Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission urges referendum on updated term‑limits law after court ruling prompts legal uncertainty
Summary
A commission recommended Amherst put term limits to a public referendum, treat three‑year transition terms as full terms going forward, and not count prior terms retroactively; the board voted to place the local law on the November ballot and set a decision path.
The Amherst town board advanced a proposal to update the town’s term‑limits law and submit it to voters, following a multi‑month commission review and a July 27 public hearing that drew large turnout and extensive debate.
Craig Buckeye, chair of the town’s term‑limits commission, told the board the commission unanimously concluded that a 2006 term‑limits law likely never took full effect because it had not been the subject of a public referendum and that recent court rulings (Hoemann v. Clarkstown) raised legal questions. "We would recommend that a referendum should take place and that under the Hoemann decision ... the term limits law never took effect and is not in effect today," Buckeye told the board.
The commission also recommended treating short three‑year transition terms as full terms going forward so that the staggered election schedule does not create inadvertent multi‑decade eligibility, and recommended a 12‑year limit for the town clerk and highway superintendent (rather than the prior 8 years). The commission proposed not counting prior terms retroactively in order to adopt a compromise approach that would be legally defensible and unanimous among commission members.
Speakers were sharply divided. Andrea Morganti of "Amherst Concerned Citizens" urged the board to preserve existing limits and avoid language that would reset incumbents’ term clocks: "Before changing a safeguard that promotes accountability and public trust, the burden should be on those seeking change to prove the current system has failed," she said. By contrast, Paul Wolf, a resident attorney, argued the town could put an eight‑year limit before voters and count prior service, calling retroactive resets "a betrayal to the public." Buckeye said the commission took a cautious approach to minimize litigation risk and recommended placing the measure on the ballot; the board voted to move the proposal forward and set a referendum path.
