John McCarthy knows his way around Town Hall.
A former Representative Town Meeting member (and Staples High School Class of 1982 graduate), the technology company CFO has grown frustrated at what he calls a lack of transparency and information from local boards and commissions.
It’s a non-partisan issue, he says. And it came to a head with 2 recent (and ongoing) controversies: plans for Long Lots Elementary School/Westport Community Gardens, and Parker Harding Plaza.
John McCarthy
Last month on “06880,” McCarthy unveiled a plan (and a website). OpenWestport.org advocates for including all background material and information on public meeting notices online; transcribing all meetings in real time, and making all non-private information on Town Hall computers and servers searchable by by everyone, everywhere.
On Thursday morning, McCarthy followed up with an email to all RTM members. He wrote:
“As you all know, the RTM Rules of Procedure state that ‘The Moderator… shall place on the agenda of the Representative Town Meeting such matters as the First Selectman, 2 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.'”
“The key part of this are the words ‘shall place on the agenda.’ It does not say ‘shall use his/her own judgment about placing such matters on the agenda.’ It does not say ‘shall consult with the Town Attorney or First Selectwoman for their opinion on whether such matters should be placed on the agenda.’ It is a pretty simple promise from the RTM to all Westporters that they do have the right to directly petition their local government.
“On Tuesday night, September 5, you will be discussing several topic that have been put on the RTM Agenda through the established, rules-based process described above. One item you will not be discussing is a ‘Review of the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s (DPIC’s) goals, process and proposed plan for Parker Harding.’ This was the matter that 61 Westport electors petitioned to get onto the agenda for the September 5 meeting.
“Why isn’t Parker Harding on the agenda? Because the moderator did not want to take up your time with the matter and thought that the First Selectwoman’s appointed committee was handling dissent over its proposed plans in an acceptable manner. He was bolstered in his opinion by a letter from the Town Attorney which in effect interpreted ‘Shall’ to mean ‘May.’
“It has been suggested to me by several people that filing a Writ of Mandamus would be an appropriate response to the RTM Moderators inaction. If agreed to by a judge, this would force the RTM Moderator to place the petitioned Parker Harding matter on the agenda. As lead petitioner, I have chosen not to do that.
“Rather, I write to you to ask some simple questions:
- Do you agree with the RTM Moderator that he has the authority to deny petitioners the right to get petitioned matters on the RTM agenda?
- Are you prepared to change the language in the RTM Rules of Procedure to make it clear to voters and petitioners that the RTM Moderator may use his discretion when deciding what matters to place on the Agenda? Are you prepared to change ‘shall place on the agenda’ to ‘may place on the agenda’ for the sake of clarity?
- If you answered ‘Yes’ to the first question and ‘No’ to the second question, please explain why.
“In lieu of discussing Parker Harding, I think it would be great if the RTM had a discussion on these specific questions at the September 5 meeting. The RTM Rules of Procedure (assuming they are still in effect) allow matters to be placed on the agenda and discussed upon a 2/3 affirmative vote of the RTM.
“Rights erode slowly, then quickly. When they are gone, they don’t come back.”
McCarthy says that of yesterday, he had received only a couple of emails of “basic support and commiseration.”
But his email inspired John Suggs — a former RTM member, now running for a seat from another district after moving — to contact each member as well. Suggs wrote:
John Suggs
“Because the RTM petition rule forms the very heart of our democracy — 20 electors can get anything they consider important placed on the RTM agenda for discussion — this whole sad, sordid incident has resonated deeply for me as a local example of authoritarian behavior. And I have struggled with what to say or do about it. But John McCarthy has now said it so beautifully. And he did so with grace and dignity. Thank you John!
“I have been influenced in my thoughts on this matter by a wonderful book by Yale Professor Timothy Snyder called ‘On Tyranny: 20 Lessons from the 20th Century.’ It is an important little book where Professor Snyder draws lessons from the experiences of the rise of fascism in the last century, and applies it to our own time. One of the things he says is:
Defend Institutions: it is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions “unless you make them yours, by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other, unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about – a court, newspaper, a law, a labor union – and take its side.”
“I choose ‘our RTM and its profound, fundamental democratic rule that the Moderator ‘shall’ place on the agenda such matters as 20 electors of the town may request by written notice.
“That this basic, core rule has been so unceremoniously trampled and discarded by an authoritarian moderator should shake all of you to your knees. It does me. And because of it, because I choose the institution that is the RTM, I am running for the RTM District 9 this November. I choose the institution known as the RTM, and I seek to defend it.
“What will each of you do?”
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser responded quickly. He wrote to Suggs:
“For 16 years I have chosen to defend the RTM and the processes which have made it the most effective, most democratic, most bipartisan institution I know.
Jeff Wieser
“Over the years, it has come under criticism for allowing too much discourse, and I have abided that criticism, understanding that the discourse that takes place in our meetings produces sound, fair results.
