THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER: A ROTTEN COMPROMISE

Have you ever noticed that the folks urging you to read the proposed charter are those who oppose it?  There is a reason for that.  The majority on the Charter Commission didn’t really want this peculiar structure.  It is the result of what philosopher Avitai Margalit has called “a rotten compromise.”  That sounds strong.  It is strong.  Margalit uses the term to describe compromises that violate basic principles of fairness and human dignity.  Can a proposal that seeks to concentrate political power in a small single body when it is now dispersed among separated but co-dependent branches be called rotten? Let’s see.

Even before the Charter Commission was elected, Amherst For All was enthusiastic about a smaller council and a mayor rather than manager.  Because the majority on the Charter Commission was so thin, 5-4, a series of compromises jettisoned the mayor in favor of a town manager, and the council was enlarged from 9 to 13. 

I am quite sure I would have opposed a council-mayor charter but I would have acknowledged that it had a conceptual and structural integrity that the charter on offer lacks.  A mayor, elected by the whole town, provides “policy leadership”, which is one of the chief functions of an executive.  The council, elected by precincts, districts, or wards (take your pick) enacts the laws and provisions necessary to support - or oppose - that vision.  We have seen this at work recently in Northampton over the issue of more security cameras downtown.

What Amherst For All wants us to support on March 27th is not even a pale imitation of a mayor-council charter.  It is a mishmash of poorly thought-out and poorly explained ideas.  Please follow along.

Article 1 section 3 of the proposal states “All legislative powers of the Town shall be exercised by a Town Council. . .The administration of all Town fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs shall be vested in the executive branch headed by the Town Manager.”  

Article 2 section 1(a) however says that “[t]here shall be a Town Council consisting of 13 members which shall exercise the policy leadership and legislative powers of the Town.”  

Article 2, section 5, says “Except as otherwise provided by the general laws or this Charter, all powers of the Town shall be vested in the Town Council as a whole. . .”

This is a remarkable sequence of statements and it should be disturbing to all voters.  Within a few pages the council has been transformed from a legislature   to an executive-legislative hybrid to an executive agency.  “All powers of the Town” is a powerful and breathtaking statement.  It is also what makes this charter proposal a rotten compromise.  

It says in essence, that the council can do whatever it wants. What it wants to do depends upon who sits on it.  Who sits on it depends upon who runs for it.  And who runs for it depends upon who chooses to run - or who is chosen to run.

Unlike the present strong town manager arrangement, the charter takes away the manager’s independent sphere of authority.  All appointments, even within town administration, are subject to the council’s approval.  While the proposal gives lip service to the idea of voter petition and voter initiative, it makes these actions immeasurably more difficult than our current charter.  While this proposal, unlike earlier charter proposals rejected by the town, does not permit a pocket veto, it does allow a citizen petition to be enacted without council action.  Is this a good or a bad idea?  It depends on the petition.  It depends on the citizen.

The charter allows 7 (sometimes 9) or even 4 people to decide the fate of the Town.  This is rotten.  Even if it turns out that the 9, 7 or 4 people reflect my opinion on the matter at hand it is rotten.  I don’t know who those people will be.  Neither does Amherst For All, even though they will try hard to elect councilors who agree with them.  It is an extreme diminution of the numbers of people participating in making these decisions.  It seeks to reduce dissent and make it easier for outside forces to control both the membership and the decisions of a council.  Outside forces will inevitably seek to do so.  

How could the charter commission majority have agreed to a rotten compromise, one that challenges the basic precepts of democratic governance? The answer is simple: they hate Town Meeting.  Their hatred is so intense that they cannot see clearly.  One commissioner said clearly in an open meeting “anything but Town Meeting.”  The chair of the commission said, in rejecting any compromise that included town meeting, “we were sent here to do a job.”

But that’s not true.  Nine commissioners were elected, five supporting a council and four supporting Town Meeting.  An understanding of that results should have resulted in a true compromise, especially since the four minority members and many other town meeting supporters urged that a compromise be sought.  But that was not to be.  Instead, the Commission majority want us to concentrate “all powers of the Town” in a very few hands.  That has the potential of not reflecting the town and of suppressing dissent.  It is rotten.

This commentary is more technical than I prefer to write, but it is necessary to underscore the deficiencies of this proposal.  Please read the proposed charter.  After you have thought about the concentration of power, think about the proposal’s provisions for elections and for voting districts.  I shall think out loud about them in a future commentary.