By Andy Steinberg
On Monday, March 4 the Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate and sustained ceasefire in Gaza, an end to the Israeli military siege of the Gaza Strip, the release of the hostages and detainees on both sides, the removal of obstacles to urgently needed humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and an end to unconditional United States military aid to the Israeli government. The resolution passed on a vote of 9-3 with one abstention after a 5-hour acrimonious meeting. I was one of the Councilors who voted “no”.
There is a lot of agreement in our community that there should be a ceasefire in Gaza and a resolution from the Council. I would be surprised to find anyone in Amherst who is not dismayed by the deaths, injuries, starvation, dislocation, denial of medical care, and dehumanization of so many innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The resolution needed to recognize that Muslims and Jews have historic claims to the region as their homes, and can and should have peaceful and successful lives in their historic homeland. I supported a resolution that would call for a ceasefire, recognize the complaints of Palestinians and Israelis, demand action by both to end the sequence of actions that have taken lives, made innocent people hostages, and denied basic needs.
My objection to the resolution as originally proposed, which I believe is shared by many in our community, is that it failed to hold both Hamas and Israel accountable for what is happening in Gaza. If the tragic events in Israel and Gaza illustrate one thing, it is that the path forward requires recognition that both parties must take responsibility for their actions. I offered amendments that made this clear and these amendments were adopted by the Council.
But at that point the process sharply departed from what I believe our community expects from its representatives: a good faith effort to find common ground and send a unified message on behalf of residents. The passage of these amendments was met with a loud and angry response from part of the crowd in the auditorium. Constant shouting and interruptions made it impossible to carry on the discussion. After a recess to try to regain order, the original sponsors announced that they no longer supported the resolution and asserted that there could be no resolution without their support. In the ensuing bedlam, a motion was made to reconsider my amendments and, without an opportunity for meaningful debate, the Council quickly brought the process to a close. The Council in a split vote endorsed the original resolution.
I was disappointed that my amendments which were intended to broaden support for a ceasefire resolution were approved but then rejected in such a disruptive and dysfunctional environment. Sadly, the decision of advocates of the original resolution to not consider any compromise further divided the community and was contrary to everything I believe the Council ought to embody – respect, thoughtful debate, and open dealings.
In the disorder of the crowded Middle School auditorium and amid persistent calculated disruption, reasoned consideration of either the original motion or amendments became impossible. This is not what our community should expect from its Council and it does not reflect the manner in which the Council has worked together since 2019. Councilors should be committed to finding common ground. It may not always work, but the effort is critically important to the well-being of the community. Procedurally, we must never again attempt to carry out our responsibilities in such a dysfunctional setting. It is important that we learn from this experience and reconsider the purpose of resolutions, the process for their development, and the manner of discussion. And I hope that any impulse toward conflict, rather than cooperation, can be resisted and overcome.
Andy Steinberg serves as an At-Large member of the Amherst Town Council, a position he has held since 2019. He previously served as a member of the Select Board in Amherst from 2014-2019.
THE AMHERST CURRENT 
I watched the Council meeting on TV and was disappointed that the audience disrupted the meeting, and that they were allowed to do so. It created a climate in which the Council’s deliberation was difficult, to say the least. You can’t have orderly discussion when audience members are allowed to shout at you.
And I was disturbed that the Council –in seeking to maintain harmony — accepted the parliamentary argument made by the three councilors who sponsored or initiated the initial Resolution, that the Steinberg amendment they, as sponsors, disagreed with (and to withdraw their sponsorship) rendered the Resolution dead. One councilor confidently cited Rule 8 as the basis for the motion being withdrawn, because they removed their names as sponsors. But that’s not what Rule 8.1 or 8.8 say, or envision as a workable process. She should read the Rules that govern the Council. In fact, a Resolution “introduced” by a Councillor belongs to the Council, to be considered (adopted/rejected, amended, postponed, tabled or referred) as they see fit, by vote or unanimous consent. If the sponsor(s) want(s) to withdraw the measure they can, but the withdrawal needs to be in writing, and placed on the agenda (Rule 8.8). That, apparently, provides time for another member to become a sponsor the measure.
