Mayor It Is!

All nine Amherst Charter Commissioners present (one by remote participation)

After spending almost an hour discussing a compromise proposal made by Meg Gage to salvage Town Meeting --  although downsizing it from 240 to 60 -- the Amherst Charter Commission stuck to their guns about replacing Town Meeting with a 13 member Council and then after a brief discussion voted 6-3 to support a (strong) Mayor in place of an unelected Town Manager.

In 2003 the Mayor/Council/Manager proposal to replace Select Board/Town Manager/Town Meeting failed by only 14 votes almost exclusively because the Mayor was a weak ceremonial figurehead.

Two weeks ago the Charter Commission heard from Northampton Mayor Dave Narkewicz who assured them professional management comes from putting together a strong team of department heads under the direction of one leader, where the buck always stops.

Mayor Dave Narkewicz (ctr), Mike Sullivan (rt)

When asked by Charter Chair Andy Churchill for any parting advice Mayor Narkewicz replied, "Make roles very clear.  Don't come up with a diluted mish-mash.  Know where the buck stops.  Don't go with a fake Mayor."

Tonight the Amherst Charter Commission took that advice to heart and made a huge step forward towards real genuine change, one that voters will embrace.

Mayor Council Yes!

Nine member Amherst Charter Commission

After almost two hours of deliberation comparing a Mayor/Council to the current Town Meeting/Select Board the full Amherst Charter Commission -- with one member using remote participation -- decided not to change course on their 5-4 late December "straw vote " to ditch Town Meeting.

Although they did not take a formal (concrete) vote it was obvious none of the Commissioners had changed their minds and if anything are now only more firmly entrenched.

In fact Town Meeting loyalists Gerry Weiss and Julia Rueschemeyer threatened to write a "robust minority report" although colleague Diana Stein promised to work with the five to create the best Charter possible.

This was the second meeting in a row that stalled momentum although the first hour was particularly enlightening as the Commission heard from Northampton (strong) Mayor David Narkewicz and South Hadley Administrator Mike Sullivan.

Sullivan a former Mayor of Holyoke told the Commission mayor/councils are not a one size fits all because every community has a "different texture ... a different fabric -- but if you can adopt what Northampton has go for it because it works really well there."

Mayor Narkewicz pointed out he has a highly trained credentialed finance team in place to handle the complicated finances of a city and their charter -- which gives the mayor a four year term -- makes very clear distinctions between the legislative (Council) and executive (Mayor) branch.

Sullivan concurred adding, "Mayor/Council form expedites things."

 Mayor Dave Narkewicz (ctr), Mike Sullivan (rt)

When asked about corruption Sullivan thought, "The only safeguard against corruption is individual honesty, no matter the system."

Mayor Narkewicz said Northampton passed an ordinance restricting political contributions to $500 even though the state allows $1,000 and he pointed out the Open Meeting Law keeps folks honest since anyone could access his campaign contribution report via the web.

Narkewicz acknowledged he was recently surprised to learn Representative Town Meeting members are exempt from state Conflict of Interest and Open Meeting Laws and he thought that, "was a recipe for problems."

Charter Chair Andy Churchill asked if they had any final suggestions for his Commission and Mayor Narkewicz told them "Make roles very clear.  Don't come up with a diluted mish mash.  Know where the buck stops.  Don't go with a fake Mayor."

The Mayor/Council/Manager Charter proposal in 2003 lost by only 14 votes and one of the main reasons for failure was the (unelected) Manager had more power than the (fake) Mayor.

Charter Challenge

Charter Commission (four men, four women) January 19

Much to the delight of the eight or nine Town Meeting loyalists in the audience the Charter Commission squandered an entire three hour meeting backtracking from their late December decision to pursue a Mayor/Council by discussing ways to improve the current Town Meeting.

Which is kind of like the horse and buggy industry discussing ways to improve that mode of transportation circa 1910 or today's newspaper industry brainstorming ways to make ink on paper more efficient.

The Commission previously voted 5-4 to put Town Meeting out to pasture but the minority folks are having a hard time accepting that vote.  Kind of like the President Trump haters who have come out of the woodwork over the past two months.

Julia Rueshemeyer -- ever the attorney -- who has transformed into an all out Town Meeting cheerleader, pointed out that close vote was only a "straw vote," and openly wondered what happens now with one mayor/council supporter absent (Irv Rhodes) when the revote is 4-4?

