By Bryan Harvey and Andy Churchill

The Town Council is preparing to launch a review of the Amherst Town Charter, the guiding document adopted by the voters in 2018 which gave us the current Manager-Council form of government. We each were elected and served on one of the recent charter commissions (Bryan in 2003 and Andy in 2016), both of which recommended a council as the legislative branch. We look forward to this first review with interest and offer our perspective on the upcoming amendment process with the hope that it might be useful. 

Why now? 

Changes to the Charter actually can be proposed at any time by the Manager, by any member of the Council, or by 50 citizens. The process that is about to begin is a special provision included in the Charter, which calls for a review in every year ending in a “4.” So, five years into our new system, this is a formal opportunity to ask whether adjustments are needed. The Council will appoint a special committee of nine residents (none of whom can currently be elected town officials) to consider changes and provide a report to the Council within a year. The Council will then vote on any suggested changes. If approved by at least two-thirds of Council members, any changes will then be put before the voters.

The Council is actively seeking charter review committee members and interested residents can apply on the Town’s website. On February 22, the Council’s Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee will set the cutoff for applications.

What can’t be changed?

Only certain kinds of changes can be considered by the Charter Review Committee. State law excludes from the charter amendment process changes that relate in any way to “the composition, mode of election, or terms of office of the legislative body [or] the mayor or city manager.” These big questions can only be considered through the full Home Rule Charter process, as in 2016 when the voters elected a Charter Commission that led to the creation of our new form of government, or through a special act of the State legislature. This means the Charter Review Committee will not be able to change the following: (1) a legislative branch that is a council of thirteen members, two each from five districts and three at-large; (2) a council that is elected every two years; and (3) a chief executive that is the Town Manager, selected and supervised by the Council.

There are other provisions of the Charter that cannot be changed at all because of State law. For example, while the Council is given exclusive authority for appropriating funds, in adopting the annual budget it can only act upon the recommendation submitted by the Town Manager. The Council may reduce the Manager’s recommended budget, but may not “increase any item in, or the total of, the proposed budget,” as described in the Charter, Article 5, Section 5.5[c]. (There is one exception to this as relates to school budget amounts, as described here.) This is true in any community that, like Amherst, has chosen the council form of government. In fact, there are dozens of Amherst Charter provisions that explicitly acknowledge the precedence of State law and in general the Charter must be consistent with State law (except in areas specifically delegated to municipalities).

Even with those exclusions there is a lot that can be looked at in a Charter review process. But there are also some practical considerations that further narrow the focus. Charters include a great deal of boilerplate language that, while not especially groundbreaking or controversial, nonetheless needs to be spelled out (e.g., descriptions of when the fiscal year begins and ends or when a vacancy in the Town Manager’s office must be filled). Other provisions put flesh on the bones of the underlying framework, such as the definition of roles and responsibilities of the Town Manager, and many other things. These kinds of things go with the job and including them doesn’t reflect a choice as much as an acknowledgement.

Deciding how much to mandate, and in what degree of detail, is a challenge. How detailed should the charter be in defining the day-to-day business of the town? How much instead should be defined in bylaws and administrative processes that can be closer to the daily action – and more easily changed as circumstances dictate? It’s a delicate balance.

So what is left for the committee to consider?

Primarily, the parts of the Charter that the Committee can review are customizations that mandate certain procedures or responsibilities within the general framework. There are a number of these, some modest and some more significant. 

Deciding how much to mandate, and in what degree of detail, is a challenge every charter commission faces, especially when it comes to stipulating how day-to-day business should be conducted. A charter, after all, is basically the “constitution” of a city or town, laying out the overall framework for its operation. How detailed should the charter be in defining the day-to-day business of the town? How much instead should be defined in bylaws and administrative processes that can be closer to the daily action–and more easily changed as circumstances dictate? Is there a strong case to hard-wire mandates into the Charter, or should the specifics be left up to elected and appointed officials? It’s a delicate balance.

Our two charter commissions had distinct and diverse memberships, followed their own processes, and selected their own advisers; but they both took a similar approach to finding the balance between mandate and flexibility. 

• Both incorporated a number of mandates. Some of these codified existing processes that had proven their value over time, such as a Budget Coordinating Group composed of municipal, school, and library officials and a Joint Capital Planning Committee. The committee could look into how these are working out. 

• Other mandates reflected various “checks and balances” to clarify how we hoped the component parts of a new form of government would interact. For example, both included a detailed annual budget process; gave the Council veto power over certain appointments made by the chief executive; and specified a broad range of opportunities for residents to petition the Council, place measures before the Council, and veto actions of the Council. With a few years of experience under our belts these provisions might be assessed. 

• Each of the two charter commissions set certain broad expectations regarding the Council — e.g., that it should adopt internal procedures, and that councilors would be compensated — but generally took a light hand in dictating the details. In part, this acknowledged that councilors get a mandate from the voters. In part, it recognized that as circumstances change, the Council would need the flexibility to adapt its organization and procedures without having to rewrite the Charter. And, in part, it simply acknowledged that a local charter is a constitution, not a set of bylaws. 

We hope the Charter Review Committee will take into account a wide range of views, including those of the Town Manager, town committee members, and the public. We also recognize that, unlike a charter commission that places its proposals directly before the voters, charter amendments require two-thirds support of the Council. It will therefore be especially helpful for the committee to understand councilors’ perspectives as it moves ahead. 

We appreciate the work of the review committee in continuing to improve Amherst’s form of government, and wish it luck! 

This is the first in a series of updates on the Amherst Charter review process.

Bryan Harvey served as chair of the 2001-03 Amherst Charter Commission. He also served on the Amherst Finance Committee from 1981 to 1991, and on the Amherst Selectboard from 1991-2001.

Andy Churchill served as chair of the 2016-2017 Amherst Charter Commission. He also served on the Amherst School Committee from 2004 to 2010.