The need for clarity in communicating charter changes to the public was a focal point. Members discussed various methods to present these amendments, including the creation of a three-column chart detailing proposed changes, the rationale behind them, and the specific language to be incorporated into the final report. The example from Framingham, which used a “track changes” version to illustrate amendments, was considered a beneficial approach for Amherst as well.

Participants considered how to link public input creatively and transparently with the proposed amendments. The idea of numbering comments and identifying which feedback informed specific changes was suggested, akin to citing sources in academic papers. This approach would create a transparent connection between public input and charter amendments.

Attention then shifted to the town’s budget process. A document prepared to guide budget discussions outlined the differences in budgeting under the council-manager framework compared to traditional town government. The role of the Budget Coordinating Group (BCG), comprising representatives from various town departments, was discussed as a collaborative approach to budget planning.

Concerns were raised about the regional school committee budget and the perceived disconnect between state law and local practices. The Budget Coordination Group’s authority does not extend to regional school budgets, prompting discussions on the need for clarity in communications between the town and regional schools. Suggestions included engaging the town manager for insights and investigating the budget process further.

The scheduling of a public forum on the proposed budget was also debated. Mandated to occur before March 15th, the forum aims to present contextual information about past budgets and gather public feedback. Concerns were raised that holding it in March might limit public input, as many budget decisions would likely already be made by then. A participant suggested November as a more suitable time for the forum, allowing ample opportunity for community engagement before final decisions.

Legal compliance in the budget process was another point of contention, particularly regarding the regional school budget’s submission. Massachusetts General Law requires the regional school budget to go directly to the appropriating authority, which is the town council. However, the current practice involves the budget first going to the town manager, then the finance committee, before reaching the council. This procedure raised concerns about adherence to state law and the council’s direct decision-making authority over the regional school budget.

The finance committee’s role and structure were scrutinized, with discussions on the possibility of including non-council elected members. Concerns about increasing elected positions were expressed, considering the current challenges in finding candidates for town council positions. The balance between expertise and elected representation in financial deliberations was emphasized. The council also explored the potential for more detailed budget transparency, with suggestions to incorporate breakdowns similar to those found in Northampton’s charter, despite possible pushback regarding union contracts.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the five-year capital improvement plan, focusing on whether all departments should be required to include their projected needs. The importance of efficient, cost-effective schedules and financing options was noted, alongside the need for transparency and public engagement in the budget process.