The committee underscored the importance of selecting individuals who displayed a willingness to listen, openness to ideas, engagement with the community, and a variety of experiences with the impacts of the charter. The geographic spread, prior involvement in the charter process, and diversity in work experience were also considered vital. Members listed their preferred appointees in alphabetical order without rank, and while some struggled to narrow down their choices, they ultimately provided a list of nominees.

The discussion on appointments was robust. Concerns were raised about the appointment of Julian, a first-year college student, with some members questioning his ability to commit and citing previous negative experiences with college students on committees. However, others defended Julian’s qualifications, arguing the importance of not making assumptions based on student status and emphasizing the need for various perspectives on the committee.

In addition to the selection of Charter Review Committee members, the committee also discussed procedural matters. This included the scheduling of finance applicants’ interviews and the desire expressed by a councilor to have all members present for deliberation. The timing of the deliberation was debated, with the possibility of shifting the meeting to accommodate all members considered. However, the details of the procedural discussions were not the focus of the committee’s attention and did not elicit the same level of detailed debate as the selection of the Charter Review Committee members.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was passed unanimously. The selection of the Charter Review Committee members is a step in the governance of Amherst, as this committee will play a role in reviewing and proposing potential changes to the town’s charter.

The committee’s emphasis on outreach and recognizing different populations impacted by the charter is a reflection of the broader community engagement efforts in Amherst’s governance.