One of the basic principles of parliamentary procedure is that every item presented for consideration is entitled to a full and free debate. By providing over three hours of public comment on one of the most contentious subjects in our society the Council did its job admirably. I’m not sure any minds were changed, but that’s often the case in a legislative body. But what happened after public comment ended was very troubling. The order of the meeting dissolved. Part of that was caused by the venue; the acoustics were horrible, with Councillors being unable to hear each other. Part of that was the behavior of the audience. And part of the problem was the lack of understanding of the Council Rules by members of the Council; maybe they need a Parliamentarian.
The vote is behind us now. Let’s hope the Council can find a way to prevent what happened from happening again.
LikeLike
Thank you Mr. Steinberg for your thoughtful comments on the dismaying incident of the Gaza resolution – a low point in Town – and for your principled efforts on the night of March 4 public comment which devolved into ugliness.
Town Council should never have permitted such rancorous disruption, nor ultimately approved the fractious language in the resolution, which seemed designed to inflame: Like the iceberg and the Titanic, that night the resolution and the Town Council were destined for one another. Amherst cannot have another instance of the process violently disrupted, public figures menaced and threatened, rules for audience behavior violated and left unenforced, and capitulation to mob rule.
I am among the growing number of citizens who now question the Town Council’s ability to carry out its vital charter without interference. As disgraceful as the behavior was on March 4, it was more disillusioning to me to see the Council’s perfunctory ‘clean-up’ on March 12, which proceeded without any discussion of the actual misbehavior, and without addressing – nor even acknowledging – the request in the open meeting complaint that the TC issue a statement of intent to never again permit such disgraceful perversion of civic process.
Your article provides the first genuine acknowledgment of this need, which is essential for the Council to maintain its credibility and legitimacy. I sincerely hope that others on the council will join the effort – I suspect many will. I admire your courage.
Tom Porter
LikeLike
I objected to the requirement for unilateral disarmament of Israel while Iran et al. continue to provide weapons to Israel’s adversaries. I also support Andy’s cry for the Council to try to diffuse the acrimony in our Town and to find ways to bring us together in some middle ground where all can benefit.
Hilda Greenbaum
LikeLike
Thank you Andy for this piece.
As someone who is proudly Jewish and deeply critical of the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza AND Hamas’ horrific acts before, on, and after Oct. 7, I am dismayed by the end result of this local process that could have helped bring Amherst together around a call for real peace and a potential pathway to reconciliation. I remain hopeful that residents and local officials will find common ground and learn from this troubling experience.
And, of course, the real point is that wherever we stand politically locally, the tragedy in Israel and Gaza is profound, horrifying, and heart wrenching, and all of the victims deserve our compassion and support.
LikeLike
I’d like to address Andy directly here rather than talk about him in my response. Andy, a couple of weeks ago, I wrote to the whole council to try to explain why so many, not just “some” people passionately objected to your amendments and speeches from you and George Ryan. Palestinians were deeply offended as were their allies that you thought Hamas’s agregious behaviour needed to highlighted while objecting to Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. In the Council’s resolution condemming Hamas’s brutal attack in Israel on Oct 7, no such highlighting of Israel’s egregious actions of the past 75 years was mentioned, nor should it have been. Why? Because there is no justification for brutality; only reasons. And their is no justification for what Israel is doing in Gaza; only reasons. To insist on pointing out Israel’s reasons, you are saying “they (Hamas) made Israel engage in genocide. And as I and others, including at last night’s council meeting tried to point out the inherent racism in that stance, you get offended and double down on your condemnation of the relatives, friends and allies of people being slaughtered whose crime is to simply live in Gaza. Ignorance of how one’s actions may be racist is part of becoming anti-racist. But when people of other skin colors tell us they are experiencing racism, there is no reason or justification for not listening and to attack. Rather than condemn, ask to sit down with them and ask them about their experience.
I understand why people, perhaps like you and one of the writers above want government operations to be quiet and tidy. And maybe you thoight getting rid of Town Meeting would accomplish that. Thankfully, it didn’t. Democracy can be loud and messy. Sometimes people have to yell to be heard. Your actions suggest you don’t want to listen. You have heard from over a thousand people on this matter but are either only listening to your own opinions or the voices of a much smaller group. The larger group is telling you that you are wrong and why you are wrong. Yet you persist on your path. It’s time for you and some of your colleagues to truly listen.
LikeLike
The resolution in Support of a Ceasefire in Gaza was explicitly presented as a follow up to the October 16 resolution that already explicitly held Hamas accountable for its actions, without inclusion of Israel’s history of violent oppression or consultation in any way with the Palestinian, Muslim, Arab and Christian communities, despite the fact that the day before it passed, a group of 800 genocide scholars had already warned Israel’s offensive in Gaza amounted to genocide.
