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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment