AMHERST’S NEW GOVERNMENT:  CHECKS AND BALANCES

James Madison sought, both in the Constitution he largely fashioned and in The Federalist  essays he wrote to urge its ratification, to explain the central and novel idea of checks and balances.  He would be distraught to see the degree to which partisanship in 2018 has sought deliberately to overturn this core feature of our national government.  He would be similarly saddened to visit Amherst in 2018 and discover that, given the opportunity to create a new government, Amherst chose to disregard checks and balances.  Neither nationally nor locally is this disregard accidental.

Voters, as they consider the various candidates for Town Council seats should seek to discern their views about this essential feature of democratic governance.  Here are some questions voters should think about and question candidates about.

Separation of Powers  At the core of a system of checks and balances both within and between the legislative and executive branches is the idea that political bodies are both independent of one another and dependent upon one other. This is delicate; too much independence can lead to fragmentation and paralysis while too much dependence can lead to tyranny, either by an oligarchy or by the majority.  Since the Charter gives all power to the Town Council and since all appointees in Town Hall serve at its pleasure, any semblance of separation will depend upon the willingness and ability of councillors to delegate authority to its appointees and to other bodies, whether specified or unspecified in the Charter. Would candidates be willing to do this?

Political Parties  The purpose of political parties is to undermine the system of checks and balances.   A political party wants to control the government to the greatest extent possible. The greater their success at doing this, the less bodies of government are able to act independently or check one another if power is abused.  We have seen this take place nationally; in Amherst the question is, will it happen here? Or perhaps, is it happening here? Candidates for the Town Council should be asked if they will serve independently, regardless of any pressure that may be put on them by any organized group.  Their statements should be studied to identify their commitment to act and vote independently.

The Voice of the People  Town Meeting, like the House of Representatives, was designed to give members of the community easier access to their government as well as a more representative voice in that government.  At both state and national levels, the separation of the General Court and Congress into two independent bodies is an excellent example of checks and balances at work. (Thank you, John Adams.)  But when the lower “popular” house is eliminated what role do the voters have in the intricate system of checks and balances? Two answers to this, often voiced in Amherst during the Charter debate, must be dismissed.  First, elections are not part of the checks and balances system. Incumbents can be re-elected or defeated, but during their incumbency they are unchecked by voters or other members of the community. Second, the charter calls for periodic forums in which voters may have the opportunity to express their opinions (or may not, since the length and form of the forum is up to the Town Council and councillors are not required to attend the forum).  Candidates should be expected to explain how voters and other residents of Amherst can provide a check on the power of the Town Council.

Concentration of Powers  The new government explicitly gives all powers to the Town Council.  Some explain that this is “boilerplate”, that similar language can be found in city charters all across the Commonwealth.  That is true - and perhaps terrifying. It is not true of towns that have kept their town meetings. It is true of cities only, and for smaller cities like Amherst it is likely to feel like a real diminution of voter power.  Combined with the advent of political parties in Amherst, as well as the well-established inclination of governmental committees in Amherst to vote unanimously, we have every reason to be concerned that the multiplicity and diversity of voices and opinions will be less represented in our governance.  What will candidates do, if elected, to avoid the dangers of the concentration of powers?