Saturday, November 28, 2015

Strengthening Town  Meeting 

In this series of commentaries, I have tried to show that Town Meeting is an appropriate and effective check on the executive branch of town government.  It is central to the tradition and character of Amherst.  It is democratic, representative and a blend of the civic with the political.  It is all of these things, but it does them imperfectly.  Here are some suggestions for strengthening Town Meeting.  If it turns out that we do elect a Charter Commission, I urge their consideration.

  1. Reduce the size of town meeting to 180 members - 18 (instead of 24) from each precinct.  This number is still large enough to make Town Meeting representative of the town, yet it would increase the likelihood of competition for membership in more precincts.  Since I believe strongly that candidates for Town Meeting should not seek signatures to run (since they do not represent their precinct but are representative of their precinct), I think that more competition for seats would be a good thing.
  2. In the newspaper, candidates for town meeting are given a few words to explain why they want to serve.  We get boilerplate answers.  Instead, the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee should construct an issue-based question for candidates to answer and the newspaper should give them enough space to answer.  If the newspaper does not do this, it should be a separate leaflet distributed within each precinct.
  3. The Town Meeting Coordinating Committee should also follow up with each member who misses a meeting.The idea is not to shame them, but to remind them that membership has its obligations.
  4. At the same time, Town Meeting should have fewer sessions in the spring especially.  A smaller number of members and the advent of electronic voting should both contribute to this.  All votes can be recorded votes, no longer necessitating standing votes or ballot votes.
  5. Only elected Town Meeting members should vote.  Ex officio members (town officials, select board, school committee) may make motions, present arguments and answer questions, but not vote.
  6. Discussing and amending should be separated from voting.  For any article, discussion pro and con, amendments, substitute motions, and motions to refer, table or dismiss should be made at one session and voted at the next session.  In between the two sessions, the Moderator serving as parliamentarian can organize the proper sequence of votes under that article, and at the subsequent session voting will occur without discussion or further parliamentary action.  This would be a significant change in the way Town Meeting acts but it would have many advantages and would conform to the procedures in other complex voting bodies.  It would eliminate the confusion that occurs when motions and amendments are made from the floor and would clarify in writing on the motion sheet the sequence in which motions will be voted.  It will give members time to consider their positions on such motions so they can come to the voting session prepared to vote.  It will eliminate the need for “calling the question,” since discussion and voting are separated.  
  7. The franchise should be strengthened by allowing resident non-citizens and high school students to vote in town elections and to be candidates for Town Meeting.  Enfranchising resident non-citizens in town elections has been proposed many times to Town Meeting and passed overwhelmingly each time, only to die at the Statehouse.  Let’s keep trying and asking Rep. Story and Sen. Rosenberg what it would take to make it actually happen.  Allowing teenagers to participate in local politics  seems to me obviously a good idea.  I see no downside to either of these moves, and a great strengthening of our town and our civic life as a result of them.
  8. The Town Meeting Coordinating Committee (TMCC) was a good idea that was insufficiently thought through.  It has no legal status and no real role in the matters coming before Town Meeting,  It should be written into the Town Charter, and its name changed to reflect its enhanced role.  It should be the voice of the membership in procedural dealings with the Moderator.  


If the petition drive is successful, as I expect it to be, I hope that voters committed to preserving and strengthening Town Meeting can be urged to run for the Charter Commission.  Discussions among the Commissioners could become a model for conducting political debates in Amherst.

2 comments:

  1. Michael, your numbers 1 and 8 can happen only if proposed by a Charter Commission. I, too, think changes are needed, which is why I support putting a Charter Commission on the ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kay, thanks for commenting. I wish the petition drive had been championed in more neutral terms so I could have signed it too. I hope some supporters of town meeting will run for the Charter Commission, as I did in 1993. More important, I hope some town meting skeptics will try to imagine how an improved town meeting, in line with some of my suggestions as well as others, might be an important safeguard for the town.

    ReplyDelete