The language in the Resolution in Support of a Ceasefire in Gaza was the result of a weeks-long community effort that carefully considered the expertise of affinity groups, impacted communities, and invited community and councilor feedback. The resolution was submitted with an extensive list of citations and broad support, including sponsorship by 3 councilors and endorsements from over 1100 community members, local businesses, schools, organizations, houses of worship, and faith leaders from the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist communities of Amherst. Hundreds of town residents attended the March 4 council meeting to engage in civic discourse, with about 80 giving public comment, approx. 90% in support of the resolution. For me, it exemplified an empathetic display of town unity that unequivocally rejected the tactical messaging that our differences divide us on this issue.
Councilor Steinberg had numerous opportunities to be part of the collaborative effort that went into the carefully considered elements of this resolution. He had numerous opportunities to listen to the marginalized and most disproportionately impacted members of the community centered in this resolution, with whom he refused to meet.
In introducing and supporting amendments designed to dilute Israel’s accountability in this extraordinary asymmetrical assault and de-center the experience of marginalized community members most at risk, councilors demonstrated that they would rather abuse their power and prioritize their own privileged positions over the will and safety of their constituents. This may be within their legal rights, but council sponsors equally had every right to remove our names from a resolution that no longer represented our shared values. The council has a right and an obligation to deliberate, but that does not exempt councilors from accountability for their harmful conduct.
LikeLike
Andy
Thanks for trying. You folks had an impossible job under the circumstances. A TC vote is meaningless, since it never reflects unanimity in a town. This one is even more meaningless. It, of course, will change nothing.
Jeff
LikeLike
We are kind of astonished at Andy Steinberg’s description of the March 4 Town Council meeting. We were present at this meeting and saw something very different. There was a spirited debate with supporters and opponents speaking during public comment, followed by a contentious council process with lots of debate and motions. Over 750 Amherst residents had signed the proposed resolution as well as many local area businesses, churches, mosques and other organizations. In the midst of the horrific killing and starvation of a defenseless population in Gaza, passions were high.
After the resolution was presented, Mr Steinberg offered two amendments calling attention, again, to Hamas’ role in the current atrocities. He has clearly misunderstood the objections to what he proposed. The residents who drafted this resolution gave great consideration to bringing a document to the council that was as inclusive as possible. Mr Steinberg failed to keep in mind that the council had already passed a resolution condemning Hamas just two weeks after October 7. It has appeared to us that they did not feel a similar urgency to address the death of thousands of Palestinian civilians that followed. Mr. Steinberg’s desire to repeat the council’s condemnation of Hamas in the resolution seemed to offer an explanation of why Israel must continue to kill civilians. That is why the amendments were so offensive to many of us. Of course, they created audible anger and frustration from all of us who worked so hard preparing this resolution. They were particularly hurtful to Palestinian residents and those with personal connections to Gaza. Mr. Steinberg may have thought his amendments would “unify”, but they did the opposite. That may be disappointing to him but that does not prove their value.
The three council sponsors of the resolution asked to have their names removed from the amended resolution but, they did not, and could not, prevent the council from sponsoring whatever resolution they wanted. Mr. Steinberg knows this. He also neglects to mention that, following the pause, several councilors chose to change their votes on his amendments. That’s how we ended up with the original resolution.
There continued to be a spirited debate and angry denunciations of the residents present by several council members. Under council rules, we were not allowed to respond to this. Only the councilors got to speak following the public comments. I would say Mr Steinberg, like all the councilors, had tremendous opportunity to debate, propose, criticize his constituents etc. He just failed to pass his amendments. And apparently he didn’t like the general public participating so much.
As far as “persistent, calculated disruption,” perhaps Mr, Steinberg has evidence of a plan to disrupt. But, in planning for for the meeting, all the discussions we observed, stressed the importance of not disrupting, not getting drawn into confrontations, etc. The tenor of the community reactions in the meeting have been grossly exaggerated. Despite the strong feelings many of us had, we accepted direction from our allies on the council and from Ms Griesmer to not disrupt. The meeting continued for 4 1/2 hours. All councilors got lots of airtime. The police stood there quietly and never needed to intervene in any way.
We believe the problem that Mr. Steinberg seeks to prevent in the future is called democracy. For years the council has done its business in relative obscurity. On March 4 many of came to participate and speak up. That’s not a problem, its something to celebrate.
