Westport resident and former Representative Town Meeting member John McCarthy organized a petition, asking the RTM to review the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s “goals, process and proposed plans” for Parker Harding Plaza.
The petition, with the signatures of 61 electors, was delivered to the Town clerk on June 27.
On Monday, assistant town attorney (and former RTM moderator) Eileen Lavigne Flug advised RTM moderator Jeff Wieser to reject the request.
Her memo to him, as well as 1st Selectwoman Jen Tooker and Town Attorney Ira Bloom, said:
You asked me to review a petition from John McCarthy and over 20 other electors received by the Town Clerk on June 27, 2023, requesting that you place on the September 5, 2023 Representative Town Meeting (“RTM”) agenda, “A review of the [Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s (DPIC’s)] goals, process and proposed plan for Parker Harding, to be led by the lead petitioner [John McCarthy], with an invitation of the Chair of the DPIC to present if desired, with time reserved for RTM member and public comments
following the review.”
Section C5-6(C) requires the Moderator to place on the RTM agenda “such matters as…20 electors…may request.” It is your decision as Moderator to determine whether the petition requests an agenda item that is actually within the RTM’s purview. I understand from your email to Mr. McCarthy that you have already advised him that this is not an actionable item by the RTM, and I agree.
This screenshot from the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee shows the Parker Harding lot, and its proximity to the Saugatuck River.
This memo will elaborate on legal advice I gave you in our prior discussions about this.
The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut has stated that: “Common sense is to be employed in the construction of a charter…. A city charter … ‘must be
construed, if possible, so as reasonably to promote its ultimate purpose.’ … ‘The unreasonableness of the result obtained by the acceptance of one possible alternative interpretation of an act is a reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would provide a result that is … reasonable.’”
Section C5-6(C) cannot reasonably be read to require that any item presented as described in that section must be placed on an agenda. Moderators have determined several times in recent years that petitioned items are not appropriate for the RTM agenda, including while I myself was Moderator.
Petitions to the RTM that have been denied in the past include a petition to overturn a Planning and Zoning Site Plan and Special Permit (which the RTM does not have the authority to do), and petitions to add an RTM rule or adopt an ordinance that would conflict with the Town Charter.
The purpose of an RTM meeting is to consider actionable items within the RTM’s purview. The purpose is not to provide a public forum for a discussion of any topic that 20 or more electors wish to discuss in a televised meeting in the Town Hall auditorium. There are other venues and forums for such discussions.
The RTM has an essential role in Town government. The RTM’s role in the proposed Parker Harding reconstruction is to consider whatever upcoming appropriations may be requested by the administration and recommended by the Board of Finance. In addition, if the P&Z were to issue a negative 8-24 or approve a map or text amendment relating to the project, the RTM may be asked to review that. There will be ample time for the public to express its views on the plans and the desirability of the project at the RTM committee meetings and the meetings of the full RTM when any such item is on the agenda.
McCarthy responded to Wieser:
Thank you for sending me the attached letter from Eileen Flug regarding our certified petition to the RTM which was delivered on June 27, 2023. Having worked on the RTM with both of you, I am quite perplexed as to how you and Eileen can both take the position that the Parker Harding matter should not be put on the agenda of the September 5th meeting. You know that this is an incorrect position to be taking.
The petition was signed by 61 Westporters who all took at face value the promise of the RTM as written in its Rules of Procedure (Sec. A162-6) as appended to the Town Charter where it says.
“The Moderator or, in the event of the Moderator’s inability to act, the Deputy Moderator or, in the event of the inability of both, the Town Clerk shall place on the agenda of the Representative Town Meeting such matters as the First Selectman, two Representative Town Meeting members or 20 electors of the Town may request by written notice delivered to the Moderator or the Town Clerk not less than 14 days prior to a Representative Town Meeting,…”
I also note that the per the Town Charter that “the term “shall” is to be construed as being mandatory” ( Sec. 1-2. – Definitions and rules of construction.)
So as this non-lawyer (and a few lawyers I have spoken with) sees it, as RTM Moderator you are mandated by the Town Charter to place onto the agenda of the next meeting the matter that was requested by more than 20 electors on a duly certified petition.
I trust you will do the right thing and place it on the RTM Agenda when it comes out on Monday August 21st.
So climate change, gun violence and the Vietnam war are all matters that fall solidly within the RTM’s “purview”. But proposed modifications to a town-owned parking lot not so much?
