By Bryan C. Harvey
Author’s note to readers. This article addresses the question of what it means for a local government to take positions on “global” issues. I was motivated to write it because over many years of involvement in Amherst local government, including nearly a decade as chair of the select board, I struggled with what it means to “speak for the community” many times. Our community is struggling with it again, as the Town Council prepares to vote on a resolution for a cease-fire in Gaza, and I hope we can think about all its implications.
When tens of thousands of voices are being channeled through thirteen (or fewer) mouths we have to ask what, exactly, gives those mouths their authority? The answer is not obvious. Our charter doesn’t require the government to take on this role. In fact, it doesn’t even suggest it. The role of the council (Section 2.5) is to “provide for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed upon the Town by law.” Speaking globally does not appear to be one of those.
But the councilors may want to go out on a limb anyway. If so, it matters a great deal what voice they use. Does their position give them a mandate so broad that residents are willing to subordinate their own viewpoints to those of these wise representatives? That seems doubtful.
It is one thing to ask elected officials to call balls and strikes on the budget. But it’s something quite different for them to empower themselves to replace residents’ moral judgment with their own. In the last council election voters were asked to choose from among many candidates. Not one of them suggested that the job of a councilor is to curate local sentiment (and if anyone had, I suspect we would have a different slate of councilors right now).
There is a second possibility: councilors speak in an attempt to synthesize broad community sentiment, saying, in effect, “if you were to talk to everyone, here’s what you would hear.” Speaking in that voice, of course, places a tremendous burden on councilors to get it right, to fully and fairly reflect community opinion.
But this is often not the kind of statement resolution sponsors are seeking. They are looking for endorsement of a particular point of view, not a survey of local opinion. This can create an intractable conflict, completely distinct from the original policy question. If the debate devolves into a clash of expectations over the appropriate role of councilors, how likely is it that the community’s true voice will emerge?
We must also ask what these kinds of votes even mean? As far as the world is concerned, if Amherst, through its government, “speaks,” then Amherst the community has spoken. No one reads the fine print. No one gets a glimpse of whatever inner turmoil may exist. There are no shades of gray. One example: Chicago recently adopted a Gaza resolution — on a 23-23 city council vote with the mayor breaking the deadlock. What does that really tell anyone about what the people of Chicago think?
What are the Full Benefits and Costs?
Because global resolutions are, well, global, the direct benefits tend to accrue somewhere else. The primary benefit locally will usually be a sense of having done the right thing on an important issue, which is no small thing.
Costs, on the other hand, tend to be local. Because local resolutions have no actual force in the wider world, the risk of negative consequences is slim. Locally, however, costs are specific and potentially significant.
Distraction. Contentious global issues can consume local decision making. As controversy escalates, so does the time and energy required to plan for, manage, and respond to outpourings of sentiment. These debates tend to suck all the air out of the room: other priorities are put on hold, and necessary decisions wait for attention.
Damage to Community. After the vote the community will remain. Will it be stronger? Will the process leave us with better understanding, deeper reserves of goodwill, and greater resilience? Or will the experience leave a legacy of acrimony and resentment that may poison the well far into the future? When debating important issues our energies can easily slip the leash, and we can say and do things that leave lasting scars.
Wear and Tear on Local Officials. This is a consideration that perhaps only a former office holder would bring up. Speaking from experience, in this situation there is no good option. Representatives may not believe they have the moral authority to speak for the people. They may view issues raised by the resolution differently than the sponsors; perhaps they see nuances and context they feel are important for the local community, but not shared by the sponsors. They may see their responsibility as leaders to include an obligation to seek common ground. These are all valid perspectives, yet they may run headlong into the objectives of the sponsors and their supporters. No one wants to be in a “fight or flight” situation, yet that is what global disputes often produce.
Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time trying to recruit residents to run for local office. It’s always a tall order – the time commitment and the promise of controversy are hard sells. When I approach people I know well, they typically just laugh (but are quick to say how much they appreciate that someone else is willing to put up with it). People I know less well usually just seem terrified. The more we ask officeholders to deal with intense and intractable disputes, the less appealing we make the job. Would you do it?
Loss of Voice. This is perhaps the most significant potential cost. Governmental decisions always create both winners and losers, and the losers may feel damaged, disrespected, or alienated.
For many people — certainly in our community — our public voice is one of our most valuable possessions. So each time we elevate one voice above another we exact an especially consequential loss. And the more intense the dispute, the greater the magnitude.
We recognize that some element of loss is inescapable. Somebody has to make the tough calls on budgets and zoning. Losing is part of the social compact.