Since the illustrious Select Board will vote to allow remote participation at their Monday night meeting that means absent member Irv Rhodes will be allowed to vote from afar his reaffirmation of mayor/council keeping the 5-4 vote intact.

And while he's at it Mr. Rhodes, who is black, should play the race card to offset Ms. Rueschemeyer playing the gender card at the last meeting praising Town Meeting for having 52% proportion of women.

Of course age, income, home ownership and skin color status is wildly out of whack compared to current town demographics.

In a recent memo to the Commission from their Collins Institute consultants the odd idea of creating a Select Board with one member being essentially a "mayor" was pretty much ruled out of order for ideas the Attorney General would allow.

All the state statutes treat a Select Board as a shared power executive branch, so in Amherst each of the five members are one-fifth of a mayor.  Which is of course the problem.  Nobody takes any one of them very seriously.

And insiders would be happy to point out over the past ten years former Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe and current Chair Alisa Brewer do/did act as sort of the Connecticut version of a "first Selectman" but it's made no difference with government efficiency.

Ms. O'Keeffe spoke during the public comment period and pointed out the signature gathering effort to get the Charter question on the ballot "reflected significant dissatisfaction with town government" and any tweaks/improvements to Town Meeting should be handled by the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee, not the Charter Commission.

Specifically addressing Ms. Rueshemeyer's pro-women rallying cry the longtime former Select Board chair said emphatically,  "This is Amherst.  We've had a majority of women on Select Board and as Chairs for decades!"

The Commission has scheduled an extra meeting for January 30th prior to the Special Town Meeting vote on the $67 million Mega School.  But members hope to take the revote after one more hour of discussion at their Wednesday, January 25th meeting, which starts at 6:30 PM.

At that meeting they will hear from Northampton Mayor Narkewicz who will no doubt be subject to "gotcha" type cross examination by the four Town Meeting loyalists.

The Commission will continue to discuss the merits of Town Meeting and perhaps take a revote later that night whether to rescind the previous "straw vote".

So even if Mr. Rhodes is absent and the Select Board has not approved remote participation the vote to reverse direction from the previous mayor council straw vote will still be a 4-4 tie and therefor the motion does not pass.

Simply enough to understand, even for a lawyer.

Charter Commission Flip Flop?

Charter Commission:  8 out of 9 were in attendance last night

Much to the horror of the Collins Institute consultants the Amherst Charter Commission spent an hour discussing a topic not on the agenda, a sort of do over of the previous meeting where a 5-4 straw vote set a path towards Mayor/Council leaving our current Select Board/Town Meeting/Manager system relegated to the dust bin.

Town Meeting loyalist Gerry Weiss read a defiant statement lamenting the lack of discussion by Charter Commissioners about "improving" Town Meeting and suggested he would outright oppose any new form of government proposed that did not include Town Meeting.

Weiss was joined by Julia Rueschemeyer who echoed the same concerns even going so far to say the lawyer in her was tempted to call for a revote knowing Mayor/Council supporter Irv Rhodes was not in attendance.

But Chair Andy Churchill pointed out a 4-4 tie vote would still mean the motion fails, so it would not undo the 5-4 vote from the previous meeting.

The Select Board will vote on Monday night whether to allow town boards and committees to use "remote participation," so in the future when Mr. Rhodes is traveling and unable to make a meeting he can use an electronic device to participate and his vote will count.

The consultants were concerned about an already tight deadline with this backtracking taking up valuable time.

The Commission decided to flesh out the Mayor/Council proposal for the rest of the meeting and on January 19th briefly revisit the idea of "improving Town Meeting" and take yet another vote which form is the best for them to pursue over the next six months.

Although Mr. Weiss was quick to acknowledge that it will still end up a 5-4 vote in favor of Mayor/Council.

Over the rest of the night they did vote to support forming a Council of 13 members, one per precinct (Amherst has 10 precincts) and three elected "at large"; and the precinct Councilors serve two year terms while the three at large Councilors each have a four year term.

And, like a kid taking his toys and going home, Mr. Weiss abstained on those two votes. 

Let's hope on January 19 when the Charter Commission reaffirms their earlier vote to mothball Town Meeting, Mr. Weiss will simply resign and let someone replace him who can help move the Commission steadily forward on solid ground rather than seeking a quagmire.

Can You Hear Me Now?