I think I understand what I’m seeing.
For years, decades now, I have proudly boasted that here in Westport our local Town Government is the epitome of true democracy. Here, anyone can discuss and debate virtually anything under the sun if they can get 20 electors to sign their names to a petition calling for it to be placed on the RTM agenda. Upset about the Vietnam War? It was debated at the RTM. Have an issue with your neighbors rooster crowing and waking you up at dawn? That, too, once was placed on the RTM agenda.
“Here in Westport,” I always happily said, “We can and will debate and discuss anything. Nothing is off limits here. It is a beautiful thing to witness, democracy in action! All you need is 20 electors to agree to place it on the agenda. And that is it!”
What a shock for me to learn today that our Town’s Assistant Attorney disagrees with that fundamental right that makes Westport such a special place to live. And of all things for her to seek to shut down – Town residents, she has unilaterally ruled, may not discuss at an RTM meeting downtown parking at a town owned parking lot!! The Town Charter and the 20 electors be damn!
What hubris! What arrogance! What an embarrassment!
John F. Suggs
Everything in Westport is the purview of the RTM. Put it on the agenda ‼️
There is obvious concern about the fate of the Parker Harding Lot reconfiguration. Dan, I’m not sure which of your posts is the place to ask my question. I know this is about the RTM agenda, but the ultimate decision is in the board of selectwomen’s hands. I’d like to know: are there any checks and balances over the board of selectwomen’s decisions?
Soon we can expect an effort to place the parking lot on the National Register of Historic Places, since there are rumors that F. Scott and Zelda once passed out in their car there. All sides will lawyer up, and a suit that goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court will follow. After that fails, protesters will tie themselves to the dumpsters that sit on the riverfront to prevent their removal. Whispers that the riverfront improvements are a shadow campaign by hostile foreign powers will lead to the commencement of impeachment proceedings and a federal investigation. No one will take our parking spots!!
We actually thought about that. But when Scott and Zelda were in Westport, Parker Harding was still part of the river. Land reclamation came later. But clever thinking.
As with the Community Gardens, those who have fairly specific plans in mind want them to gain enough momentum that, by the time they gets to RTM, they are fait accompli.
It seems to me that a more wise path would be for RTM to give voice to those with concerns earlier in the process so that the parties who are predisposed to head down unpopular paths can’t claim “why did you wait until now to tell us?”
Thanks Chris. This is exactly the point. Too often things show up at P&Z, BOF and the RTM which are fundamentally flawed. Often this is because they have not been vetted thoroughly by anyone outside the inner-circle of the “implementing” group. Then it becomes a Yes/No vote which means we either get something that may be ridiculous or nothing moves forward. Witness the Baron’s South fiasco of a few years ago. I want to see Parker Harding resolved soon and I believe that more input from more people earlier in the process will result in a better outcome. That is why I am pushing for this to be put on the RTM Agenda.
I totally get it, John. I was discouraged from petitioning the Community Gardens matter to RTM, despite a strong belief that the BOE should not have the Garden/Preserve section of the Long Lots property under their consideration in the first place. It is operated under the auspices of Parks & Rec, not the BOE. And that part of the property was acquired for municipal, not specifically BOE, use, before it was decided to create the Community Gardens.
What the First Selectwoman has done with the make-up of the building Committee has been to encourage a BOE land-grab. Nobody in Town except for much of the BOE and the FS seems to like where they are going. But the Committee does its thing, without agendas or minutes, ignoring the input of those who don’t think they should operate without regard for public input.
(I apologize for changing the topic, there.)
It seems as if RTM leadership would prefer to sit on their hands, let the final package come in, and take a high-risk yes/no vote on an issue that shouldn’t have made it that far because of the inappropriate parameters of the plan. It is an abdication of leadership.
But we seem to live in a Town where “shall place” is considered to be ambiguous language. Maybe they ought to have RTM review whether 20 is the appropriate number for bringing something to RTM? But you can’t ignore that standard while it is in place, just because you are uncomfortable with what was petitioned. You put it on the agenda and, if you are the Moderator and can articulate why you don’t think you should be considering it in the meeting, call an RTM vote as to whether to consider the item.
