FACT-CHECKING "AMHERST FOR ALL"

Amherst For All (AFA) is revealing its true position in its commentary of January 22, 2016. This is no surprise to the 85% of Amherst voters who did not sign their petition, but it may come as a surprise to some of the 15% who thought they were endorsing a "study" of Amherst governance. AFA is unabashedly dividing Amherst voters into good guys and bad guys, supporters of "real changes" vs supporters of the "status quo." This is a demeaning kind of argument, one with which we are all too familiar in this election season. So, just as fact-checking is a feature of presidential politics, let's fact check AFA's assertions.

1.  AFA quotes Stephanie O'Keefe to the effect that no individual has both authority and accountability to make things happen. She thinks that this is a shortcoming of "local democracy." She has a great deal of credibility to talk about this, but her position is bizarre and contradicted by her own record of service on the Select Board. A strong town manager, supervised by an elected select board, has all the authority and accountability "local democracy" needs. Indeed, more power in the executive would have the tendency to undermine local democracy. Neither AFA nor O'Keefe gives one scintilla of evidence to support their claim. That is because there is none.

2. "Whether by design or confusion," AFA asserts, "the current system has effectively dissolved any form of real accountability." (Note the rhetorical argument: design or confusion are our two choices. Someone in 1938 either maliciously planned to dissolve real accountability or was so inept as to undermine it.) Then they say "the result is apathy." This faulty application of cause- and-effect argument is just not true. Voter turnout is low when there are not competitive races or important issues. Check out voter apathy next fall when the voters are asked to override the 2.5 limit on tax increase to support a new elementary school. And check out voter apathy in Northampton (which has the form of government AFA desires) when council seats are uncontested.

3. AFA is a new group but their animus towards Town Meeting is old. So are their arguments. This is too bad, because some of their criticisms have merit. It's just that their cure is worse than the disease. For example, they claim that Town Meeting isn't representative of the town as a whole because it is "older, whiter, and richer." Their solution is to replace Town Meeting with a council that will also be older, whiter and richer. And less democratic. The response to this demographic challenge should be to enlarge the franchise for town elections as I suggested on my blog: downwards to age 16 and widened to include non-citizen residents.

4. AFA also complains that Town Meeting members don't face consequences if they are significantly absent from Town Meeting sessions. This bothers me too, and steps are being taken to deal with this. Starting this spring electronic voting will be introduced to Town Meeting. Not only will this speed things up but it will provide a record of voting. In the old days, the local newspaper used to provide a record of how town meeting members voted; it would be good to restore that practice. And perhaps also list their attendance records.

5. But AFA comes closer to revealing its animus when it claims that Town Meeting "wastes valuable citizen and employee time . . .Unproductive votes to reject months of work by citizen committees. . .or opine on issues beyond Amherst's jurisdiction extend the length of the meetings. . ." This should send a shudder down the spine of voters. It reveals a mind set that

we have seen before. AFA is engaged in a kind of benign bullying: if your argument is weak, demonized those who disagree with it. Their January 22d piece is full of this.

What AFA seems to want is less discussion, less dissension, less democracy. Caveat emptor. 

Thinking Aloud.. .

THINKING ALOUD . . .

. . . while I decide how I will vote in March, when the Charter Commission is on the ballot.  I can now appreciate the thinking behind putting the candidates for the commission on the same ballot as the question of whether or not to have a commission.  My decision will certainly be strongly influenced by the slate of those who are running.  I will not vote for anyone who wants to replace town meeting with a city council, or the Select Board with a mayor.  I will be suspicious of anyone who says that they wish to "study" town government, just as I was suspicious and disappointed in Amherst For All when they revised "change town government" to "study town government" as a ploy to gain more support for their petition drive.  The language I will be looking for is on the order of "improve town meeting" and "strengthen town boards."  My own ideas on these subjects may be found in earlier posts on MichaelGreenebaumBlog.

I admire the work that Amherst For All put into their petition drive.  If they had not moved to the disingenuous language to garner signatures I would admire them more.   If Amherst moves to a mayor/city council form of government it will not be the end of the world.  But it would be the end of the Amherst where only the "h" is silent, the Amherst in which voter participation is the foundation of town governance.  It would be the end of an Amherst in which money did not influence politics.  If a new charter were anything like the one that failed twice ten years ago it would be the end of citizens' right to petition their government.  Changes in governance do not occur in a vacuum; they ramify.  Amherst would become a city.

I have been chastised more than once for using the term city, although no one can deny that under the laws of the Commonwealth that is what Amherst would be.  The pro-Charter folks would like to avoid that term; it is part of the magical thinking that underlies their efforts.  But town politics would become city politics: factions would solidify into parties, paid city officials would spend time running for re-election, and the input of professional managers and planners would diminish as elected council lots gained influence.

And who would these council lord be?  I don't know.  Neither does Amherst For All.  In its fantasies, civic-minded citizens, our friends and neighbors with perhaps differing policy positions, would engage in enlightened debate in the wards of the city, allowing an informed citizenry to make wise choices.  This is the fourth-grade civics version of politics.  Sometimes real-world politics resembles it.  But often it does not.  Read the newspapers.

Is Amherst too large for town meeting/select board governance?  No.  Not nearly.  Can that form of governance be improved?  For sure.  Some of the improvements - like reducing the size of town meeting to 180 members, enhancing the powers of town boards and the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee - would require revisions to the town charter and a charter commission.  Thus my dilemma.

In my over twenty years of active engagement with the question of changing the town charter I have yet to encounter any convincing reason to move away from our current form of government, although I agree with the need to improve it.  So I will wait and see.  If enough candidates seem to have an open mind about this, I will gladly vote for creating a commission. However, if most candidates seem to be saying "now, here's a solution; let's create a problem," I will sadly vote against it, while voting for the candidates who share my belief in the value of town meeting - and democracy.