AMHERST — The future of Amherst’s town government was on the line as voters turned out to the polls Tuesday.
In addition to a handful of townwide races, voters were tasked with deciding whether or not to approve a new charter that would replace the town’s 240-member representative Town Meeting with a 13-member Town Council.
Tuesday’s vote was the culmination of a long and contentious campaign that has generated passion from politically engaged residents on both sides of the issue. Amherst Town Clerk Sandra Burgess described the voter turnout as “steady” and higher in certain precincts than in past years.
“No matter what happens, our town is going to have a lot of upset people,” Kerry Spitzer, a candidate for School Committee and proponent of the new charter said. “It’s a divided town right now, and I think there’s going to have to be healing.”
Terry S. Johnson, an opponent of the charter who held signs outside of Munson Memorial Library, agreed.
“Of course we’re going to have to mend, but it’s going to take a lot of effort to try to work together for the betterment of the town,” she said, calling Tuesday’s election “the vote of the century.”
Jacqueline Maidana, a Town Meeting representative and strong opponent of the charter, echoed a similar sentiment.
“It’s hard to say what’s going to happen. Like the nation, this town is split,” she said, standing outside Immanuel Lutheran Church on North Pleasant Street with a “Vote No” sign in hand.
Holding signs outside of Munson Memorial Library, voter Sarah Brahman, an opponent of the charter, said she hopes to maintain personal relationships with friends and neighbors on the other side, despite the politically charged nature of the issue.
“I have friends and neighbors who I think are voting ‘yes.’ I don’t think it will be an issue in terms of maintaining relationships personally, but politically I think it will be difficult on the town,” she said.
Town Meeting representative and longtime resident Barry Federman, who has publicly supported the charter, called Tuesday’s vote a “contentious election,” noting that even Town Meeting representatives are split on the issue.
Driving the division are disagreements among residents on issues of accountability, representation and efficiency in town government.
Proponents of the charter interviewed Tuesday argued that the Town Meeting system is dysfunctional and that lacks accountability because of the large number of representatives.
Outside of Precinct 7 at the Crocker Farms School, longtime resident Adrian Steair said she voted in favor of the charter because she thinks “it’s time to get accountability back in local government,” adding that she thinks this is the most important local election she’s ever voted in.
Spitzer said she’s excited about the charter because “it would allow for more opportunities to come together and have prolonged discussions about the issues,” adding that she has had difficulty in the past communicating with her Town Meeting representatives.
“It’d be great to have an identifiable, accountable person to engage with as a citizen,” she said.
Proponents also argued that the smaller Town Council system would allow its members to be more educated on town issues because they would be able to work full-time.
“We need full-time government in this town. We need people who are truly well-read on the issues,” Federman said.
Holding signs outside of the polls at Munson Memorial Library, charter proponent Michele Spirko argued that many of the 240 Town Meeting representatives are not well-informed enough to make quality decisions on behalf of Amherst residents.
“They have no idea what they’re doing,” Spirko said. “(The system) is totally dysfunctional — it can’t be fixed.”
Opponents of the charter argued that the Town Council system would not adequately represent ordinary residents and would instead favor the wealthy and special interests.
“I think that concentrating power rather than having checks and balances is a bad idea,” Maria Kopecki said while holding signs outside of the precinct at Immanuel Lutheran Church.
Kopecki said opponents don’t have the kind of money to spend that the charter campaign did.
“They have run a campaign that is very much like the type you see on the national and state level, and I think it’s a shame to bring money in politics to our local level,” she said.
Brahman agreed, saying she thinks it’s “close to impossible to have representation when there is money and special interests involved.”
“Although not perfect, the current system is far better than what is being proposed … 13 people will not be able to represent me. I’m not a member of the money class,” Maidana said.
Activists and voters on both sides who were interviewed outside the polls Tuesday expressed cautious optimism about the results.
“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Spitzer said. “I have my fingers crossed for both elections.”
Maidana said she didn’t think either side should be confident, saying the vote will likely go right down to the wire.
The representative Town Meeting system has been in place in Amherst since 1938. Tuesday’s charter vote is the first vote on a possible change to town government since 2005, when voters rejected a proposal to replace the representative town meeting with a mayor and town council.