Amherst Select Board meeting via remote viewing

The epic 5-4 vote of the Charter Commission on Monday night in favor of a Mayor/Council to replace antiquated Select Board/Town Meeting was kind of like the Battle of Midway, a major turning point.

But it would have been far less dramatic if it had been a 4-4 tie.

Which is why the Charter Commission asked our illustrious Select Board back in mid-June to allow them the common sense ability to do "remote participation" via Skype, Facetime, or even old fashioned conference call.

A member can participate and vote on something but they do not count towards a quorum.  Thus a 9 member body could not have 5 members participate via remote participation.

The state allowed it back in 2012 and the Regional School Committee started using it years ago.

The diffident Select Board is overly concerned because it's not just something they can grant to a particular committee, otherwise they probably would have instantly granted to the Charter Commission, but it's simply an all-or-nothing declaration.

And apparently they don't overly trust some of our many committees to figure out 21st century technology even though the average 8-tear-old has no problem doing it.

Town Manager Paul Bockelman, no stranger to using social media, will bring back a proposal for  their January 9 meeting.

Thus it should be in place for some of the epic Charter Commission island hopping engagements coming up soon where members have already stated they will not be physically able to attend.

Charter Fork In The Road

The Amherst Charter Commission has scheduled a marathon four hour meeting Monday night in an attempt to close out the year with a major milestone setting a direct course for a noteworthy final destination:  a new and improved local government.

And all roads lead through the question whether Town Meeting should continue beyond the 257 year mark?

At the consultants urging -- with time starting to run out -- the Commission will probably come to a straw vote on whether to keep Town Meeting in some form as the legislative branch.

A majority of members have telegraphed enough discontent with Town Meeting to indicate a yes vote for a replacement Council form of legislative branch, but a 5-4 vote will not be overly reassuring to the voters who have to approve the new Charter by majority vote.

But even Gerry Weiss,  stalwart defender of Town Meeting seems agreeable to at least downsizing the body from the current 240+ members and he also liked the idea of replacing the five member Select Board with a Mayor, but was told by the consultants the Attorney General would not accept such a hybrid.

Back in 1996 a Charter that failed miserably downsized Town Meeting to 150 members, kept a Town Manager but added a separate Council and a weak Mayor (elected only to lead the Council).

Something for everyone to hate.

The most contentious issue that will create the most enthusiasm for both enacting and/or defeating the new Charter proposal is this  issue about keeping or killing Town Meeting.

The Charter Commission, after nine months of meetings, public hearings and general outreach needs to bite the bullet and make this epic call. Now!

Hint:  Any new Charter that maintains antiquated Town Meeting -- in any form -- is doomed to failure. 

Not Worth A Bucket Of Warm Spit

Amherst Select Board at last night's Charter Commission Hearing

At least Vice President Garner played second fiddle to one of our greatest Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Pity your basic Amherst Selectman as they are best described as "one-fifth of a Mayor" with all the real power vested in an unelected Town Manager.

Last night the entire 5 person Select "Board" appeared before the Charter Commission to give their take on our town government, and not surprisingly were kind of like the lookout on the Titanic ten minutes before she hit the iceberg proclaiming it "All clear.  Keep steaming full speed ahead."

All five were big fans of maintaining  a professional full-time Town Manager, although support for Town Meeting was not nearly so overwhelming.

Connie Kruger was her usual forthright self in describing Town Meting:

"About as polarized as I’ve ever seen it.  They distrust staff and board members and it got in the way of good decisions. Really uncalled for.  The number of nights presents a barrier to participation.  Acrimony over Library expansion last spring was particularly appalling."

Even Chair Alisa Brewer, who gets paid more than the other four but has no more real power stated:

"I fought to save Town Meeting last time. But now I’m concerned.  Public hearings attract the same people, with the same complaints.  Need to make the entire system easier for average person to engage. "

The Select Board members all reaffiremd that they are collegial and caring among themselves as a board and even try to act Mayor-like in attending public events.

But again the problem is each member has only a one-fifth official say in anything official. Which makes them hard to take seriously when anytime one of them is in room of heavy hitters from UMass, Beacon Hill or even a major business convention.

The big mistake the last Charter Commission made 15 years ago was keeping a powerful Town Manager and throwing in a weak Mayor to the mix.  The big thing they got right was dumping Town Meeting in favor of a full time professional town council.

Since Amherst is such an academic little college town lets hope this Charter Commission will not fail to learn from history, and doom this vital endeavor to repeat a monumental mistake.