But not everyone believes the social compact means officials get to “speak for” them on non-local matters. On global issues, whatever offense follows exists only because we went looking for it. If you read in the New York Times that your community believes “X” even though you may disagree passionately — that really stings.
The Choice.
For elected representatives, the choice in these situations is immediate, personal, and fundamentally awful. I wish them luck.
But the community also has a choice to make. Do the benefits of speaking to the world outweigh the costs here at home? Can we acknowledge that some of these costs are self-imposed? Can we resist the pull of controversy and look for common ground?
These are judgments we can’t slough off to our representatives. At the end of the day, these are on us.
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.
THE AMHERST CURRENT 
It’s a good instinct to try to press local officials to take a strong stand on global issues. But, that’s not their job. Amherst has enough problems to keep them busy, and they are only part-time employees. If you want to end military aide to Israel, call Congressman McGovern’s office. That is their jurisdiction.
LikeLike
Well said! Elisa
LikeLike
Thank you Bryan for your very thoughtful statement. I will be watching the discussion and the vote on Monday night.
LikeLike
I appreciate the reasoned thinking and genuine devotion to the community that are both evident in this article. It is both foolish and shortsighted – although tempting – to rush to support fashionable causes when the flames of passion are licking at the feet of the town’s well-meaning citizenry. But issues are complex, and fashion comes and goes, and Amherst has more than once taken public stands that later (sometimes sooner) have become deeply regrettable. This one surely will.
Town Council has a tough job to do making Amherst the best that it can be. It’s very hard work. We appreciate it, and place trust when we spend our votes to elect them and our tax money to fund the town. Town Council: resist the impulse to make symbolic statements on an exogenous dilemma that is not the Council’s responsibility, and risks fomenting real division. Townfolk: listen and share respectfully, let’s find common ground rather than staking out turf. And all together let’s please proceed to the real and crucial business of the town.
Tom Porter
LikeLike
As a former town councilor and mindfulness practitioner, I understand the concerns raised in the article about our council passing resolutions on complex global issues. The lack of deep, nuanced expertise on these issues is a valid concern. Crafting statements in the absence of knowing the full picture, risks oversimplifying or taking sides in ways that divide residents.
But should we simply abandon these resolutions?
As a town councilor, I had asked a state representative we all respect what is the point of town council resolutions anyway? She said that they were very important! These resolutions send a message to the state reps about what our community cares and what we want to see happen.
While we may not have global expertise, resolutions can be powerful statements of our collective intention for both our community and national/international leaders.
Consider this: If every town and every city in the US sent a message based on shared values like peace and progress for all, imagine the impact on our national and international leadership. Maybe it disrupts the autopilot responses to war and terrorism?
Why does this matter locally? We live in an interconnected world. Global issues, like war, can indirectly impact us through tax allocation or refugee crises. Moreover, ignoring the suffering of residents directly impacted by these issues can leave them feeling like their suffering doesn’t matter to their neighbors and town representatives.
Maybe the question is not whether the Town Council should or should not sponsor resolutions, but rather about having clarity around what should go into them and how can the process be more streamlined and inclusive.
Instead of abandoning resolutions, let’s re-evaluate the process. The Governance, Organization, and Legislative committee, for example, could play a larger role in gathering diverse perspectives and working with the community sponsors and political experts in town to craft resolutions that represent the community’s interests fairly and align with our town’s values. The pros and cons and details can be worked out by the community so the Town Council doesn’t have to engage in all the conversations with residents that can happen in committees and district meetings.
Furthermore, freedom of speech is a critical value, but so is avoiding divisiveness and harmful language. While the council can’t legally prevent such speech, we, the residents, can engage skillfully. We can actively listen, provide balance when needed, and strive towards shared compassion, fostering a safe space for dialogue even when perspectives differ.
This may seem time-consuming, but ignoring the suffering of people and the causes of suffering hurts everyone in the long run. Conversely, investing time in listening, creating safe spaces for dialogue, and operationalizing our values can save us time and resources in the future.
Ultimately, by speaking up and reminding ourselves of our shared humanity, we pave the way for solutions that leave no one behind. If we don’t speak up on behalf of oppressed people and the causes for conflict, who will? If not now, then when?
LikeLike
Thank you so much for your much needed thoughts on this matter, Shalini. . I also want to say that the timing of these complaints about the appropriateness of Town Councilors weighing in on international events, is worrisome. I don’t remember such complaints coming forth after the October resolution condemning Hamas or the resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These complaints give the impression that some horrific events are more worthy of condemnation than others.
LikeLike
Some are, Gerry.
