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.
Autocorrect changed "councillors" to " council lords" in the above post. I regret this.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your feelings about an elected Planning Board given the current members have been given a third term?
ReplyDeleteIn theory, the Planning Board should be elected and responsible to the voters, not town hall. But whether a town this size can sustain and support a fourth elected board is a difficult matter. In a future post I will propose some changes in the executive branch and the relationship between the boards and town meeting. What are your thoughts?
DeleteMichael, I share your dilemma. I too see that some good changes in Town Government could come about with a Charter Commission and if the commission is approved and I am elected, I will work toward making those changes and any that I believe will strengthen our town government. I will however need to hear a very convincing argument against Town meeting before I could entertain a motion toward it's abolition. I have yet to hear such an argument. I agree with you that a smaller TM could solve some of the current problems of attendance and the lack of competition for seats. I am so worried about the divisiveness a new Charter Commission could create and has already created. Hence, my dilemma. Would it earn it's keep, even if what we end up with is an improved Town Meeting and improved power arrangements among elected and appointed officials? And what would 18 months of meetings look like with the bottom line being "keep town meeting or become a city"?
ReplyDeleteGerry Weiss
Thank you for your comment, Gerry. I am so pleased to know that you are a candidate for the Charter Commission.
DeleteI must object to the statement by TownMeetingWorks.org that "Town Meeting works well for Amherst, as it does for over 80% of Massachusetts communities". Representative Town Meetings are not 80%. And, out of the original 88 Representative Town Meetings, only 33 remain, 31 after this election cycle, with four more up for vote next year. Out of 296 towns (and 55 cities), this is not 80%. Speaking as an elected Member of Amherst Town Meeting, mis-statements such as this, deliberate or otherwise, call into question the integrity of all of our actions.
ReplyDelete