The Case for Town Meeting: Tradition

The Case for Town Meeting:  Tradition

The argument for tradition is both a strong and weak part of the case for town meeting.  It is strong because it is an essential link to our past.  It is New England. It is the history and character of Amherst.   Preserving town meeting is important in the same way that preserving the Dickinson Homestead is important.  It links us to something both valuable and fragile.  Perhaps I need not argue the value; most people acknowledge that both knowing and preserving our history is valuable.  But the fragility is less often remarked upon.

When I joined town meeting there were a few who remembered when Representative Town Meeting was established in 1938, to replace the open town meeting which Amherst had outgrown.  Now I imagine there are none.  The past keeps slipping away both in individual and collective memories.  That’s why we need to make sure that the useful past is preserved in our institutional memory.

Part of Amherst’s useful past, strangely enough, is the realization that town meeting has not been a particularly virtuous or progressive body.  Look at the records from the18th and 19th centuries and you discover that it has been cantankerous and mean-spirited on many occasions.  The early founders, whom we honor on our street signs, didn’t always love or trust one other.  Complaints about town meeting are as old as town meeting itself.

But somehow, in spite of complaints and frustrations, the Select Board/Town Meeting governance got things done, made decisions, encouraged development of infrastructure and institutions, linked our town to the great educational institutions which are the source of our intellectual and economic  wealth.  There is nothing much new about the current complaints or the current progress either.  We still encourage and distrust development.

We have a historical commission to ensure that physical links to our history are preserved and honored.  We have an unparalleled resource at the Jones Library in the extensive archives which celebrate and preserve our past.  We have cared enough about the mural at West Cemetery to arrange for its re-creation when the wall on which it is currently displayed is demolished in favor of new construction.

When, at town meeting sessions,  the “constable” proclaims “Mr. Moderator, we have a quorum,”  we are being true to a tradition as old as the town, and those are roots, for better and for worse, worth protecting.  The question is, can we preserve the tradition while ensuring that town meeting meets the challenges facing the town today.  

The appeal to tradition risks sentimentality.  And so does the appeal to democracy.  Traditional societies have not been notably democratic, and democracy itself has had a rough go both in the United States and elsewhere.  But I emphatically appeal to both.  Government of, by and for the people needs to work itself out of its current dilemmas rather than hope a small group will rescue it.  And tradition, especially in a town like Amherst where there is a larger than usual built-in transiency, is a central part of our character.  We preserve our distinguished older buildings as a buttress against the rather less successful recent ones.  But of course we install plumbing and electricity in them.  We preserve our open spaces and accept, sometimes reluctantly, the trade-off of density in our village centers.

And so too should we protect the political structures that bind us to our history and are central to our character.  Luckily, they have served us well, as I shall try to show in subsequent commentaries.  I think they can profit from some renovation, but I want to strengthen them, not abandon them.  

I grew up in a bedroom community on Chicago’s North Shore.  The husbands went to work in the city and the wives stayed home.  No one paid much attention to village government.  As long as the streets were cleared and the trash collected we were content to let the town manager and trustees run the government.  So it was a jolt to come to Amherst with my young family in 1970.  Town voters actually made the decisions about money, land use, and policy, and that seemed utterly archaic.  It didn’t take long for me to realize that self-government by the people was not at all archaic; in the scheme of things it is still a relatively new idea.  And an idea that is still developing and still at risk.

The tradition that Town Meeting speaks to is what historian Carl Becker called “our great experiment in democracy.”  Let’s not give up on it.

Response to Nick Grabbe

Response to Nick Grabbe's 10 Points

Nick has been kind enough to comment on my posts, and has asked for my response to his points.  Here it is.  Nick's points are numbered, and my comments are italicized below each.

1. There's little discussion of issues before a Town Meeting election, and name recognition is the most important qualification.

It depends on the issue.  And it depends on the metric you use to determine how little is “little.”  If the letter page in the Bulletin is an indication, some issues are very much discussed.  When The Retreat was an issue it was a hot issue.  Name recognition is a reasonable way of voting for town meeting members.  If a candidate has been active in town, has spoken or written on issues, why is that not a good way to choose them?  In Precinct 6 where I live, during the more than two decades I ran for town meeting, name recognition yielded a diverse group of members who were not of one mind on issues.

2. Election turnout is very low, an indication that most voters are disengaged.

When seats are uncontested turnouts are low.  This is true too in Northampton which has a mayor/council form of government.  This is too bad, but unsurprising.  I see no reason to ascribe this to any particular form of government.  When seats on the Select Board, School Committee and Library Trustees were contested and associated with controversies, turnouts were higher.

3. Town Meeting can't respond quickly to crises and opportunities.

Special town meetings can be and have been called to deal with situations that needed emergency attention.

