COUNCILS

As Amherst For All reminds us, there are councils everywhere.  And since the council is really the oldest form of governance in human history, we know a lot about it.  Before I came to Amherst in 1970 I lived in five communities governed by some sort of council.  Many of us have.

Some are good and some are bad. Some are elected, and some are appointed and some are almost hereditary.  Some are reflective of the electorate and some are not.  Small governing bodies are ubiquitous in politics and organizational life, and most of us know a lot about them.

The idea that a council should be representative of its community or organization is, however, not that common.  Historically, rather the opposite is true.  Councils were expressly intended to be unrepresentative; they were drawn from the “best” men (almost always men), those with special and sometimes mystical powers or knowledge, those whose leadership the community would most readily accept.  In modern times, those characteristics have largely been replaced by wealth and influence.

If you think Amherst should be governed by people of wealth and influence, a Town Council is the government for you.  If you think that ordinary citizens are too ill-informed, too lazy. too old or infirm, too prone to fall asleep in meetings, or too easily duped,  then vote for a Town Council.  

But be careful what you wish (or vote) for.  Councils are long-term propositions.  Do not be overly influenced by the issues currently roiling the town.  Do not think too much about the Town Meeting members you would like to silence.  They, or others who share their views, could easily become councillors in the future.  If you want a council to reflect a point of view about, say, sustainability, don’t be too sure that the council’s viewpoint will always be one you share.

Who becomes a councillor depends upon whom is elected, and whom is elected depends upon who chooses to run.  Or who is chosen to run.  And who is doing the choosing.

Amherst For All has said that if we don’t like the council offered to us in this charter, we can always change it in 2024.  That’s wrong on two grounds.  First, any substantial change in the town government, like reducing the size of the town council, or adding a mayor, requires the election of a charter commission.  Have you enjoyed this process so much that you want to do it again?  And again?  Second, while the charter mandates a review of the governance every ten years in years ending in 4, it doesn’t preclude a review at any time by vote of the town council.  The town council may propose and implement minor changes.  What’s a minor change?  The charter proposal doesn’t say.  Indeed, the charter doesn’t say anything about changing the charter.   But my point here is that if you love a 13-person council, that’s good because that’s what we’d have for a long time.  No Town Council can change that or submit a change to the voters.

Councils are susceptible to being controlled by groups with agendas for the town.  Sometimes those agendas are good and sometimes less good.  For example, on the contentious issue of development, Amherst For All has some interesting ideas that deserve to be debated.  But it doesn’t really want to debate them.  It wants to elect councillors who share its ideas.  Inevitably other groups will support candidates who have different priorities and we will very quickly find ourselves with party politics.  Regardless of what names, if any, the parties have, an elected council will take our town into party politics.  And party politics quickly changes debates from what you are for to what you are against.

Councils do hold public hearings; Amherst’s boards and committees have been doing that for a long time.  The Charter Commission itself held a mandated public hearing in May, 2016.  Many, including me, addressed it.  I have seen no evidence that it paid any attention to comments addressed to it.  The proposed charter mandates public hearings but doesn’t require the town council to pay attention to them.  Indeed it doesn’t even require the town council to be present at them.

It’s silly to be against councils; many of us have been on councils, boards of directors, and similar small groups that make decisions for the larger community or organization.  But over three hundred years ago, refugees from Europe came to this continent with a better idea: self-government through the town meeting.  Let’s not romanticize it; early town meetings in Amherst were dominated by a few powerful men, whose names we recognize on our street signs.  The advent of Representative Town Meeting in 1938 actually democratized the process; it is no longer possible for wealth and influence to exercise such dominance.  Amherst voters should ask themselves whether they really want to return to a governance that makes it possible once again.