Charter Commission Chugging Along

Charter Commission interviewing Mike Ward, Tanya Stepaskuk from Collins Center

The 9 member Amherst Charter Commission met again last night with the main order of business to hear from potential consultants for the long slog ahead. 

A team from the Collins Center UMass Boston gave a 20 minute presentation that demonstrated a wealth of experience with helping to craft new Charters. 

And next week they will hear from Bernie Lynch and Lauren Goldberg, two independent consultants who will be making a joint proposal to the Commission for the job.  Goldberg works for Kopelman & Paige our official town legal counsel and Mr. Lynch did the most recent search for a new Town Manager.

Former Temporary Town Manager Pete Hechenbleikner did not put in for the consulting job because he used up the allowed amount of time working as our Town Manager and any further income would negatively impact his retirement. 

The Charter Commission is currently on a major "listening tour" reaching out to the general public in every way possible to collect feedback on what makes our town work and how can they can craft a new government to make it work better.

On their Charter page on the town website citizens can sign up to a list serve and follow them on Facebook.

 Click to enlarge/read

Long Distance Runaround

Charter Commission Vice Chair Mandi Jo Hanneke before Select Board

Charter Commission Vice Chair Mandy Jo Hanneke received a rather cool reception Monday night from the Amherst Select Board, keepers of the public way and guardians of "remote participation."

Unlike the Regional School Committee that adopted the common sense practice almost two years ago the Select Board looked at it four years ago when technology was perhaps not as reliable and never formally adopted the measure.

Amilcar Shabazz remotely peering over Maria Geryk's shoulder February, 2015


And without Select Board approval no boards or committees are allowed to grant any member who can't make a meeting due to illness or geographic distance the courtesy of Skype, Facetime or simple long-distance speaker phone participation.

Ms. Hanneke threw in everything but the kitchen sink telling SB that maybe more people would volunteer for these boards and committees if remote participation was available,  while pointing out the (18 month) "extremely condensed timeline" the Charter Commission has for coming up with a new form of government.

And although the 7 meetings so far have had perfect attendance of all nine commissioners, the next six meetings scheduled over the summer will not.

The Select Board decided to task Temporary Town Manager Pete Hechenbleikner with coming up with a research "white paper" on remote participation to present at their July 18th meeting.

And he will, of course, have to do it in person.



Library Trustee Carol Gray, looking like a zombie, peeks in to a Jones Library Trustees meeting from Egypt courtesy of Skype on Mary Streeter's mac laptop five years ago 

The Ghosts Of Charters Past

Amherst:  A unique college town

The 9-member Amherst Charter Commission (V3) heard a post mortem analysis from two previous Charter Commission members last night on what went right and not so right with their individual Charter efforts circa 1996 and 2003.

 Bryan Harvey (left) Michael Greenebaum (right)

Bryan Harvey and Michael Greenebaum agreed a common thread running through both Charter efforts was the dissatisfaction with Town Meeting.

Greenebaum chuckled saying their response "gave everyone something to hate," because Town Meeting loyalists didn't like the reduction in size from 240 down to 150 and anti-Town Meeting voters didn't like that they maintained it at all.

The 1996 Charter (V1) came up with a "hybrid government":  a 150 member Town Meeting and 7-member Town Council a Mayor AND a Town Manager.  Yikes! It failed fairly resoundingly 54%/46%

Whereas the 2003 Charter (V2) terminated Town Meeting but confusingly maintained a full time Town Manger and added a Mayor/Council.  It failed narrowly the first time 50.1% to 49.9% and by slightly more the 2nd time 52.2% to 47.8%.

When asked about regrets or "do over" Harvey said he would have articulated better to the voters the roles of mayor and town manager.

His Commission had taken pains to clearly give each position defined roles and powers but some voters were concerned about overlapping responsibilities aka stepping on each others toes.

Although that fateful decision was barely supported by the full Commission in a 5-4 vote with the minority more interested in a strong Mayor/Council.

Neither of the previous Charter members said they used surveys although Harvey said they had invaluable information from a non-binding ballot question the Select Board placed on the same 2001 ballot as the Charter question asking voters if it's time to do away with Town Meeting.

At the time Harvey was Chair of the Select Board and had become disillusioned with Town Meeting.  

That question passed handily 1,832 yes to  1307.