Totally agree. To wit: the sewer main installation currently going on in the Tamarac-Evergreen area. The project raised it’s ugly head in 2019 based on a 2005 petition and then never got started until 2023. The cost per homeowner from 2020 to 2023 went from “about $25000” to an “estimated 33000” (subject to change AFTER the project has been completed, so homeowners don’t even know what they will be on the hook for). It was a total travesty since some neighbors never even knew that it would cost them anything and only recently found out. The petition should have been recirculated such that every homeowner was made aware of the cost (which, again, is just an estimated cost and with the trouble that they construction company has run into, I’m fearful that the price will be even higher)/scope of the project. Essentially, all of the Boards and the RTM just rubber stamped everything. And the First Selectwoman acts as the final authority on the the Water Pollution Control Authority (along with Traffic and other ‘authorities’) so she rushed a meeting not 10 hours after the RTM met the night before to rubber stamp this project. The town’s system of government no longer works for the people.
And, let’s not forget that the First Selectwoman herself said that the town’s debt currently is about $100million and is expected to grow to about $350million by 2030. Seems like we should be a little more careful about what the town is spending money on right now, especially in view of escalating interest rates. All that would have to happen to cause a financial crisis here would be for one of the largest taxpayers to move out of town.
What is perhaps most interesting and perhaps telling is why would the RTM moderator feel so obliged to involve our Town Attorney on this agenda request? A specific RTM “action” regarding Parker Harding seems not to have been requested – only a presentation, discussion, and perhaps sense of the RTM. THAT is certainly under the RTM purview as it has historically been.
One need to only look at the June 7, 2022 RTM meeting where, by request, Mr. Wieser placed on the RTM agenda a discussion and “Sense of the meeting resolution to support national abortion rights as articulated in Roe vs Wade and the opposition to the elimination of those rights by any Supreme Court”. Presumably Mr. Wieser and Ms. Flug know that our RTM has no Town Charter authority over national abortion rights decision-making, and zero jurisdiction over our Supreme Court…yet there it was on the agenda, engendering an emotional public discussion, and resulting in a completely powerless resolution.
So in the name of full transparency and disclosure, it would be meaningful for the RTM moderator to inform the electorate of any and all discussion(s) that took place resulting in the involvement of our Town Attorney to squash a public discussion that has potential to be contentious, contrary, and embarrassing.
Certainly, as Ms. Flug points out, the RTM will be able to take up Parker Harding once an appropriation comes before it for approval. But that is the Town’s traditional inefficient means to do what the electorate wants. It’s far better to nip unwanted proposals in the bud and determine what the residents want at the outset BEFORE valuable time and resources are expended, to prevent “mistakes” from occurring, and to at least try to prevent any “behind closed door” dealings from occurring whenever unpopular initiatives are being shepherded through the system. THAT is precisely what our RTM can do – and should do.
I understand that would be uncomfortable for administrations accustomed to directing decisions rather than meaningfully seeking guidance by their electorate. But that is what each election campaign seems to promise… but then falls short on delivering once in position of power. Our residents elect a first select-person, amongst a list of only 3 people, to “administer” and to “lead”…but that does not translate to paternalistically “dictate”. Prior to leading, it’s best to know in what direction those who voted want to go – and THEN take the reigns given to them. That is representing the people.
Putting the Parker Harding issue on the RTM agenda is not only appropriate, at this point it seems necessary. Contrary to Ms. Flug’s cover, Mr. Wieser can do it as he has in the recent past.
Great comment, Ray.
As someone who is 100% supportive of reproductive rights, I haven’t the foggest idea why RTM needs to grandstand on the matter when they haven’t the slightest impact on policy with a Sense of the Meeting Resolution.
On the other hand (back to the Gardens) a Sense of the Meeting Resolution that the RTM would likely not vote to fund a Long Lots building plan that would involve the destruction of the Gardens and Preserve (the building committee likes to use the euphemism “moving” the Gardens), would send the clear message to the Committee and the BOE that Town residents don’t want this happening and that you can’t say you weren’t told.
But if we’re honest, the Committee and the BOE want to be able to say “we’ve put in all this work and weighed every option and taken so much time already, we can’t delay and you must approve what we want to do.”
This Parker Harding project reminds me of The Hamlet boondoggle (coincidentally almost a year ago). Has that deal deflated? How many more are lined up?
I calling on Jeff Wieser to listen to the town voters As a rtm member please listen Jeff to John and others district 9 is upset and the town you wonder why there is distrust in local government? So I am asking to Jeff to do this from sal liccione
Thanks Sal. And silence from all other RTM members.
