AMHERST — The Select Board likely won’t take a formal position on the proposed charter change coming before voters March 27, though members are free to express their individual opinions about the sweeping changes proposed to town government.
In a lengthy discussion at Monday’s meeting, board members opted against drafting a resolution for or against the charter, noting that it would be time-consuming to develop and might harm the work on town business that needs to be done in the months leading up to the vote, as well as the months following it.
The Charter Commission’s proposal, endorsed in a 5-3 vote with one abstention, calls for replacing the 240-member representative Town Meeting and five-member Select Board with a 13-member town council, while preserving the town manager position. Elections would be moved from spring to November.
Select Board Chairman Douglas Slaughter said he wondered if taking a board position could undermine the board’s ability to work on municipal affairs, no matter the outcome of the vote.
“That’s where it provides a complication,” Slaughter said. “By taking a position it provides a complication that doesn’t exist by not taking a position.”
Board member Alisa Brewer recalled that during the previous charter vote in 2003, when a mayor and nine-member council were proposed to replace Town Meeting and the Select Board, the School Committee came out against the proposal. By a 4-1 vote, the committee, of which she was a member, expressed concern that a mayor could exert “undue influence” over the committee’s budget process.
“There is some precedent for an elected body to do this within Amherst,” Brewer said.
But Brewer said it could take considerable time to develop a board view and draft a resolution.
Each member, she said, has clear ideas about whether the current government is working and how things might be done differently.
“I think it’s valid that we have opinions as to what town government looks like,” Brewer said.
But Brewer said it was uncertain if the board could find common ground on all points.
Though board member Andrew Steinberg recently penned an editorial for the Amherst Bulletin advocating for a “yes” vote on the charter, he suggested it might not be a good idea for the board to take a vote for or against.
“I’m hesitant to take a position as a board,” Steinberg said.
As part of the board, Steinberg said he is obligated to support the change if the charter is approved by voters, and ensure a smooth transition to the new government. Similarly, if the charter is defeated, he said he would be obligated to improve the current government.
While she said she has given a lot of thought to the charter change topic as a voter, board member Constance Kruger said she wasn’t ready to commit the board to a stand.
“At this point I don’t think it makes sense for the board to take a position,” Kruger said.
Kruger noted that the Select Board is part of the existing structure, and to fulfill its work over the next year may be more challenging if she and her colleagues recommend voters approve or defeat the charter.
“It could be problematic,” Kruger said.
One of the downsides in taking a position, Kruger said, is that actions seen before or after the vote could be colored by this advocacy.
Board member James Wald said the members’ experience in town government may matter in developing a position, but it could take time to draft a resolution.
Kruger said she hopes residents read the charter, recently mailed to all households, and are informed about its contents before election day.
The vote will be a critical one for the town’s future, Slaughter said.
“There are big consequences to this choice, so people’s informed vote is important to be had,” Slaughter said.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.