Both Greenebaum and Harvey said this current Charter Commission is off to a good start with members first trying to ascertain the big picture, what people like about our current town government and what could change for the better but still maintain the unique cultural values of our town.

At the end of their one hour presentation the Charter Commission thanked both parties for their illuminating presentations.

 Charter Commission (V3) last night

Bryan Harvey quickly responded, "Thanks to you.  We know what you're in for! But it was one of the most interesting experiences I ever had."

The Charter Commission and about a dozen audience members applauded as the two left the room.

(Endangered) Elephant In The Room

Amherst Town Meeting:  Too large (white, rich, old, clueless)?

The Amherst Charter Commission in their 1st meeting since the state mandated public forum last week discussed "themes" they heard both at the forum and in emails to the Commission over the past month or so.

The fate of Town Meeting seemed to be the paramount concern or as the music industry used to say "Number one with a bullet."  Of course supporters fear Town Meeting will be "terminated with extreme prejudice," aka a bullet to the back of the head.  (Metaphorically speaking of course.)

 Charter Commission met last night in Town Hall prior to Town Meeting

Back in 2001 when the previous Charter Commission was formed the Select Board allowed a non binding advisory question on the ballot asking voters if it was time to terminate Town Meeting.  And voters said "Yes" by a healthy margin (1,832 to 1,307).

Commissioner Diana Stein started the discussion by pointing out 24 of 37 speakers supported Town Meeting in some form.  Although fellow loyalist Gerry Weiss was to quick to admit the most common comment was "to make Town Meeting smaller."

Chair Andy Churchill thought most of the 50+ attendees were, "Insiders who don't think outside the box."

 The Charter Commission was pleased with the turnout for the 5/12 Public Hearing

Commissioner Nick Grabbe rattled off a list of common criticisms including "long sessions, not enough candidates, grandstanding, absenteeism, lack of preparation prior to meetings, reflexive opposition to staff proposals, acting with no constituent feedback, and name recognition key to getting elected."

 Chair Andy Churchill took notes

Other members mentioned how Town Meeting can act as an "incubator" for entry into town government and the large legislative body acts in a checks-and-balances way to keep town officials and the executive branch (Select Board) in line.

But most agreed the overall form of government is diffuse without any one entity vested with the power to get things done or be held accountable when they fail.

 Click to enlarge/read

Commissioner Irv Rhodes wondered if a Flint Michigan water crisis scenario occurred in Amherst who would be to blame: the Select Board, Town Manager, Town Meeting,  DPW Director?  

After last night's petulant Town Meeting, perhaps drinking the Kool-Aid is more in order.

Charter Commission: All Ears

Amherst Town Meeting is 258 years old (and showing its age)

Charter Commissioners have an astonishingly powerful potential:  To help change our local form of governance, to declare our independence from an unwieldy, inefficient, unrepresentative legislative body otherwise know as "Representative" Town Meeting.

But of course the blueprint they craft over the next year will be subject to voter approval.  And this time I have a feeling they will get it right -- both the Charter Commission and the voters.

Click to enlarge/read (and then show up for the meeting)

I hope the state mandated 1st public forum of our 9 member Charter Commission gets better results than their predecessors did 15 years ago, when only a dozen citizens took the initiative to speak truth to power.

   Amherst Charter Hearing 5/15/01

Charter Commission Outreach

9 member Amherst Charter Commission met at Police Station last night

In their 3rd meeting in a 3rd different location -- "the nomadic Charter Commission" quipped Chair Andy Churchill -- the nine Commissioners first discussed the Town Meeting request for $30,000 towards overhead expenses and came to the conclusion the amount was more than justifiable.

Although they will most likely come back to Town Meeting in the fall to change the wording of the article to allow broader interpretation of what services the money can buy.

Currently the article restricts spending to a consultant and the Commission will have plenty of other expenses like mailing, printing, and advertising.

 Motion states "for engaging consulting services

 

Click to enlarge/read

The rest of the meeting was taken up with discussion of the fast approaching initial Public Hearing scheduled for May 12 at the Amherst Regional Middle School auditorium, which is also the same venue for Amherst Town Meeting.

Audience member Maurianne Adams, an unsuccessful candidate for the Commission, summed up the outreach strategy to a series of related open-ended questions:   "What do you value in Amherst?"  What would you change?  What would you not change?"; What are the major problems now facing Amherst and who would you want addressing them?"

The Commission seemed happy to let that be their guide.

