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.