LikeLike
You were given a chance to understand the point through public comment. But you chose not to listen. Sponsors of the resolution and members of Amherst4Ceasefire contacted you to talk about the resolution and get your feedback. You chose not to meet with them.
Instead, you come up with arguments about why this shouldn’t pass based on beliefs “shared by many in our community” when you don’t offer any information as to who those people are. There were over 700 signatures on the resolution when it reached the council. Who are the people you are referring to? Is it just your own beliefs?
Or is it possible that you have so much hubris, that you just cannot fathom that you were on the losing end of this one. “My amendments,” as you call them, just detracted from the resolution enough to strip it from it’s intended purpose – something that you still seem to have difficulty understanding.
Stephen Brevik
LikeLike
I encourage anyone who is considering commenting on this nonsense article to first read the comment by Leyla Moushabeck above. I think many of us are tired of setting the record straight, defending ourselves in the face of unbelievable disrespect by our elected officials.
Steinberg’s lack of self-awareness is staggering, and taking no responsibility for what happened at that meeting is just atrocious leadership.
I teach my 8-year-old to stand up to bullies. Articles like this are intended to dissuade the public from participating in town government, but I plan to show up more, until we have a council that sees every resident as human.
Jill Brevik
LikeLike
Echoing Mr. Blaustein’s sentiments somewhat, I think Amherst residents have to wearily decide simply to reject the politics that generate these periodic tempests in a teapot. I too am heartsick about what is happening in Gaza, and I want to assist those forces that are working to address it, and ameliorate the harm to fellow human beings that is being done.
We have enormous problems in Amherst, with a dysfunctional, inadequate tax base, with poor oversight of certain town services (CRESS), with a ongoing housing crisis, and with public buildings that have been neglected for decades and need to be replaced. That’s enough for one group of 13 elected officials to address…..all year.
We did not elect these Town Council members to speak for us on US foreign policy. There was nothing addressed about it in recent election forums, and, to my knowledge, we got NOTHING in campaign material about the various world views of candidates, about the Mideast or about the United States’ role in the world. So the delegation of democratic authority to the Council from voters doesn’t exist.
Despite the peer pressure from other communities that sounded off on this topic, Town Council needs to stop allowing itself to be exploited as some kind of force multiplier for proponents embroiled on one side of a thoroughly complex controversy in foreign affairs. If the proponents want to come into my neighborhood with a petition for me to sign, and even a request for where to send my money, in order to get a truly accurate “sense of the community”, I would welcome them at my door, and even invite them in for a cup of coffee or tea, in order to discuss the matter. They would get thousands of signatures from Amherst, and some people would, politely or not, turn them down.
But these sledgehammer resolutions that simply reflect who is screaming the loudest at whom need to be avoided, or simply abstained from firmly by a majority of Town Council members. Yes, this is our political culture in Amherst, that we firmly believe that we are players on the world stage, the Whos in Whoville shouting “We are here. We are here. We are HERE!”, but there is more than enough work to do in town, by the Council, for hours and hours and hours, work which is in its sole province, work that only it can do.
This episode was an unforced error, generated and encouraged sadly from within the Council, and then made worse during the meeting from within the Council. Those Council members who started this damned thing should not be reelected.
LikeLike
Rich, just one question for now. Do you also think that the council members who started the October resolution should not be reelected? If not, why? I guess that’s 2 questions.
LikeLike
A value of this forum is the discussion. My column recognized that there is agreement that there should be a ceasefire in the Gaza and a resolution from the Council. We are all dismayed by the deaths, injuries, starvation, dislocation, denial of medical care and dehumanization of so many innocent Palestinians in the Gaza. I focused on the process and will respond in the same vein.
One comment analogized the March 4 meeting to Town Meeting. No Moderator would have allowed the disruptive behavior of some people on March 4. Note that I said “some”, not “most” or “all”. Amendments would have been considered and discussed. A decision would have been made by a larger group who were not elected after a campaign that selects people who are accountable to the voters.
We have a Council and actions, including resolutions, are the responsibility of the Council. Citizens can and should recommend actions – including resolutions, policies, and bylaws. But the final decision is the responsibility of those who are elected to be Councilors.