4. Amherst has diffuse leadership, with no one accountable for decisions.

I’m baffled by this assertion, which has been voiced over the years.  We have one town manager who was given a strong leadership position when the town adopted and the state approved a “strong town manager”  form of government.  He is accountable to the Select Board, which conducts an annual public evaluation of his performance.  The Select Board consists of five members who submit their performance to the voters every three years on a staggered basis.  How much more accountability could one want?

5. We elect capable people to the Select Board, but give them little authority.

It would be more useful, I think, to look at the Select Board, the Planning Board, and the Finance Committee as a kind of tripartite executive.  The problem, of course, is that the Planning Board is appointed (it could be elected) and the Finance Committee is a committee of town meeting.  I would support a look at the responsibilities and reciprocities among these bodies.  While the Select Board’s direct power is quite circumscribed, its symbolic authority is quite large.  So is its influence.  I think this is an appropriate state of affairs.

6. Membership in Town Meeting is restricted to those who are willing and able to spend 20 nights a year at it, causing over-representation of older, wealthier citizens.

The problem, of course, is that this is not true.  Too many members are no-shows too often.  My impression is that town meeting members are not wealthier than town voters, and if they are older it isn’t by much.  (The last charter commission compared the median age of town meeting members to the median age of Amherst residents, an inappropriate comparison since not all residents are of voting age.  An appropriate comparison would be with registered voters, but why would one bother to make it?)

7. Anyone can be a Town Meeting candidate with only his or her own signature, and in many precincts will be elected because there are more seats than candidates.

I take a modest pride having suggested this in 1994.  Prior to that time town meeting candidates had to canvas their precincts to gain ten signatures on their papers.  I like this current arrangement because it allows those who are reticent about asking their neighbors for support to run and often serve as a town meeting member.  And dare I suggest that Nick’s #7 seems to contradict his #1?

8. Town Meeting wastes a lot of time and money because many employees have to be there.

The Town Manager and Finance Director attend all sessions.  Other town employees attend when warrant articles pertaining to their work are being discussed and voted.  They are there to explain and answer questions.  How is this a waste of time and money?

9. The current system has resulted in high property taxes, a reputation for being anti-business, and a failure to provide enough housing.

Property taxes are high for many reasons, but our form of government is not one of them.  Much of the property in town is off the tax rolls.  Amherst has time and again voted to preserve open space and a consequence of that is higher taxes.  The town has voted to raise its own taxes to support the Community Preservation priorities.  

The town’s reputation for being anti-business is based upon rigorous Zoning Bylaws which are rigorously enforced by an accountable town government.  It is also the case that Amherst businesses are designed to appeal to the student population that frequents our downtown.  The town is affected by the easy access to the Hadley malls and the even easier access to online shopping.  I wish it weren’t so.  I would love a more diverse and thriving retail environment.  But to blame its disappearance on our form of government is no more correct than to blame the diversity of the 70s and 80s on our form of government.  The times they are a-changin’.

10. Amherst needs a political leader with a mandate to negotiate with UMass and the state on the town's behalf.

The town, the university and the state are all political entities, whose leaders are constrained by very similar relationships with boards and legislatures.  Would a mayor be unconstrained?  I hope not.  I am not thrilled by the thought of a strong leader although I sympathize with those in leadership positions who chafe at the constraints.

The Virtues and Annoyances of Checks and Balances

Among the comments one reads from supporters of “Amherst for All,” the group trying to collect over three thousand signatures to put a charter commission on the ballot next year, is that Amherst’s current town meeting-Select board-Town Manager form of government is inefficient and lacks accountability.  Several current and former Select Board members are among those supporters.  This is not surprising.  Indeed, their frustrations and annoyances suggest that things are working pretty well.

At the risk of sounding like an old-time civics teacher, let me suggest that when the executive and legislative branches stop being frustrated with each other that’s when we should start worrying.  In 1789, our founders were annoyed and fearful; some because the proposed executive was too much like a monarch, and some because state legislatures were deeply suspicious of the proposed new federal government.  In modern times divided government - a Democratic executive and a Republican legislature, or vice versa - sometimes led to stasis.  Today, some people are mad at the President, but everyone is mad at Congress.  But no one suggests that we should do away with Congress - not even Donald Trump.  Not yet.

In a democracy, legislatures contain and represent diverse voices and interests.  This is messy; it leads to prolonged debates, endless committee meetings, and exhaustion.  In a democracy, the executive, in its heart of hearts, would just as soon not have a democracy.  It knows what is best, it has more access to information, expert judgment, important contacts.  Or so it feels.  The founders well knew the risks of an unfettered executive; they created a bicameral legislature with the positive function of representing the people and the states, and the negative function of fettering the executive.

