The Case for Town Meeting:  Democracy 

I have already referred to democracy several times in earlier commentaries.  I have not yet mentioned the familiar old bromide ascribed to Churchill and many others that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.  We have watched, at the national level, as basic democratic institutions have been threatened,  weakened and corrupted by big money, by gerrymandering, by income inequality, by lingering racism, by political extremism.  And here and now it is being threatened for a third time in less than twenty-five years by the desire to eliminate Amherst’s town meeting.

Melodramatic, I know.  Proponents of a new mayor/council charter can rightfully point to low voter turnout, excessive absenteeism among Town Meeting members, and reluctance of candidates to offer themselves for elective and appointed boards as threats to democracy.   And the newish phenomenon of online snarky comment has lowered the quality of public political comment to subterranean levels.  Why would anyone volunteer for public service in order to be attacked, to have their motives and abilities impugned, by anonymous trolls?  The Open Meeting Law, which makes boards and committees transparent, also makes it virtually impossible for new ideas to germinate and then flourish without being cut off and attacked before they are fully grown.  It is easy for disagreements in an open session to be nudged into conflict, for committee members to seek (and find) partisans in the blogosphere until elections for town boards become debased the way our national elections have become.

In this environment, town meeting, with its face-to-face character, its insistence on decorum, its rules to limit the length of speeches, seems an especially valuable political institution for the town.  And, like all democratic institutions, fragile.  At all times, Town Meeting is valuable, but in this time it seems essential.

But is Town Meeting living up to its democratic nature?  Its critics - who are sponsoring the current petition drive to replace it — have valid and important beliefs about this.  Those (of us) who believe in it cannot overlook their criticisms or be sanguine about its future.  I shall devote a future commentary to Town Meeting’s problems.  But the important question for Amherst voters as they contemplate the creation of the third Charter Commission in twenty years is whether the faults in Town Meeting can be fixed or whether they are so intrinsic that the institution should be abolished?

And if town voters were to vote to abolish it, would it be replaced with another form of government that still allowed town residents a substantial voice in their government?  The first Charter Commission proposed a smaller town meeting and an enhanced town council.  The voters did not like it.  The second Charter Commission proposed to do away with town meeting and to create a council with both at-large and neighborhood councillors.  On two occasion, voters rejected that.  The first charter — which I participated in crafting — preserved the essence of democracy.  The same cannot be said of the second.  Perhaps we should wonder why?

Town Meeting is democracy at work.  It is messy.  The motions presented to it by boards and committees can be upended by amendments and substitute motions.  Debate can be cut off too soon or not soon enough.  Opinion leaders speak out and others take their cue from them.  Some are regularly suspicious of town  government and town boards.  Some are suspicious of any motions that seem to be advantageous to developers or landlords.  Some members speak too much; others not enough.  In addition to the business presented to it by boards and committees, Town Meeting considers petitions from individual members and citizens.  These are always serious but not always pertinent.  Factions form and fade away.  Some members seem not to have read the article under debate; others have read it all too carefully and are ready to nitpick it to death.  Debate is lively, argumentative and sometimes edgy.  

All of this leads to frustration and annoyance for the town leaders who have spent much time crafting and debating articles before they appear on the floor of town meeting.  Even more irritating to them are members who apparently have not read the materials that provide the rationale for motions on the floor.  

This frustration is understandable, but it needs to be curbed.  Democracy is predicated on the assumption that voters are of different minds on issues.  Not only different minds but also different priorities; what is essential to one group is frivolous or trivial or ominous to another.  It is reasonable for neighbors to be concerned about unexpected changes in zoning; it is incumbent upon the Planning Board or other proposers to demonstrate that such changes are for the greater good.

This messiness should be abided because town meeting is representative of Amherst’s voters.  Amherst for All, which is spearheading the current petition drive to establish a Charter Commission, has raised doubts about this.  They believe that town meeting does not represent the voters of Amherst and they even question whether it is representative of the voters of Amherst.  I will write at greater length about this question in a subsequent commentary.  Here I will only say that a large representative town meeting is more representative than a small board or committee, however chosen or elected.  A political structure containing both a large body giving voice to the people and smaller boards and committees to do the hard work of governing and crafting legislation is on a strong foundation.  Both should learn to bear with each other and  their deficiencies.