This is what a lot of citizens of our great country are realizing today. That our government officials and their cadre of lawyers and legislators are not representing us by instituting the will of the majority in our at risk democracy, but by administrations were we are led by their sometimes by the legislation and courts where a that they deem as best for “THEIR” PUBLIC! It is part of almost all government today that those who recieve the privalage of office know better than we! BULLSH*T Practice better governence, listen to your real public!
well said!!
Concerns Regarding Parker Harding Plaza Redevelopment Proposal
– Residents would face tighter parking conditions and increased traffic as the proposal suggests eliminating a significant 50 parking spots right in the heart of town.
– Loading zones eliminated with no proposed solution other than to have delivery trucks double park, blocking traffic.
– Local business owners adamantly opposed to the plan with concern that a parking predicament would lead to less business as well as employee retention issues.
– First selectwoman theorizes that 3-hour metered parking and more restrictive space in PHP will drive local employees to shuttle-serviced parking on Imperial, and this would offset some PHP parking space losses. But this would also alienate our local workforce – making it harder to attract, retain and motivate high-quality service providers. Conserving PHP parking would mitigate this and preserve parking capacity for our residents’ future parking needs.
– The already picturesque plaza can be repaved and otherwise modernized and improved in non-disruptive ways (charging stations, landscaping, new and additional waterside picnic tables, benches etc.)
– The closure of Parker Harding Road is also on the agenda. This connector road serves not only as a convenient and scenic riverside passage, but also as a relief valve of sorts – diverting traffic from Main Street and Post Road enroute to Riverside Avenue, Westport Avenue Wilton Road. This is of particular importance for long-term planning, as our population expands.
– We are fortunate to live in a community surrounded by greenery and natural beauty. It’s a hallmark of Westport, found nearly everywhere. Given this, and the already pleasant riverside aesthetics of the Plaza, relatively minor incremental green-space would come at a disproportionally high cost, replacing more functional, scarce, and critical resources – infrastructure that is strategically located and that Westport residents have come to rely upon.
Your voice can be heard by emailing each member of the RTM. The RTM has the power to block this, despite the authoritarian attempt to block it from their agenda.
RTM Member Contact (Email addresses in last column) — https://www.westportct.gov/government/elected-officials/representative-town-meeting/members-contact-information
I have spoken out in past on other issues, whether on this forum or in person from those who have reached out.
I have my own opinions, they’re just mine. They do not represent the rest of the RTM and individual members who have that liberty.
As such, I feel this topic, a very boiling subject, not a simmer, should be heard and discussed at the RTM level.
A lot of people do not agree with me, they may not like my approach, being vocal, expressing what I think or how I feel, and that’s ok!!! I look forward to that discussion when it comes to me by the individual.
For now, I am still set in my way that the cut through, a primary road of use should stay, improvements to the islands and walkway, relocation of trash compactor, flood mitigation and even raising the asphalt could be all that it needs.
I do not see how a growing town with 400+ units being built over the next couple of years, where many individuals are moving from larger cities, are looking to gain some open space, peace, and independence to move around at their freedom (owning a car and driving).
Westport is a hotspot!!! People drive to town, merchants rely on business, and they need parking.
Try to retain as many spots as possible and keep the cut through, it REALLY does relieve traffic.
Thanks Andrew. The town needs more elected officials like yourself that are willing to let people know how they feel about what is going on in town. The Code of SIlence which is observed by 98% of elected officials is maddening. Residents and voters deserve to hear, in this and other online forums, exactly where elected officials stand on the important issues. What an absolutely wasted opportunity to communicate.
Speaking for myself as an individual rather than as a representative of my district (8) at this time, I have been disappointed in the way this has been handled. The action contemplated will affect everyone in town, not just those who live in the downtown district. In fact, those residents who live farther away may be more affected. That the concern is townwide has been acknowledged by the calling of a town meeting on August 22. But this date precludes attendance by residents who have made summer commitments long ago.
It would be possible for petitioners et. al. to hold a citizens’ meeting at a better time, but it’s important for town officials who support the change to be there to present their reasoning in order to let everyone get all possible information and create a useful dialogue. Speaking as an RTM member, decisions made on patchy facts are good ones mainly by accident. So I ask to have this preentation and conversation either at an RTM meeting or on a rescheduled date when everyone can attend. There is no good reason for causing unnecessary division in town.
Fun fact….Jeff and I had agreed to hold a special RTM meeting in September with this as a topic. Once the “Charrette” was scheduled by the First Selectwoman, that idea vanished in the wind. And now we are where we are….Odd timing, no?
