I have lived in China for the past 17 years, but my heart is in Amherst.
And my heart breaks to think that Amherst — the civic-minded community that I grew up in and hope to return to — might be creeping closer to what I experience in Beijing: an efficiently run, fast-paced metropolis that caters to the loudest moneyed voices, over the needs of the less privileged.
This comparison may sound preposterous. One can hardly think of two more different political entities: an authoritarian state and Amherst where only the “h” is silent. But the glaring shortcomings of the proposed 13-member council — particularly the lack of checks and balances, concentration of power in a few and short two-year terms without staggered elections — worry me.
At issue is whether 13 people are more representative and accountable than 240.
Sure, voters are more likely to know the views of the 13 Town Council candidates than of Town Meeting representatives. However, if voters currently don’t have time to get to know their Town Meeting members, it is unlikely many will find time to communicate with council members. How much time will the busy council members have to listen, especially if they still have day jobs?
Though the 240 Town Meeting members may not be proportionately representative of the community’s diverse groups, 13 will be even less representative, and more prone to influence by special interests who will find the time to lobby.
Sure, it will be easier to track the voting record of the 13 council members. However given the split nature of the community, the council system could lead to even more fractious elections. Though I’d like to think civility will prevail, the true measure of a system is how it holds up in bad times.
The short two-year terms that expire simultaneously could lead to frequent flip-flops in government, demoralizing and stymieing work by all those who serve at the pleasure of the council — the town manager and various committees. Should all council members be replaced in a single election, this would defy the goal of greater efficiency. The council might eventually attract only candidates willing to put up with acrimonious politicking.
As others have addressed the shortfall on checks and balances, I close by drawing attention to an intangible but invaluable aspect of Town Meeting: the message to the next generation that, only by engaging, are we in control of our future.
When I was a child, my mother’s participation in Town Meeting and desire to create a better community for all was a model of civic duty. It guided my life, and inspired much of my work as a foreign correspondent.
Initially, I didn’t understand why my local friends in China and Japan, as well as not a few foreign journalists, were so incredulous that I thought my efforts to organize — for example to root out sexism in my news organization or press for free media — were worth my time, and might make a difference.
It only dawned on me recently that I became this person because of the community I grew up in.
Democracy is only as strong as those who participate, and in 2018, democracy is increasingly at risk globally.
Amherst should set a “can-do” example and fix Town Meeting’s systemic issues, not scrap the system in the name of expected expedience.
Jocelyn Ford, an Amherst native, is a Beijing-based public radio journalist and filmmaker who has lived in East Asia for the past 37 years. She says you can take her out of Amherst, but you can’t take the Amherst out of her.
