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.