“I will also protect it from becoming sounding boards for anyone who wants to make a point over which we have no current legislative obligation. To call this ‘tyranny’ is, in my opinion only, laughable, but I will always defer to the will of the RTM members, which you may once again become. I wish you good luck.”
I agree with Mr McCarthy. The RTM has the obligation to ALL residents, not just what the moderator deems important. It appears Mr Suggs is in the same page and will get my vote
What’s “laughable”, Jeff, is your crocodile tears. You’re grandstanding or as I see it masquerading as some sort of savior who’s protecting fellow RTM members from hearing frivolous matters. But the parking issue is anything but frivolous. It’s critical to our town. Your radical behavior – in unilaterally blocking it from the agenda – calls your true motives into question. Maybe what you’re really trying to “protect” is your position on the redevelopment plan or your relationship with political allies who are pushing the initiative (perhaps Town Administrators -e.g. First Selectwoman etc.) The whole thing reeks.
The “compromise plan” spun by the Town Admin after its AUG 22 presentation is nothing more than a deeply flawed remnant of the first untenable proposal. I’ll spare you the details for now but will be writing you and every other RTM member to address. Let’s just say the issue still needs to be aired out before the RTM. Hopefully, it gets shut down in its current form. Otherwise, you’ll only realize how bad it sucks when you’re SOL finding a spot.
I think Mr. McCarthy is spot on. When there exist legitimate controversies of town-wide interest such as how to refigure Parker-Harding Plaza or what should become of the Community Gardens, there should be a local process, short of resort to the courts, for discussion and resolution, and it would appear that once a recommendation has been made by the administration, the RTM, which is elected on a non-partisan basis to represent the will of the citizenry is best positioned to serve as the forum of last resort.
Kudos to John McCarthy and John Suggs! Creating new interpretations of plain language has all the hallmarks of dishonesty, and an agenda to hide something or protect an individual or group of individuals from having to give an full accounting of their plans, actions, or behavior.
Let John McCarthy’s petition have the full airing it deserves!
As a resident who has brought a number of matters to the RTM via the petition process (moving the Kemper Gunn House, Barons South Senior Housing, Barons South illegal toxic dump, etc.) I am quite concerned about this radical departure from established practice.
How is anyone who now wishes to petition the RTM supposed to react? Perhaps more importantly, why would anyone bother, knowing as they do that acceptance of any given petition is now subject to the whims of a single person?
In my view, for the good of our town, this corrosive, black box approach to democracy should not be allowed to stand. Let’s correct it.
The RTM is the only check and balance against the decisions of the Board of Selectwomen and its committees that I am aware of. Are there any others?
This is so needed in Westport or any town. Thank you John for addressing this and launching an organization to address the issues. I can certainly speak from a journalist POV and beginning my career at the Westport News. There was not enough transparency then and here we are so many years latter.
Somewhere back in our past there is a document that start “WE THE PEOPLE”
The RTM is Westport’s WE THE PEOPLE not we a few persons!
This is how democracy is supposed to work.
Let us make sure the RTM remains WE THE PEOPLE in Westport!
I agree with John and I been calling for long time now for more transparency in our gov for Jeff Weiser to do this Parker Harding should be heard and the garden i been on rtm for 3 plus years I am very disappointed ? I would hope a rtm member in district 9 I am calling on all members of the rtm to stand up in public and support this these issues from. Sal liccione rtm district 9 member
So this is really sad. I told the folks up here at my new home in Maine about the great democracy in my old home town. The fact that we had a true non-partisan town committee that set rules and officiated disputes over them when tensions arose. As a longtime member and part time chair of your planning and zoning commission, it wasn’t always fun having the RTM question your decisions, and it was contentious at some of those meetings where we squared off. But I will tell you all from experience up here in small town Maine without such a non-partisan board the issues get very contentious among many residents many times feel their voice and opinions are not heard by certain boards and on certain issues.
My friends, your RTM is a gift don’t let a few ruin it don’t loose it.
As someone who has also played a part in bringing matters to the RTM via petition in the past, I agree with John McCarthy, John Suggs. I suspect that most RTM-ers would agree that the matters brought to the RTM via petition in the past were enlightening, worthy of debate, and represented points of view that were far from frivolous.
Let the RTM Rules of Procedure stand as written, thereby allowing the residents of our town a valid opportunity to express their important concerns and offer their solutions.
Start with Point of Information
Move to Point of Order
Introduce petition
Challenge the ruling of the Chair
The RTM is the voice of the residents. Without the ability to petition the RTM to hear about an issue, openly, is a dismissive act bypassing our rightful due process. The RTM has supported and endorsed both national and state issues passing resolutions that are acknowledgments but will not address actual issues that directly impact our community seems disingenuous at best. I would sincerely hope that the RTM Chairman, whom I have great respect for, recognizes the will of the people and reconsider allowing the RTM to hear these issues.
