Regular readers of the Bulletin know that I oppose the proposed new charter for Amherst because of its radical impacts on all aspects of local government.

However, as I talk to friends and neighbors, I am struck by how much confusion exists about our current government and the scope of the charter. So I want to share some diverse and informed perspectives that readers may not have encountered.

Michael Greenebaum’s blog, michaelgreenebaum.blogspot.com, goes beyond slogans to discuss the values underlying the charter debate. A retired principal of the former Marks Meadow School and a member of an earlier Charter Commission, Greenebaum describes our existing year-round government, and explores what is meant by terms like accountability.

He observes that charter proponents are “so obsessed with Town Meeting that they neglect to mention that the new charter proposal does away with our entire governance,” and he raises an interesting question: Why is it “that the folks urging you to read the proposed charter are those who oppose it?”

Recent opinion pieces by two members of the Amherst Finance Committee highlight some significant charter changes that rarely get mention. In a March 7 Gazette column, Chairwoman Marylou Theilman, (also a former regional school committee chairwoman), shows that the proposed election cycle would undermine school governance. In addition to instability caused by shorter, non-staggered terms, the Amherst School Committee would be out of sync with both the budget cycle and with other towns in the region.

Vice Chairwoman Janice Ratner describes in a letter published in the March 2 Bulletin how the charter significantly changes the Finance Committee itself. Currently it is an independent committee that meets year-round and guides a public budgeting process from November through March. In contrast, the charter would replace this important committee with a Town Council subcommittee given a 30-day window to review the budget and make recommendations.

Town Moderator Jim Pistrang is better positioned than anyone to view the current system in action. His March 7 Gazette column observes that Town Meeting “encourages members to support issues based on their merits,” with “shifting allegiances where members diametrically opposed on one issue find themselves shoulder-to-shoulder in support of another. This style of merit-based politics becomes more difficult and less likely with a city council government, where election rhetoric becomes more focused on the candidates and less focused on issues.”

To those who want to change the government structure due to unhappiness with some votes, Pistrang warns that “no form of government can guarantee that everyone will approve of all decisions.”

Links to these and other opinion pieces can be found at www.notthischarteramherstma.org under “Community Voices.” That website also features, under “Meet Your Neighbors,” dozens of Amherst residents offering the many reasons they oppose the charter.

“As a town employee, I would have to leave my job to serve on a city council,” writes School Committee candidate Ben Herrington, “but Town Meeting remains an open and welcome possibility for me to participate in Amherst’s democratic process.”

“Raising three children and working full time,” Isabel Espinal “was too busy to ever run for Town Meeting.” But she loves her access to town government “because I always know someone who’s on Town Meeting. I don’t want to lose that access.”

“As someone who has lived through poverty and homelessness,” UMass student Tim Scalona wants to retain “a local government that represents the average person and marginalized communities alike.”

MuthoniMagua has seen, in Kenya and the United States, “that without activism and participation, elections don’t necessarily produce strong democracies and good leaders.”

Having run for townwide office in Amherst, Jennifer Shiao Page knows how demanding that is. “Town Meeting has a much lower barrier to participation.” If we want more women serving in government, “Why would we do away with an institution that is already successful at accomplishing that?”

Alice Swift and Toni Cunningham both warn against having all seats in town government, including School Committee, up for re-election at once. As Cunningham says, “It risks a single issue causing a complete turnover, bringing tremendous instability to our schools. And … how could the average voter possibly get to know 40 or more candidates well enough to make informed decisions?”

Others want to maintain Amherst’s commitment to social justice. Sarah McKee describes how Town Meeting delivered paid sick leave for part-time town employees despite resistance by town leadership.

Amber Martin believes that “if we had not had Town Meeting, I doubt we would have been able to pass the strong sanctuary bylaw.”

Madeline Charney and Rudy Perkins argue that “given the current national anti-democratic political climate … every local stand we can make for citizen engagement and participatory democracy is crucial.”

Please do read the proposed charter, and the many strong reasons to oppose it, and please vote “no” on March 27.

Jim Oldham, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 5, directs Equity Trust, an Amherst-based nonprofit working nationally for land reform and economic justice. He is the father of two children, one a current Amherst Regional High School student, the other a graduate.