Chair Andy Churchill will also prepare a brief three to five minute introduction outlining the mission of the Charter Commission (which will also appear on their webpage) since the hope is to attract a broader swath of the town rather than the "usual suspects" who live and breath town government. 

A Facebook page will allow for timely postings and public comments while the main webpage located on the town website will act as the "mother ship."  The entire Commission can be reached by email at: charter@amherstma.gov.

The first public notice for the May 12th hearing will appear in local newspapers this Friday and Commission members hope for lots of sharing on social media.

Financing The Revolution

The sun could be setting on our current form of government 

The $30,000 request for tax monies to support the work of the 9-member Charter Commission over the next year smoothly straddled a major hurdle on Thursday night by garnering the unanimous support of the Finance Committee after a brief presentation from Commission Chair Andy Churchill.

 Andy Churchill (center) Chair of the Charter Commission

The Finance Committee is an independent watchdog group appointed by the Moderator charged with advising Town Meeting on any and all financial related articles.

Thus if the Charter Commission should propose a governmental restructuring that retires Town Meeting -- as the last Commission did -- the Finance Committee could be no more.

The first major outreach event by the Commission is scheduled for May 12th at the Amherst Regional Middle School where they will take public comment for two hours (7-9PM).

The fate of Town Meeting, which starts May 2nd, will be the top topic.

Charter Commission: Show Us The Money!

Charter Question passed with a 60% majority 2,039 to 1,340

The Amherst Charter Commission overcame ideological differences and voted unanimously in favor of a $30,000 request to Town Meeting for overhead costs over the next year or so, mainly in the form of a professional consultant or two.

Motion states "for engaging consulting services"

Click to enlarge/read

The Commission spent an hour discussing the pros and cons but very early in the process they all agreed by consensus that a consultant or two would definitely be required.

 Amherst Charter Commission (meeting in the Bangs Community Center)

The three skeptical members -- Meg Gage, Gerry Weiss and Diana Stein -- were concerned the Commission was asking for too much too early in the process.

But they were convinced by the other six who favored the $30,000 from the start, but said it would most likely be necessary to go to the Fall Town Meeting to ask that some of that money be reallocated to other Charter related expenses unrelated to consulting.

Andy Churchill, now Commission Chair, had written and submitted the Town Meeting article early in the process in order to make the deadline for this upcoming session, and now it's too late to change the wording to broaden it beyond use of "consultants".

They all agreed to divvy up a list of towns in the state who are engaged in or recently finished the Charter process to ascertain what they spent and for what services.

Article 35 will probably not come up until late May, so they have time do research and come up with data to support their request.

The Charter Commission also voted to set their first state mandated Public Forum for Thursday, May 12th in the Amherst Regional Middle School auditorium from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM.

Annual Town Meeting starts May 2nd with a 45 article warrant, 13 of them "citizens petitions," which are often time consuming.

Meanwhile, meeting at the same time over in Town Hall the Select Board announced the three finalists for permanent Town Manager:

#amherstma Finalists for town manager are Paul Bokelman of Somerville, Maria Capriola of Willimantic, CT & William Fraser of Montpelier, VT

— scott merzbach (@scottmerzbach) April 11, 2016

Dear Charter Commission

Dear Charter Commission Members,


I am writing to encourage you all to cast a vote of support for asking Town Meeting to fund a consultant to the charter commission process and to bring such a request forward at the Spring Annual Town Meeting, rather than waiting till Fall Special Town Meeting.

I understand that during the lead up to the election, there was considerable controversy in the community about the need for a Charter Commission. The election, though, is now past. The voters of the Town have weighed in, and a Commission has been established.

It is time now to dive into the work in as thorough, above board and comprehensive a way as possible. Procuring a reliable funding stream for expertise to help guide that process seems entirely prudent, as does doing so from the outset of the process rather than somewhere down the road.


I have responded, below, to some of the specific objections I have heard related to those viewpoints.


"It is too early in the process. Postponing the use of a consultant will engender a spirit of trust and good will in the Commission Members themselves."

If it is good practice to hire outside expertise to guide a charter review process, which a quick Google search seems to indicate is the case, then the Commission should be engaging in that good practice from the get go.

That is what will ultimately engender trust—researching, establishing and carrying out the best possible practices for working together on behalf of and in collaboration with the community.

Efficiencies gained through the availability of consultancy support will free Commission members for the important work of purposeful deliberation and outreach. These are the tasks that I think we want most to entrust in you, our elected representatives, not the more menial legwork and clerical aspects of the process.