Yes thank you John ! And thank you Andrew for not being afraid to speak out, unlike the rest of your colleagues, who other than Sal so far seem to be in a mummified state. I have no idea why such ppl even apply and go for election to the rtm when they are so totally out of touch.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
Some of course like Wieser don’t have to worry cos in his district unfortunately there’s a big fat zero competition come November.. SO unfortunately he is going to win his seat by virtue of zero competition. I think you could run the neighborhood dog against him and it would win. Hmmm maybe we should try.
However maybe in the more competitive districts there will be elected a successor to the moderator, who has done in my humble opinion a disgraceful job when it comes to the rtm. Talk about an utter joke.. a farce…a disservice to the folks who vote. Sure why would you even bother when those you vote for can’t be bothered defending the voice of those that put them there. What an insult ! You all know who you are ! So speak out.
Fairfield fought to retain rtm charter power last year ( and just in case for those of you who on the rtm who don’t know ) rtm have HUGE powers, if a collective YOU, would only listen to the people who elect YOU. Time to step UP. Do your job. The one you volunteered to do.
In fact the rtm can veto everything the BOS tries to do.
IMMEASURABLE power if it wasn’t interfered with by your moderator and the town attorney.
I’m not even going to go into the utter crap show Westport is becoming with traffic, etc… because I might take up 2 pages of dans valuable blog.
But my last comment is on the fact that these 2 charades( and yes I speak fluent French, I know the meaning of a charette… ) for meetings were held when most merchants and mane residents ARE on vacation.
I’m away. And I’m away on the 22nd. Then again everyone knows damn well where I stand on this farce. WE asked for these meetings to be postponed, not even the respect of a response. All FOIA ble…..
To have someone have the audacity to suggest “we should have rallied the troops” to utterly waste their time going to a meeting to be told what was going to happen…if we are not in the state we cannot be at the meeting..
The outcome of the last meeting and the next have already been decided. The BOS COULD CARE LESS where you the voter stands. In fact you and I are a huge inconvenience to their agenda. Even if you voted for them.
Come on WESTPORT RTM ! Wake up. Election time in November might be time to run some 18 year olds against you if you refuse to listen… HARDLY ONLY UP TO SAL AND ANDREW TO BE THE ONLY ONES TO DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. And I strongly suggest a change in rtm moderator… and a change to those committees.
I also suggest going forward nobody GETS TO wear 2 or 3 hats. If your job is primarily to speak for a particular body in town, then you have zero right to get paid for that yet put on a hat where in that capacity you work against the very people who pay your salary.
Time for radical change…
Not in 20 years of living in this town have I ever witnessed the bull sh.. I’m witnessing today.
IT IS A DISGRACE!
what a joke to involve an attorney in something that clearly should be put on the agenda. who paid for that attorney’s time? how much did it cost? let me guess…. the taxpayers…?!
John, silence from other RTM members? This is a blog right? Correct me if I’m wrong what has been implemented at Parker Harding?
The process I think is still going on with the planning right or wrong?
I think we have eliminated getting rid of one of the “suggestions” of getting rid of the access road right?
I could be wrong, I’m yet to see a plan approved to go before the Board of Finance right?
Once the BOF approves funding, the project usually has the blessing of the stakeholders, as it will be DOA before it even gets to BOF. Next up! The “process of public input” at the following “rest stops” for moving forward:
Conservation Commission
Planning and Zoning
RTM
At each level, the process starts from the beginning. Sub Committees alone at the RTM level will be Long Range Planning, Finance, Public Protection, Public Works…each committee will entertain “Public Meetings” be it Joint or individually, and EVERYTHING WILL BE VETTED.
Where does Jimmy Izzo RTM stand today. Access Road Stays…3 hour parking a great start and approve the vote to implement.
John I’ve known you and many on this blog chain. The process has been noticed as has the Longshore Club Park Plan…Going after Jeff Wieser, who is one of the most stand up human beings of our community is sad and pathetic…especially on a blog..Feel free anyone to call me (203-247-2426) to discuss..Wishing everyone a wonderful weekend…get outside and enjoy the beautiful weather and our wonderful town…
Jimmy, I am not “going after” Jeff Wieser, someone who I respect. The lack of respect for the RTM rules and the town Charter and the 61 petitioners needed to be pointed out.