While not exact, the governance of the Town of Amherst mirrors this situation.  Like the federal system, town governance does a so-so job of fulfilling democracy.  In recent years, our three elected boards have gone through periods of fractious disagreement which, due to the Open Meeting Law, we can all observe.  Town Meeting can get restive as well-known voices repeat well-known arguments.  It is annoying to the Planning Board and town hall when, after they have done exhaustive work on a zoning article, some members of Town Meeting raise objections, sometimes protective of particular interests and sometimes based upon ideological differences with town government.  Since land use and zoning articles often affect some neighborhoods more than others it is natural for there to be intense debate and even hard feelings.  But imagine the feelings if Town Meeting did not provide a forum for the debate of these issues.

More often than not, Town Meeting has been an effective legislature.  Money articles usually pass after useful scrutiny.  Land use articles have a tougher time, as they should.  The requirement for a two-thirds majority on changes to the Zoning Bylaw means that zoning changes are more frequently defeated.  Town meeting consideration of zoning articles has cut to the heart of our town’s character.  It is right that people should disagree about this, and it is important that our governance provide a forum for that disagreement to express itself.  Testiness is a small price to pay for democracy.

When I first joined town meeting, the League of Women Voters gave a little pamphlet to all new members.  It explained how town meeting worked and said, among other things, that the presumption should always be in favor of the positions taken by town boards and committees.  At a certain point that admonition dropped out of the booklet, and today there are some members whose presumptions seem to run against boards and committees.  For most, though, articles and the motions made under them are considered on their own merits

Checks and balances are important at the local level as well as the national level.  I sympathize with the various parts of our executive branch that feel frustrated by town meeting.  I worry that this may be one factor that makes people reluctant to run for elected boards or serve on appointed ones.  I think we should consider seriously the suggestion that our executive is underpowered.  There might be interesting ways to deal with that without eliminating town meeting.  Later on in this series of commentaries I shall return to this issue.

In coming commentaries I shall try to make the case for town meeting and then consider some ideas for improving it.  I shall also consider the arguments against town meeting that have been raised by several highly  respected and thoughtful residents who are spearheading the drive to eliminate it.  I will also consider the pros and cons of strengthening the Select Board to make it a more effective executive.  I welcome comments, disagreements and other ideas about Amherst town government.

In 1994, Amherst’s first Charter Commission was elected. This was due to the strenuous efforts of a group of voters; they made no secret of their desire to replace Amherst’s Representative Town Meeting/Select Board/Town Manager structure with a Mayor/City Council form of governance.
In that first election, the highest vote-getter was John Eysenbach, a highly respected fiscal conservative and advocate for such a change. I was the second highest vote-getter and I ran as an avowed supporter of Town Meeting. I mention this because that split has remained throughout two subsequent efforts to change town government; on the matter of town meeting the town is pretty evenly divided.
Once again, a group of voters is undertaking the difficult task of getting 15% of Amherst’s registered voters to agree to put the question of a charter commission on the ballot. If they are successful, then all of the voters vote on whether to have a commission and who would serve on it if it is passed. This is hard work, and it is reasonable for those who undertake it to expect to have a large voice on the commission if it is established. Indeed, recent stories have indicated that this group intends to run a slate of candidates for the commission. However, any registered voter can run for the Charter Commission. In 1994, I was not part of the group that collected the signatures, but once the commission was established I felt that it was important that a vigorous voice supporting town meeting be included in its deliberations.
That mid-90s Charter Commission is instructive. It became clear to John Eysenbach that the voters wanted town meeting. It became clear to me that those opposed to town meeting had important and valid concerns and that it needed significant reforms. The Charter we proposed to the town tried to please both sides and managed to please no one. The voters rejected it quite decisively.
On two occasions since, voters have had the opportunity to vote on a charter that would replace town meeting with a city council form of government. On both occasions that charter was narrowly defeated. If the new effort to establish a commission is successful and that commission brings forth a similar proposal, there is every reason to suppose that the result, whichever way it goes, will be similarly close. The town is still divided.
If it comes into being, the challenge for a new commission will be to craft a charter that can do a better job than the 1994 commission’s proposed charter in addressing the concerns of those who both support and oppose town meeting. This will require patience, generosity and a heavy dose of political realism. The result may or may not conform to the prototypes delineated under the General Laws of the Commonwealth. Then it will be up to the voters of Amherst, who must be clear about their charge. It is not to compare the deficiencies of the present form of government to the virtues of the proposed form of government, although past charter commissions have attempted to shape the debate in that manner. Rather the voters must compare the deficiencies of what we have to the deficiencies of what is proposed. They must also be made aware of the virtues of what we have compared to the virtues of what is being presented to us. That is what a vote on a new charter must be based on.
I am still pro-town meeting, although keenly aware of its warts and blemishes. I am willing to consider and support changes in numbers, procedures and policies that will make it a more effective and efficient form of democracy. If Amherst for All would be willing to consider this approach, I would be first in line to sign their petition.