The Council, unlike Town Meeting, is required to comply with the state Open Meeting Law. That law requires that with very limited exceptions, all decisions be made in public, at meetings that are open to all and where there is notice about what will be discussed. It is a violation of that law for a quorum of the Council to discuss a matter outside of open meetings. Community sponsors of the resolution on March 4 invited all Councilors to participate in their process, but that would have violated the law.
The Council discussion about the wording of the resolution must occur in public at Council committee meetings and Council meetings. Public comment is an important part of the process, which is why there was a unanimous vote to extend the public comment period beyond two hours.
The purpose of my column was to encourage discussion about what we should learn from the process that led to the March 4 meeting and at that meeting.
Finally, I urge everyone to consider the October 16, 2023 resolution that was adopted after Council discussion and amendments to assure that it considered the long-term pain and hopes of both Israelis and Palestinians. That should have happened on March 4.
https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/70343/Resolution-In-the-Wake-Of-Hamas-Attack-On-Israel—voted-10-16-2023
Andy Steinberg
LikeLike
Ugh. This is so unnecessary.
BTW there is no link here to the resolution nor to what Andy’s amendment wording was — which I assume we can’t see until minutes are approved — so therefore facts are missing from this article.
I assume this is the resolution? https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71351/Amherst-Resolution-for-a-Ceasefire-in-Gaza-02-07-24
Observations:
This is just so dumb, which I think is part of what Bryan was getting at in his article. This is really not town business — but OK, if you have to do it, do it fast. Did it really matter if the resolution was worded perfectly? In my opinion, no.
It stinks that there was apparently so much turmoil (I did not go to nor watch to meeting). But in my opinion that could have been avoided. If people want something, and there is no harm in giving it to them, just do it. But do it fast and efficiently.
BTW this is not meant as criticism of Andy — in part because I don’t know the wording of his amendment — who I always vote for and respect a lot. Who has put in more years of service than him?
LikeLike
Rick, you say it was “dumb”, which I assume you mean as in “stupid”. I’m wondering which actions you think were stupid: Andy’s proposed amendments or the petitioner’s and council sponsor’s rejection of those proposed amendments?
LikeLike
Hi Gerry,
Sorry only just saw your comment.
By “dumb” (yes, stupid) I meant the whole thing, but mainly that something like this, which is not really town business, would take so much time. I mean 3 hours of public comment is just crazy. Was that really necessary? I mean the resolution spoke for itself, did it not?
I only just watched the meeting recently. I did not think Andy’s amendment was “dumb”, but if it were me, I would have taken the view that “this resolution is not really going to do anything, and is not some major town policy thing, so just vote it as-is”. I think the amendment was a minor detail that was not worth the time. But that’s just my view.
One thing Andy said at the meeting which I do not agree with is that amending a motion at a meeting is somehow against open meeting law. It’s just not. That happens all the time. It also happens all the time that motions are voted on at the first meeting they are presented. Now, if it’s something major, like some major policy change, then that’s not a good idea to vote at the first reading and discussion. But this resolution was not that.
The crowd should have understood better that amendments happen and should not have assumed that the resolution would have passed just as-is. But if they wanted that, then they should not have taken up so much time in pubic comment to give counselors more time to digest and talk about the resolution among themselves.
Rick
LikeLike
Rick, I’m a bit confused by your answer. Of course the resolution spoke for itself. However, it’s support in the Council was tenuous. Some councilors did not want to meet with the petitioners beforehand, thus they wouldn’t know how people were feeling about this until the night of the vote. I’m not sure what’s different about this measure vs any other that has public comment included. I can’t tell if you’re saying that there shouldn’t be public comment or Lynn should have stopped the public comment after a certain amount of time. Both seem like dangerous ideas to me.
And you say you don’t think Andy’s amendment was dumb, but you seem to be saying he shouldn’t have offered it. And I do agree with you on Andy’s complaint about open meeting law
Your last point is tricky. The Council had much time to ponder the resolution before the meeting and could have, as some did, met with the petitioners to learn where they were coming from, what the resolution meant to them, and what would constitute friendly and hostile amendments. The petitioners (I was one of them) tried to meet with every councilor but had had no prior knowledge of what amendments were going to be offered that would be seen as opposition. So to blame the hundreds of people in support of the resolution seems to be a misunderstood view of the entire episode, one that started many days before the meeting. One could also blame the councilors who didn’t work with the petitioners. Instead we (in spirit, as I was out of the country), knew there was opposition in town and and on the council, so to speak publicly was very meaningful in such a grievous time in Israel/Palestine.
LikeLike