When I first entered Amherst's Town Meeting, I belonged to two food coops, fixed my bike at a bicycle repair collective, bought groceries at Louis Foods and my Pyrex baking dishes at one of the two hardware stores in town, lived in an apartment in an old house on North Pleasant Street, and walked to UMass where I was a graduate student. I was elected as a one of a "slate" of people supporting more representation in Town Meeting for half the town's residents tenants.
We joined a Town Meeting in which almost everyone had been elected in a race with more candidates than seats. There were a lot of faculty members and others who worked in town. Plus a lot of women who were homemakers active in community organizations. Although some feared Amherst's government was being taken over by students, we shared many values and all believed we represented our neighbors.
Wasn't it great? I loved it. But I think my memories of that golden age mix in a few anachronisms, like bookstores and galleries that only appeared later, after the demise of some of the older businesses that sold necessities. We don't live in a Norman Rockwell painting: change happens. No matter how much we liked having a grocery store downtown, there weren't enough of us shopping there to keep it in business. Our food coops succumbed because fewer people were willing to be active members (at least partly because organic produce and granola became available in grocery stores). Both because they wanted the rewards and challenges of careers and because their families needed the income, women became stretched-to-the-limit Supermoms. As housing prices rose faster than regional salaries, a greater percentage of residents became commuters. Associations that depend on volunteers found it harder and harder to keep going, and held repeated conversations about how to attract more younger members.
Representative town meeting is one such organization. Amherst's reputation as a dynamic progressive town has attracted new residents who share those values but don't find the extravagant time commitment town meeting now requires to be consistent with their family and professional priorities. As has been observed frequently, most seats are uncontested and several are empty. The dwindling pool of Town Meeting members, compared to town residents, is disproportionately white, homeowner, and retired. In that sense, Town Meeting is not "representative of" us, and many citizens think it doesn't "represent" us either. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of representative town meeting, there is nothing inherently virtuous either. It only works if it works.
The voters clearly have their doubts. We have elected two different charter commissions in seven years, and instructed the current commission to pursue alternatives to representative town meeting. In the meantime, Town Meeting had its own Study Committee, but adopted only a few of its recommendations and doesn't abide by those (the 3-minute rule for speakers is regularly violated). Allowing people to run for Town Meeting by nominating themselves hasn't increased the number of candidates but has made it a pseudo-open Town Meeting representing itself. Town Meeting has not been able to fix itself partly because it doesn't have the will, and partly because it can't be fixed without rolling back the clock. In any event, "fixing Town Meeting" is not on the ballot.
As I've said before, being in Town Meeting feels like democracy in action: motions, debates, votes. But let's step outside, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves if our current form of government is the best we can do. The people who have the time to participate actively are not representative of the residents, and, given the scarcity of contests, can't even know whether they are representing our opinions when they vote. Town residents usually don't know how any individual member voted, or even if he or she voted at all. Personally, I'm tired of having people claim to represent us simply because they volunteered to be in Town Meeting.
The proposed charter reform keeps citizen participation through committees, petition, initiative and referendum, as well as town forums at which anyone can speak, without having to commit themselves to 20 or more evenings a year. The charter adds improved communication and coordination, and clearer decision-making and accountability; all these are more important than ever during fiscal hard times. Everyone will get to vote for the mayor and five of the nine members of the Council (four at large, one from the precinct). Finally, our votes will count.
On April 1st, Amherst will choose which of two forms of government best meets our needs now and in the future. I want a government that is democracy in action, not only an image of democracy. That's why I'm voting Yes for the new Charter; I hope you'll join me.