Tom Porter
LikeLike
This article fails to note that *the Town Council itself* set the precedent for weighing in on this specific global issue on October 16th, when it voted unanimously to pass a resolution condemning Hamas—over which American taxpayers have no influence—in order to show support for grieving and impacted people in Israel and Amherst.
If the council doesn’t pass the Resolution in Support of a Ceasefire in Gaza and acknowledge an atrocity committed with our tax dollars that has killed 30x more people, it sends a clear message that some lives matter more than others to this town. “Making Amherst the best that it can be” means acknowledging the concerns and experience of historically under-resourced and marginalized communities, to which the council also has a responsibility.
LikeLike
I think Mr. Harvey raises some very good points about making sure our local officials are focused on issues here in Amherst that effect our residents. We must be careful about not exhausting our public officials, and Amherst already is facing many challenges that deserve attention. That being said, it would not be fair or appropriate to apply that standard in the case of the Ceasefire Resolution before the Town Council this Monday. It peaks my curiosity as to why on October 7th, in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel we saw no article published on the Amherst Current or any other local newspaper about the jurisdiction of local matters vs. global matters when the Town Council passed that resolution unanimously with no verbalized concern about this issue. Interestingly, Mr. Harvey was noticeably silent when council and staff time were used to pass that resolution, and his wife, the Town Council President voted in-favor of that resolution. I think the issue should be taken up by a council committee to clarify what is within the jurisdiction of the Town Council and where their time is best spent, however, it sends mixed messages to say that this concern is of issue as many community sponsors including myself are attempting pass a Ceasefire Resolution. It is important for us as a community, regardless of our opinions to advocate for positions that are clear in logic and not in juxtaposition to previous position such as those expressed when the council passed the October 7th Resolution.
LikeLike
LikeLike
It is curious that this argument did not come up when the town passed a Resolution in Support of Ukraine, or the Resolution in the Wake Of Hamas’ Attack On Israel. I guess it’s only “not a local concern” when it impacts Brown people?
LikeLike
I have really appreciated the thoughtful article by Bryan Harvey, and the comments that followed. Shalini Bahl’s comments were especially helpful for me seeing in a such resolutions in a new way. At the same time, I generally oppose such resolutions for the following reasons (in order of importance):
Consent. Council members do not have the consent of voters as authorities on international affairs, except insofar as they directly affect the town. For example, problems of climate change affect the town so it is reasonable for the town leaders to issue resolutions on international treaties and federal or state laws. However, I doubt most Amherst voters believe they authorized the Council to speak on their behalf with respect to complex international issues, which have a very long-linked connection to town affairs. Voters went into the booth thinking about candidate judgment on local matters, rather than fraught international crises. I agree with Shalini that human suffering is something we should all be thinking about regardless of level of government. That would imply a resolution that speaks to the dignity of all individuals and the hopes for peace, but avoids policy recommendations.
Inaccurate representation of the community. This problem follows from the first one. Because residents likely did not consent to having council members make decisions about international issues, the issuance of such statements carries little representative significance. As a resident I may feel progressive in how to authorize a budget, but may have conservative views in foreign policy. Representatives always have to consider mixed preferences of constituents all the time, but at least they are authorized to make such judgments based on their understanding voter’s local interests. To say that the town council’s votes represents Amherst on an international issue is inaccurate and lacks legitimate foundations.
Institutional appropriateness. Using a local institution as a platform for international statements is inappropriate because it is not the competent body — constitutionally, by design or by expertise – to weigh in on such matters. Bryan Harvey laid out some additional reasons that are noteworthy. To be sure, council members have the right to speak about international issues in all forums, including the council chambers, but they should not be wielding the institutional apparatus of local government to make policy statements for which they have no authority or collective expertise. I believe it is important for local leaders to inform citizens about public issues, including ones that fall outside the town’s boundaries if that is their choice. They can organize local protests, write columns in the paper, and contact their members of Congress (who they likely know well). That is part of their civic leadership in a community. But in their capacity as local government officials they have no special prerogative to use votes in the council chamber to push for favored policies.
LikeLike
I agree with Bryan Harvey’s article about the desirability of having local officials spend their time on local issues, and I hope that will be the case in the future. However, as several comments note, the horse is out of the barn on the Israel/Gaza situation, as the Council has already chosen to take a stand on the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas (as well as previously on the Ukraine war).
Since the Council did vote in support of Israel after the Oct 7th massacre, it seems that not voting to oppose the deaths of over 20 times that number of Palestinians would silently send a harmful message to our Palestinian and Arab neighbors and all who who support them. I therefore signed onto the resolution being considered now by the Council.
I hope the Council will vote yes in this case, and then create a policy declining to consider similar “foreign policy” votes outside their jurisdiction in the future.
LikeLike