Representative Town Meeting moderator Jeff Wieser has responded to John McCarthy’s allegation that a petition submitted by 20 electors will not be on the October 3 agenda. The moderator says:
“As a former RTM member, John knows that posted agenda items do not carry exact wording of items to be discussed. Resolutions are more specific and they are posted closer to the meeting.
“However, our October 3 agenda very clearly states that Mr. McCarthy’s petition is on the agenda as Item number 6, and he has been told many times that the RTM Rules Committee will meet regarding the petition at its October 2 meeting, in the auditorium at Town Hall.
“There is no reason for this inflammatory letter.“
The agenda item states: “To take such action as the meeting may determine, upon the request of at least 20 Westport electors, to clarify 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.”
Agenda items submitted by voters or RTM members shall not be amended. They are to be exact.
Obviously the RTM Chair believes his ”position” gives him the power to twist words and effect denial of the meaning that “shall” has in our English language….litigiousness or not.
Agenda items submitted by voters or members may not be amended. They are to be presented as originally written.
While I don’t recall any of my RTM petitions being altered when publicly noticed, I think an argument could be made that, since this one was quite explicit and essentially revolved around the meaning of one defined term (shall), it might have been best to simply notice the petition as received. This way the public could easily see precisely what was at issue. In any event, since the matter had become quite heated and involved the mechanics of the RTM itself, it could have been anticipated that leaving out salient details of the petition upon publication might possibly stir additional controversy.
I have read John McCarthys comment and I understand and share his concern. I might add I did not find his comment remotely inflammatory.
In a nut shell, the language the moderator chose to describe for the posted agenda, seeks to clarify the rule for the town residents understanding, but the town residents do not need this clarification.
We already understand that the word SHALL means mandatory.
Rather the clarification sought by the petition is for the RTM, and specifically the moderator, because the moderator by his actions has shown the residents that he does not understand the meaning of the word SHALL.
The agenda item states: “To take such action as the meeting may determine, upon the request of at least 20 Westport electors, to clarify 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.”
Like John McCarthy I was perplexed by the posted agendas language.
I am still sticking with the Merriam-Webster definition of SHALL.
Will definitely be interesting if the RTM votes “NO” or chooses to table and not act on the resolution. What’s the plan then? Litigation against RTM collectively and/or individually?
As the kids might say, time to get out the popcorn.
I’m pretty sure Bill, that should the rtm not vote to affirm shall is mandatory, then litigation will be the next and natural order in the process.
But I think the rtm is very smart and knows how to read a dictionary. Shall in legal speak is mandatory.
The rtm will show up and do the right thing, I have faith.
John’s question is perfectly reasonable and not inflammatory in the slightest.
“Shall” seems like a pretty straightforward word. If the RTM Moderator doesn’t want to bring up an item petitioned to RTM, he is pretty clearly violating the Town Charter. THAT is the inflammatory behavior.
Might I suggest, if the Moderator and the Town Attorney believe that we should have a higher standard for petitioning a matter to the RTM, that they go through the appropriate processes to attempt to change the Town Charter rather than jumping through Orwellian hoops, declaring a change in the meaning of “shall” to “may or may not,” because they are uncomfortable dealing with petitioned items.
Between Parking Harding and the Long Lots Building Committee, we have a few bullies in Town trying to push their own personal agendas on everyone else. This is an opportunity for RTM to show some leadership and stand up for the voters.
Unfortunately, the Moderator’s fecklessness only sends the message to those unelected people with transient power that they can do what they want, because RTM isn’t going to proactively stand up for Westport’s residents.