Hi,
If you are interested in signing a petition to the RTM with the below language, please email me at john@openwestport.org:
In the interest of clarifying for all Westport residents the meaning and intent of “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” of the “Representative Town Meeting Rules of Procedures” as found in Exhibit A of the “Code of Ordinances of Westport Connecticut”, the undersigned Electors of the Town of Westport request that the following Resolution be placed on the Agenda of the October 3, 2023 meeting of the Westport RTM for a vote of the full RTM:
RESOLVED, that the full Westport RTM at its October 3, 2023 meeting affirms that the meaning of the term “Shall” in “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” of the “Representative Town Meeting Rules of Procedures” as found in Exhibit A of the “Code of Ordinances of Westport Connecticut” is to be “construed as being mandatory”, per the definition of the word “Shall” in “Sec. 1-2. – Definitions and rules of construction” and that “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” compels and requires 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 to place on the RTM meeting agenda such matters as petitioned by at least 20 Westport Electors not less than 14 days prior to a Representative Town Meeting.
Really there are no words for what is going on in Westport these days.
Authoritarian, Stalin like behavior.
The rtm while they certainly do not always support the views of the majority of the voters, ( think the disgrace of the hamlet)
Still are a check and balance for our town affairs.
And most importantly the timing with the election in November just around the corner it is a perfect opportunity to see where current rtm members opinions stand, of course that is EXACTLY why Jeff Wieser ( elected as moderator, not by the residentS, but by the rest of the rtm) has chosen to take this path. Perhaps this year at the ballots we should have the option of naming who we think should serve as moderator.
I understand that in district 9 Sal Liccione is the only rtm member who thought Jeff Wieser meddling in this process was unacceptable. I believe the other 3 felt his actions were perfectly acceptable. In fact they said they supported not hearing the petition. SMH…
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
Eventually we will have to take these cases to court. That appears to be the direction we are headed in.
Ciara
“come on people now
smile on your brother
everybody get together
try and love one another right now”
Wishing everyone a great Sunday and Labor Day holiday.
“smiling faces sometimes
pretend to be your friend
smiling faces show no traces”
It is excellent to see a basic issue rise to this level
Of attention and engagement.
I do think the use of this language is revealing:
“To call this ‘tyranny’ is, in my opinion only, laughable, but I will always defer to the will of the RTM members, which you may once again become. I wish you good luck.”
IMHO the use of the word laughable
Speaks directly to a basic problem.
One of the problems here – and, to be fair, throughout our local government – is the tendency of some of these bodies to prioritize protecting themselves. We have department heads (Planning & Zoning comes to mind) who have somehow gotten the idea that it’s acceptable to just straight up ignore the residents they serve. RTM members, heads of boards and commissions, even our town manager, seem to have a strong desire at times to keep the public at bay – and in the dark. In the case of the RTM, some of its members have been there waaaay too long, have forgotten their roots – and have gone completely native. For over at least 20 years the joke has been: “this is the worst RTM ever” – only to be disabused two years later by an even worse one. It’s not as bad as what has happened to the poor Westport Historical Society, but there’s evidence that the RTM, as an institution, is probably on a downward path at present. I don’t expect the RTM to just drop its ridiculous defense of this latest decision, but perhaps enough concerned outsiders can help change its trajectory for the better.
Thanks Morley. You nailed it. Why are many of us pushing the RTM and other parts of town government to be more open and transparent and to upheld the sworn duty to “support the laws and ordinances of the town of Westport?” Because we care very deeply about this town and are concerned about the present course. John@openwestport.org
Maybe you are laughing Jeff… but few others outside Town Hall are…Is this funny to you?
Read the room…the community we have built together is rejecting these boneheaded plans for Parker Harding Plaza and the Gardens developed in secret as Westport’s gems are stripped from us and our town become more and more hollowed out every day.
Kudos to John McCarthy for standing up for this and not taking no for an answer from someone who is clearly way way over their skis – (looking at you Jeff Wieser) – since you appear to think these issues are frivolous and not worth the RTM’s time. If not these important projects what does rise to that level?
We need more transparency in local government not less – when folks feel heard they will be more likely to “love one another” as Jimmy Izzo asks us to do – when you issue tablets from the mountain acting like little gods don’t be surprised when folks push back – it’s a fault of your process not theirs…
I have lobbied all my district’s RTM members and urge all Westporters to do the same.
TRANSPARENCY…….
With respect to transparency, while Zoom meetings were a necessity to keep government functioning during Covid, there is absolutely no reason for any governing body to continue to meet on Zoom format only.
I have been told it was a common practice for board members to constantly text each other during meetings. This act places the applicant or the speaker at a disadvantage. Having made countless public presentations over the last 30 years, being able to read body language and understanding I was receiving the full attention from the board is critical to a presenter. One could make an argument that board members texting during meetings and presentations violates the FOI Act.
If left to me, I would propose all elected officials return to meetings in Town Hall asap. All meetings should be aired via Zoom for citizens unable to attend. Upon entering the auditorium or meeting room, all elected official’s cell phones should be placed in a wicker basket, monitored only by the secretary, for the sole purpose of responding to an emergency phone call from home.