A central topic of discussion was a proposal to amend Section 1.6 of the town charter. The amendment suggested that Amherst should change the language from “may” to “must” cooperate with other jurisdictions when there is a “reasonable possibility” of achieving improved and less expensive services for residents. This proposal sparked debate among the council members. While some members supported the change, others questioned its practicality and the implications of enforcing such a mandate. The vote on this proposal resulted in a split decision with some members abstaining or expressing varying levels of support, highlighting the need for further discussion in future meetings.

Another focus was the definition of a public forum as outlined in Section 1.7 of the charter. The current requirement that more than half of a meeting’s time be devoted to public comment was criticized for being inflexible, especially in situations with low public attendance or when more presentation time is needed. A proposal was introduced to redefine a public forum to ensure that all members of the public wishing to speak on the subject are given the opportunity, removing the rigid time requirement. This suggestion was generally well-received, with several members expressing that it would enhance public engagement.

In addition to charter revisions, outreach strategies were deliberated, including plans to engage the community during a block party event scheduled for the 18th. The plan involved setting up a table to present ideas from the charter review process and gather public feedback using a sticker voting system. However, this approach provoked debate among council members about the suitability of a block party for serious discussions about town governance. Concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of engaging attendees, who might be more interested in entertainment and food rather than political discussions. Despite some skepticism, the event was seen as an opportunity to reach a broader audience, including college and high school students.

The timeline for submitting committee reports also emerged as a issue. A proposal to extend the deadline to January 15th was put forth, intending to provide the committee with more time for refinement and to incorporate feedback. Several members expressed concerns about the current timeline, emphasizing the need for a more thoughtful response from the council, particularly as the term was nearing its end and the holiday season approached. A motion was made to request an extension to January 5th, aligning with the first meeting of the new council to avoid conflicts of interest. However, there were differing views on this proposal, with some members advocating for the extension to allow a thorough and considered process, while others worried it might dilute the urgency of the committee’s work.

The need for a systematic approach to categorizing and prioritizing ideas was also emphasized, with suggestions to use a ranking system to facilitate more discussions. The council acknowledged that while some technical issues might seem minor, they could lead to significant improvements and should not be overlooked. The importance of reviewing suggestions against the charter to determine their feasibility was noted, along with the potential for minor amendments to have a positive impact.