"The Town employs too many consultants. We should be able to do this work with expertise already on the Commission or in the broader community."

It is true that the Town hires many consultants. But is this the area to begin skimping on that kind of investment? We are not just talking about where we should park our cars or whether to put in a round about or traffic signal. We’re talking about considering fundamental changes to the way in which we choose to govern ourselves. Surely this rises to a level of importance that merits the seeking of outside support.


"It is expensive."

The costs associated with establishing a Charter Commission, including financial costs, were one of the often-touted reasons for suggesting a No vote on the petition article. And yet, the measure passed by a significant margin. The voters knew the ramifications of what they were voting for or against. As did the Charter Commission candidates.

Mr. Weiss, in explaining why he didn’t sign the charter petition, had this to say: “It’s costly in terms of people’s time; staff time (they must attend every meeting; prepare ballots, count signatures, ensure transparency); town money (the town must pay all costs including hiring a consultant as was done for the last Charter Commission)…”

Doesn’t it seem a bit disingenuous to state ahead of time that the town would have to spend money on a charter consultant if a Commission were established and then get voted onto that very same Commission and vote to deny or delay said money?


"Town Meeting might vote down the request."

This is true. But not before having the opportunity to give full consideration to the merits of the proposal as well as to offer amendments from the floor if so desired (including amendments to the amount of the appropriation). Why not trust in that process? And, even if the measure should fail this spring, wouldn’t it be possible to bring it back in the fall, anyway?


"The Charter issue is too divisive and funding a consultant to the process would just add to the divisiveness."

As Charter Commission members you have an opportunity to combat the spirit of divisiveness rather than feeding it. A unanimous vote in favor of funding a consultant to the charter process—to ensure a thorough and efficient vetting of the options available to us as a Town, as well as the range of viewpoints within the Town—would go a long way in setting the stage for a spirit of constructive dialog and deliberation as opposed to division. Lets get off on the right track!


I don’t know, exactly, where I hope the Charter Commission process leads, in terms of specific recommendations for change or modification of our current form of government.

I do know, though, that my hope is for the process to be one that is as open, honest and constructively thorough as possible. Hiring a consultant to help guide and support this complex and vitally important process seems to me to be an idea based not only in common practice, but also in common sense.

I urge your support.


Thank you so much for taking my input into consideration and for your willingness to assume such a far-reaching and important task on behalf of the community.


Sincerely,


Marcy Sala

The Cost Of Democracy

Andy Churchill, who received the highest number of votes for the nine member Charter Commission at Tuesday's election, appeared before the Finance Committee last night to defend his petition article to Town Meeting requesting $30,000 in seed money over the next year or so for Charter expenses.

 Andy Churchill is a former School Committee Chair

Churchill told the fiscal watchdogs he had talked to a member of the Collins Institute, a think tank who has provided such work to 14 Charter Commissions, and he corroborated the amount as "ball park".

Furthermore, the 2001 Amherst Charter Commission spent a total of $29,249 (over two campaigns) and East Longmeadow recently approved $30K for its Charter Commission.

The money would mainly go towards a consultant who would provide, "Expert support, do the legwork between meetings, research, organize articles, collect citizens input, and help draft the final legal document that will pass muster with the Attorney General."

The town is legally required to provide $5,000 to a Charter Commission within 20 days of the election and Churchill said his $30,000 figure did not include that amount, so he would amend his motion down to $25,000.

Finance Committee Chair Kay Moran also suggested he be less specific and simply make it a request for "Charter related expenses" rather than directly tying the entire amount to a consultant, since there will also be advertising and printing costs.

In addition he should spell out a source for the funding.

FinCom member Marylou Theilman suggested Churchill verify with the rest of the Charter Commission at their first meeting April 5 whether they approve of this request and get back to them by next week's meeting.

 Click to enlarge/read

The Charter Commission's initial agenda is to organize themselves by electing a Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk.

Since Churchill was by far the #1 choice of voters, he should be given the leadership role. 

Echos Of A Distant Battle

March 29 election could have best annual election voter turn out in 11 years

When I realized today's local election was on the same date as 11 years ago when the Mayor/Council/Manager government failed for the 2nd time I started getting that deja vu vibe, which grew more overpowering with the controversy that arose yesterday over the School Committee race.