Damn right it did. Lack of respect for the voters needs to be called out ! And standing up and being willing to be counted. The truth hurts . And the truth about this charade and the town attorneys incorrect read on the rules.. how very convenient, not that anyone is surprised. . A bit like the traffic study( fiasco) we Will be presented with on the 22nd which will tell us we have nothing to worry about and losing a major road out of town won’t effect us at all. I’m happy I’m not going to be in town to have to listen to that literal
garbage.
Jimmy nobody’s saying anything we don’t all think ! Just some of us aren’t scared to say it out loud. Jeff Wieser should not have gone to the town attorney for her opinion.. yet another reason the rtm needs their own very separate council.. but he did ! And he undermined the rtm decision making in the process… like it or not that’s a FACT !
You expect us to feel all warm and fuzzy about that ? Well you were mistaken !
Not feeling warm and fuzzy at all, in fact I’m feeling very pissed off. And as the biggest tax paying business on Main Street and in the entire downtown area.. I have every right to speak out, and I will.
Oh and 3 hour parking will destroy the merchants… once folks have eaten their meal, there’s time left to visit one store… great for business…. Lol…but then what do I know.. I just own the largest business on Main Street.
Incidentally as indicated time and time and TIME again, people are on vacation for the charade charette.
So it is not being held in order to allow the main stakeholders their opportunity to speak and I might add that is intentional.
Jimmy,
This is a big $6000000 project that many taxpayer justifiably question. Who benefits from a dinky green space river park? Who benefits from cutting off a north-south cut through?
Since we are likely to be faced with rebuilding two elementary schools at far more enormous costs, how can we justify this seemingly frivolous vanity project?
Last year the RTM was stampeded into approving a zoning change in Saugatuck that—I think—went nowhere due to rising interest rates. And now we’ve busted a valuable zoning restriction.
Residents are raising legitimate questions about how we are planning, who is benefitting, how much we’re spending, etc. that I, frankly, would’ve thought you’d be the first to support.
I’m disappointed in our RTM in general, my district 9 representatives particularly and you for not insisting on the complete airing of issues and these projects that suddenly appear fait accompli.
Thanks for all the debate on this topic. Such conversations are what make the democratic process in Westport, as demonstrated by the RTM, so vibrant and interesting.
Further to the good memo by Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Flug, and as John McCarthy indicated, I have been reluctant to add this request for a presentation to our RTM agenda.
The petition was signed before the Administration pulled the initial plan and scheduled a public charrette to occur next week. That event will provide a public forum for input and debate regarding the future decisions surrounding Parker Harding. This is more in line with how public, transparent comment occurs during the planning stages of any project. In my memory, such public presentations have never occurred at an RTM meeting prior to our body’s being asked to act upon an appropriation for the project.
Further, I respect the time and effort that RTM members put into our volunteer jobs, and I have tried over the last two years to keep our meetings as efficient and productive as possible. We all spend many hours outside of the meetings learning about various matters that are to come before us, and I am sure many will be at the charrette. It is not an official function of the RTM to add presentations regarding topics that are not connected with a vote we are required to make. Such activities would have the effect of lengthening our already – long meetings, making people less likely to want to join the RTM, and would be outside of the process that the Town Charter has established for our legislative body.
We will have a chance to review the Parker Harding plans possibly after the charrette or when the Town asks for an appropriation to fulfill their plans. And the RTM will act responsibly as I am proud to say, we always have.
Knowing Jeff Wieser, he is a gentleman and has done so much for this community devoting selflessly his time and wisdom. I do think however, the RTM would benefit greatly listening to the stakeholders as well as helping to bring the temperature and rhetoric down to a civil tone. There needs to be both compromise and active and open and transparent communication from all sides. People seem to be talking past each other instead of with each other.
John McCarthy as well as so many others remain frustrated that DPIC has not provide answers to questions and will not be able to distribute them before the August 22nd meeting which really should be postponed until after Labor Day when the majority of residence will have completed their summer vacations and kid are back in school.
God Bless all of you…know the majority of the RTM tries their best to represent you all and Westport..Wishing all a great Sunday…hope everyone had a wonderful Saturday…John look forward to coffee Monday morning my friend…
Jimmy, notwithstanding your most recent request that God bless us, I’ve noticed that you have an unfortunate habit of publicly disparaging constituents – by name. You’re an elected public official and ought to know by now that residents may generally say what they like. You, on the other hand, are on a shorter leash.