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.
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.”



































