By Allison McDonald

At its meeting on Monday, the Amherst Town Council voted to advance a package of changes to the Town’s home-rule charter, forwarding eight of the 22 changes recommended by the Charter Review Committee to be developed into a local ballot question, tabling one of the recommended changes, and referring the rest to committees for further review.

The Council also approved the purchase of 54 acres of watershed land in Pelham for Amherst water supply protection, appropriating $55K from the Town’s water fund to supplement previously awarded grant funding for the $364.7K purchase.

And, the Council discussed the roughly $3 million in Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding recommendations before voting to refer the proposal to the Finance Committee for further analysis and recommendation.

CPA Funding Recommendation

Much of the discussion about the CPA funding focused on the proposed $477K for historical preservation work on the 1928 portion of the Jones Library as part of the larger renovation and expansion project. 

Katie Allen Zobel, chair of the CPA Committee, said the committee reviewed 16 proposals totaling about $6.4 million in funding requests this year. With approximately $3 million in available funds, “We did have to make some difficult decisions,” Allen Zobel told Councilors. 

The CPA Committee recommendation would fund 14 projects in the areas of community housing, historic preservation, open space, and recreation. The requests from the Town for pickleball courts and from the District One Neighbor Association for additional work related to the North Amherst “Industrial History of the Mill River” were unfunded.

The funding recommendation for the Jones Library followed a flood of public comment. “There was enormous outpouring of support for that particular project…well over 100 comments,” Allen Zobel noted, as well as some lingering concerns about a prior Council vote that “no further funding” should go to the building project. 

Councilor Pam Rooney (D4) questioned whether the CPA money would simply replace funds already built into the library construction budget, and whether the CPA grant would violate the Town Council’s agreement with the Library Trustees about the $15.8 million cap on Town funding for the project.

An opinion from the Town’s attorney which was included in the meeting packet indicated that the additional CPA funds may be used for the building project.

Councilor Cathy Schoen (D1) expressed concern about whether the funding was for work that has already been completed, and noted that the Finance Committee would explore this further when it provides its analysis of the funding requests.

The Council referred the CPA recommendations, including the Jones Library request, to the Finance Committee for further analysis before a final vote. 

Charter Review & Changes 

Later in the meeting, councilors turned to a long‑awaited response to the 2024 Charter Review Committee recommendations that were presented in early January. The Council adopted a detailed motion that both moves some recommendations toward a state Special Act to amend the Charter (which would need to be approved by a Town vote) and sends many others to committees—particularly the Governance, Organization, and Legislation (GOL) Committee—for deeper work. 

Resident Participation on Council Committees

One flashpoint was a proposal to allow resident members on more council committees, modeled on the Finance Committee’s non‑voting resident participants. Supporters argued that resident expertise would strengthen complicated areas like zoning; skeptics worried about workload and fairness.

“This is a very heavy ask of the Council… up to nine appointments on a yearly basis… I have concerns about accountability… and about giving certain resident voices precedence over others when there are already many ways to participate,” said Councilor George Ryan (D3), who pushed to send the question to GOL. 

Schoen saw potential benefits, especially for the Community Resources Committee (CRC). “I think we would benefit a lot if CRC had some three‑year [resident] members who really knew planning and zoning very well,” she said. 

The Council ultimately referred the idea to GOL. 

Term Limits

Councilors also split over term limits for the Council President and Vice President—specifically, a cap of three consecutive one‑year terms.

“I don’t think term limits are a good idea, and I don’t want to enfranchise them [in the charter],” Schoen said.

Councilor Hala Lord (D3) argued that a cap could counter “authority bias…You could serve for 21 years as long as every three years somebody else gets a turn. This gives other leaders a chance to step up,” Lord said. 

A bid to move the term‑limit provision forward as part of the package of changes for the Special Act to amend the Charter failed, leaving the issue to be handled, if at all, in Council rules.

Public Comment at Council & Committee Meetings

Another Charter Review recommendation sought to write more detailed public comment requirements into the charter, including for committees. Several councilors supported guaranteeing a basic comment period but balked at locking procedural details into the town’s governing document. 

“The greater flexibility we allow, I think, is to the Council’s advantage,” said Lynn Griesemer (D1). 

Rooney suggested simpler language: “I’d be happy to have it just read: ‘All regular meetings of the Town Council and its committees shall provide for a period of public comment.’” 

The Council stripped out a proposed sentence giving the Council President explicit authority to add extra comment periods on specific agenda items and tabled that detail for now. 

How Transparent Should Appointments Be?

Later, councilors dipped into “Beyond the Charter” topics, including how transparent the application process for boards and committees should be, especially for positions appointed by the Town Manager. 

Councilor Amber Cano Martín (D2) argued that the current system leaves councilors and the public in the dark. “If I don’t know who else has applied, then I have no option but to just endorse the person that was nominated, and that essentially means my vote is meaningless,” she said. 

Councilor Jennifer Taub (D4) added, “It does have the feeling of rubber‑stamping the recommendations.” 

Ryan noted that the Town Services and Outreach Committee is already reviewing the appointments process with staff. 

Next Steps for Charter Review & Changes

The Council voted unanimously (13-0) to the following next steps:

• Eight changes to be developed into a Special Act to amend the Charter that will be brought to the Town Council and to the Town for a vote. These include:
  • Changes to three definitions (public forums, multiple member bodies, and measures; recommendation numbers 1,2, and 3 in the Charter Review Committee’s final report) 
  • Increase district councilor meetings to three per year and require at-large councilors to attend at least five in a two-year term. (#10)
  • Clarify that the Council discusses a bylaw at a meeting before voting on it at a subsequent meeting. (#12)
  • Require at least three Councilors to vote to postpone a Town Council vote. (#13)
  • Delete language in the administrative organization section regarding the hiring waiting period. (#20)
  • Extend the voter veto (referendum) signature period from 14 to 21 days. (#22)
• 10 changes to be referred to the GOL Committee for further deliberation and recommendation to the Council by June 29. These include recommendation numbers  4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 21 in the Charter Review Committee’s final report.
• Two changes to be referred to the Finance Committee for further deliberation and recommendation to the Council by July 20. These include:
  • Add an earlier public forum on the budget; move the second public forum on the budget to a slightly earlier date. (#17)
  • Have School, Municipal, and Library draft budgets publicly available by April 1 (#18)
• One change (to require resident members of the Finance Committee) is tabled.

An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this article by summarizing a recording of the meeting which was reviewed and adapted by the writer.