Hanneke Stalls Creation of Reparations Committee

Report on the Meeting of the Town Council, October 7, 2024 (Part 1)

This meeting was held in hybrid format and was recorded.

Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Mandi Jo Hanneke, Andy Steinberg, Ellisha Walker (at large), Freke Ette and Cathy Schoen (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Hala Lord (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier and Bob Hegner (District 5). Absent: George Ryan (District 3).

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council)

Town Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) questioned whether unelected members of a town committee charged with overseeing spending on reparations should be the ones making those decisions. After the council defeated a motion to refer the charge for the five-member Amherst Black Reparations Committee (ABRC) back to the Governance, Organization, and Legislation (GOL) Committee of the council, she invoked her right to postpone a vote on creation of the committee until the following meeting of the council. 

GOL had worked from the final report of the African Heritage Reparations Assembly (AHRA) and two AHRA members, Chair Michele Miller and Amilcar Shabazz, to formulate a successor committee to the AHRA to prioritize and recommend distribution of the funds that the town has committed to the Reparations Stabilization fund. The draft charge recommends a five-member committee appointed by the Town Manager that will first examine and prioritize the recommendations of the AHRA and then have an obligation and ongoing responsibility to consult regularly with the Black community about allocation of funds. According to GOL chair Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5), the ABRC will “accept proposals through a process they will determine and collaborate with other relevant entities.”

Councilor Hala Lord (District 3) suggested that the length of a term on the ABRC be two years instead of three years. She said, “I was on the AHRA for two years, and we ended up meeting weekly and doing a lot of work. I am wondering how we make it more accessible [to serve] for our BIPOC families or other underserved community members, and maybe a two-year term will attract more people than three years.” Cathy Schoen (District 1) felt that two years was too short to learn some of the complex issues involved in evaluating proposals for funding. Terms on the CPA committee are 3 years, she noted. However, Lord pointed out that terms on the Town Council and School Committee are two years, and her motion for two-year terms passed by a 9-3 vote, with Schoen, Freke Ette (District 1), and Pat DeAngelis (District 2) voting no.

The draft charge was based on that of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) committee that recommends funding for projects involving historic preservation, affordable housing, and recreation and open space from the approximately $1 million in annual CPA funds. Hanneke said that the CPA committee differed from the proposed ABRC, because the priorities for the CPA committee were established by a Town Meeting vote. Hanneke stated that the council has never discussed the recommendations of the AHRA, and contended, “it’s the council’s job to talk about them and prioritize them and determine their feasibility. Does this mean that the council should only be allocating funds based on recommendations from this committee? Does this mean this committee, if we establish it, can establish its own reparative projects outside of whatever the council adopts?”

Devlin Gauthier responded that the council is “not the body with the knowledge, the experiences of this population to be the group to determine those priorities. The intention was that the council would expend funds based on recommendations of this group.”

DeAngelis was more direct. She said, “I want to remind the council that this is reparations for American slavery, for the kidnapping of Africans from their home, the stealing of their lives and their labor. It’s not a committee that should be implemented by anyone but the Black community. This is not a committee that should be managed by anyone but the people who have experienced [harms resulting from slavery].” Lord concurred. She stated, “The council voted in good faith to allot $2 million for now, but it really does need to lie in the hands of the Black community who has been harmed historically and continue to combat structural racism on a day-to-day basis.”

Hanneke did not appear to be swayed. She suggested that the ABRC should also look to examine the town’s bylaws to see if “anything in there is structurally racist or ends up with racist outcomes.” She then recommended sending the committee charge back to GOL. That motion failed, with only Andy Steinberg (at large), Lynn Griesemer (District 2), and Hanneke voting for it. At that point, Hanneke invoked a provision under the Town Charter (section 2.10c) to postpone the vote until the next meeting. Under the provision, which can be invoked by any member of the council at any time, discussion of the motion on the table must cease immediately and no debate is permitted on the decision to postpone. The ABRC charge will be discussed again at the October 21 council meeting. 

This post was originally published on this site