and I think that is one of the good features of the present system” Romer said.
Former Select Board Chairwoman Stephanie O’Keeffe said the current system shows people care deeply about Amherst, but the quantity of participation at Town Meeting is not matched by the quality of participation.
“What they do has very little impact on how our government serves and reflects our community’s priorities,” O’Keeffe said.
They were among more than 50 residents at the Amherst Regional Middle School auditorium for the hearing, mandated by state law to be held within 45 days of the formation of the Charter Commission. The commission was created by voters at the March 29 town election, following a signature drive by a group called Amherst for All.
“We are here to hear from you,” Chairman Andrew Churchill said.
Churchill said the nine members are beginning to examine the town’s various government components and look at models from elsewhere to come up with a proposal that will be attuned to the needs and values of Amherst.
A draft charter document must be complete by July 31, 2017, with a final document done by Sept. 29, 2017. That document would then be brought to voters for a vote.
Both supporters and critics cited the size of Town Meeting as an issue.
Former School Committee member Rick Hood said that too many people want to be heard each night of Town Meeting.
“I would recommend if you keep Town Meeting that you radically reduce its size,” Hood said, suggesting that just three members represent each of the town’s 10 precincts, rather than the 24 representatives each currently has.
Michael Greenebaum of Precinct 6 said he is a strong believer in Town Meeting, but also interested in changes to improve it, possibly by making it smaller, and in turn enhancing the executive branch by giving the Select Board the opportunity to override some Town Meeting votes.
A lack of clarity about who is responsible for making decisions is troubling, said former Select Board member Elisa Campbell. “I think we have a government that is too diffuse,” Campbell said.
Campbell said she has noticed lobbying and strategizing going on behind the scenes at Town Meeting, yet members are not held accountable for how they act or vote since there are rarely contested elections.
But Town Meeting promotes accountability through its debate, said member John Hornik of Precinct 7. “We are better with Town Meeting than without it,” Hornik said.
Amherst attorney Peter Vickery said the only way for Amherst officials to have accountability is to eliminate Town Meeting and have direct elections of a mayor and a town council.
Also supporting a mayor was Amy Gates of Spaulding Street, who said this would streamline how decisions are made, and ensure residents have someone they can credit or blame.
“I think that less people actually feel represented when Town Meeting is so large,” Gates said.
Alice Swift of Precinct 7, though, said that having a mayor could mean adding big money to town politics, which she wants Amherst to avoid.
Finance Committee member Bernie Kubiak said Amherst should have a policy-making body that is responsible and accountable to voters. Town Meeting is not that, he said. “We have 240 people who essentially govern anonymously,” Kubiak said.
Yet Town Meeting may not be independent enough, said Alan Root of Precinct 5, calling the legislative body too often a rubber stamp for recommendations coming from town boards.
Several strong supporters of Town Meeting spoke about their concern that the Charter Commission will propose eliminating it.
Town Meeting member Elissa Rubinstein of Precinct 10 said she is proud of decisions made over objections of the town manager and Select Board, pointing to the preservation of Mount Pollux Conservation Area and the eventual adoption of a rental permit bylaw that started as a citizen petition.
People who want to submit comments can file them under the commission’s page on the town website, amherstma.gov.
Ira Addes of Precinct 2 said Town Meeting was the only recourse for residents concerned about the large-scale student housing project, known as The Retreat, that was proposed in the Cushman section of town a few years ago.
Tom Ehrgood of Lessey Street said Town Meeting is open to anyone to participate and shows resistance to careless change. But he said having fewer members, and a reduced time commitment, would make sense.
Joan Temkin of Precinct 8 said Amherst should not fear abandoning Town Meeting because too much of it is looking backward, rather than into the future.
“I want a government that is not afraid of change, and not afraid to change,” Temkin said.
Kitty Axelson-Berry, a longtime Leverett resident who recently moved to Amherst and represents Precinct 6, said she expected to spend most of each session knitting, but instead has found intelligent debates.
“It’s fascinating and it’s riveting,” Axelson-Berry said. “I’m not even going to get a knitting project done.”
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