Rereading all the emails that ricocheted around the Internet leading up to epic showdown only reminded me how much work went into the effort -- collecting the thousands of signatures, the more than 50 meetings of the Charter Commission over a year-and-a-half, and the public relations campaign to support passage of the new form of government.

While I'm confident the Charter Question will pass handily tomorrow I was also pretty confident this time eleven years ago that the new government proposed by that Charter Commission would pass, which obviously it did not. 

If the Charter question does not pass tomorrow, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

##### 

Bev & Stan Durnakowski (SnBDurn) and I formed our own political action committee "Mayor Council Yes" since we were unhappy with the Charter Commission for choosing not to go with a Mayor/Council (voting 5-4 against it) and eventually coming up with a Mayor/Council/Manager.

In other words, we kind of held our noses and worked for passage, figuring it was still w-a-y better than our current Town Meeting form of government.

The regular pro-Charter folks formed "Charter Now", which we jokingly referred to as the "Charterista's."  And the opposition formed "TownMeetingWorks.org" as they have done again in the current campaign.

Jim Pitts was Vice Chair of the Charter Commission and strongly believed in the strong Mayor/Council model that was narrowly rejected by the Commission. His 3/30/05 memo to Bev and Stan the day after the defeat moved me to tears.  

Twice. 

   Amherst Charter Chatter 2005

Proposed Charter lost April 1, 2003 by 14 votes and by 252 votes on March 29, 2005.

Let The Battle Begin!

All three Charter Ballot Questions have passed over the past 20 years

Like worms after a spring rain, lawn signs will be springing up all over town this week.  A few for the only contested townwide position -- School Committee -- but mostly for the most hotly contested issue of the year:  ditching our current old fashioned amateur form of government.

Well, electing a 9-member Charter Commission to discuss it anyway and return to the voters with whatever proposal they create.

 Anyone but Vince

 What are they afraid of?

Time For Change

March 29:  Most important local election in the past 11 years

'Amherst For All' is coming under criticism for something they never did -- publicly call for Town Meeting termination -- from 'Amherst Town Meeting Works', who publicly whine about maintaining our antiquated form of government by begging a No vote on the March 29 ballot question concerning the formation of a new Charter Commission.

Of course this falls right into the same category of hypocrisy demonstrated by those candidates now running for the Charter Commission who refused to sign the initial petition that brought the question to the March 29 ballot in the first place.

At the very least it shows they do not have much confidence their side will triumph on the all important ballot question.

Even more hilarious is the new video from the undynamic hat duo, Mary Wentworth and Michael Burkhart, with their Pulitzer Prize investigative hatchet piece riddled with errors.



Because W.D. Cowls and Jones Properties donated a measly $200 each to Amherst For All, which was an organization with the stated goal of supporting a ballot question that simply allows voters the right to choose, is hardly a grand conspiracy.

I'm sure both companies gave many times over that this past year to local sports teams and social service agencies.  And Cinda Jones granddaddy also had a daughter, so he did not split his empire between just two sons.

She is also not the "biggest property owner in Western Mass."  Her multi-generational owned company, W.D. Cowls, Inc is.  In fact they are the #1 property owner in the entire state, although the vast majority of the empire consists of undeveloped woodlands.

 Note who two of the sponsors are (right column)

And if it was not for Barry Roberts buying the old College Drug Store in 1991 after a fire forced any redevelopment to include an elevator, that building would probably still be a downtown eyesore.

As well as the First National Bank building directly across the street that he purchased and renovated twenty years ago.  A building that currently has a prime vacancy after TD Bank moved out, but still costs Barry a bundle in property taxes. 

Eleven years ago Amherst Town Meeting Works raised almost $7,000 to defeat the Mayor/Council/Town Manager government that came out of Stanley Durnakowski's one man crusade to  collect the thousands of signatures required.

 Stan Durnakowski Amherst Bulletin column 2002

And Stanley had a prominent sign that was always by his side:  "Time For Change:  Sign This Petition For A Mayor For Amherst."

You can't get much more clear than that.  Yet 3,000 people still chose to sign his petition.

Yes, Amherst For All was non-committal when it came to clearly saying it was time to terminate Town Meeting, but that's certainly not why 3,500 people still chose to sign their petition.

And now they have formed a second organization, Amherst For Change, that will probably get more forthright with messaging.  At least I hope they do.

 Now you know who NOT to vote for (see 9 above)

Here's who you vote for!