By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — Recreational facilities on Westport public school properties will be off limits to anyone other than students, staff members or invited guests between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on school days, under a policy approved Wednesday by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The regulation, which applies to school grounds in their entirety, also prohibits recreational walkers, dog walkers and, at Long Lots Elementary School, community gardeners.
The safety measure, already imposed by neighboring school districts, according to Police Chief Foti Koskinas, clarifies who is allowed to enter school grounds and who is not, and enacts a policy applied uniformly to all school properties. The policy will help safety officers at the town’s schools identify intruders more quickly.
The policy, which also has been approved by the Board of Education, includes an extra half-hour before and after school hours as “wrap-around time” to ensure a campus is empty before outsiders are allowed on the property, Supt. of Schools Thomas Scarice told the commission during the online meeting.
“We are very aligned on the security front with the police chief,” he said. “This is something that the chief brought to our attention.”
A physical education teacher was bitten by a dog on school property last fall, the superintendent added, and this regulation would help prevent similar incidents, as well as more serious problems caused by intruders.
Discussion of the regulation before its approval, by both the public and commission members, focused on the issue of Westport Community Garden members at Long Lots Elementary School.
The gardeners have been allowed to work in their plots on the Long Lots campus all day, except from 8 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 4 p.m. during student arrival and dismissal times.
The future of the gardens has been the source of a months-long, often-heated debate as plans to build a new Long Lots took shape. The latest version of the plan, which is now in the design phase, would relocate the gardens from their current location on the Hyde Lane campus.
Janine Scotti, whose husband is a community gardener, said the gardens “are not truly part of the school property,” and shouldn’t be included in the new regulation limiting hours that gardeners can work there.
Several local schools, including King’s Highway and Saugatuck elementary schools, are closer to publicly used areas and others border private residences, where anyone could easily walk onto school grounds, it was pointed out.
Commission member Matthew Haynes agreed. “I think that Long Lots is a completely different situation than other schools,” he said.
“It doesn’t seem to me that it’s a great threat to see someone gardening. That’s a group of about 200 people who are not going to be able to work in their gardens” during the day, he added.
Several people attending the virtual meeting suggested ideas of how the community gardens could be policed to ensure only garden members could access the property during school hours.
Jay Walshon suggested giving the gardeners IDs that could be checked as they entered the Long Lots property. “My question [to the police chief] is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish? … Is there not a way to segregate the gardens from the campus?”
Having IDs for garden members “seems more reasonable and rational,” he said.
Gardener Sally Kleinman suggested issuing parking emblems for the gardeners similar to those used for beach entry, which she called “another realistic way to get access to the gardens,” while monitoring school property for intruders.
The problem with using IDs and parking emblems, both Koskinas and Scarice said, is paying staff to monitor the entrance to the gardens all day. And the parking lot currently used by the gardeners is also a school parking lot, which makes it difficult to monitor.
“The issue is the parking lot, not just the gardens — they are using the same parking lot,” Koskinas said. “Who will be doing the checking day to day, who will manage it?”
Several speakers noted that Wakeman Town Farm property, abutting Staples High School athletic fields, will not be affected by the ban on visitors during school hours. However, those athletic fields adjacent and across from the farm property will come under jurisdiction of the regulation.
“Wakeman Farm abuts school property, it has more traffic. I don’t understand the distinction you make for the Wakeman Town Farm versus the community gardens,” said gardener Tony Simonetti. She asked why the community gardens also couldn’t be considered for an exemption from the policy.
The difference, Koskinas said, is that “the town farm is manned. They know who belongs there and who doesn’t belong there.” Plus, the farm has its own driveway off Cross Highway and is not as close to a school as Westport Community Gardens’ proximity to Long Lots school. He called it “a common-sense approach” to take into account the distance between a publicly used space and a school when considering safety issues.
Speaking in favor of the regulation was Donald O’Day, a member of the Long Lots School Building Committee and Representative Town Meeting member.
O’Day said that he once wandered onto the Saugatuck Elementary School property inadvertently, “and in no time there was a school security officer asking why I was on the campus. I think this policy takes care of that confusion. There should not be any confusion as to who should be on campus and who shouldn’t. I would urge the commissioners to adopt it.”
Commission member Chrissy O’Keeffe also urged fellow commissioners to approve the regulation.
“I just don’t think that school grounds is the right place for a community garden. I think that we need to be objective. … At the end of the day, if the chief of police and our superintendent and the Board of Education are saying that this will keep our children safe, I don’t see how we can ask for all these accommodations [for the gardeners].”
The commission voted unanimously to recommend the policy for the Board of Selectwomen’s approval. Haynes, however, hesitated before joining other members to approve it.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York and Southern Connecticut State universities.
Agree with this 110%. Surprised this policy wasn’t in place already. If people want to access the public/community gardens within these restricted hours, move the gardens to a more appropriate location.
Actually there are well thought out regulations that have been in effect since the inception of the Community Gardens… It’s difficult to know what goes through the minds of our government officials these days… so many poorly handled situations…
To avoid the appearance of a spiteful payback, I suggest the Board of Selectwomen take a deep breath and resolve to bury the hatchet. Vote against adopting this policy.
Right now there are way too many volatile situations.
It would have been appropriate for notice to be given to the residents of Westport of this new rule being considered and then adopted in one meeting without having the opportunity to give input. There is a community of dog walkers who use the wakeman fields everyday before school at Bedford starts. All of the dog walkers either have kids in the school system now and have graduated through the system recently. There is no security threat and this seems to be Westport limiting people from using the facilities that we pay for.
Stopping residents from using the “school grounds” which the back fields of wakeman are not at 7:30 AM doesn’t make any sense or solve any potential issues. A real option could be that we are allowed to walk our dogs until 9 AM because there aren’t any kids from Bedford using the fields prior to that time and that is only in good weather conditions for part of the year when they go outside.
Westport is doing a great job of dividing residents between those who don’t have kids in the school system anymore and not leaving a place for those people.
We need to noticed for the next meeting of the parks and rec committee and this issue needs to be discussed.
Stephen, the FSW and her henchmen do not give a singular toss about your dog walking or that such a group is present in our community.
The sooner this town wakes up and realizes that we are a stepping stone for others political ambition and their vindictive nasty agenda. Then just maybe we can save Westport from the croneys determined to destroy it.
This is just spiteful – we all know who the First Selectwoman and her lackeys are targeting. There hasn’t been a problem in twenty years at the Gardens.
Don O’Day has certainly been part of that effort. So for him to share an idiotic anecdote doesn’t exactly ring of the truth. I suspect the Gardeners are a lot smarter than Don and wouldn’t make that same mistake. A former BOE member doesn’t know what is school property? Best and the brightest right there.
It is interesting that all of the people who were advocating for destroying the Gardens are the people speaking up for these regulations. One could almost believe there were ulterior motives. Nah.
Chris Grimm – I think you hit the nail on the head. This new policy is retribution. Nothing more, nothing less. How petty can it get?
Let’s at least be honest. Despite any assertion to the contrary, last evening’s PRC resolution was specifically intended to severely restrict access by the Community Gardeners as retribution to their objection to being moved to Baron’s South. While the Sandy Hooks tragedy was invoked, that was almost 12 years ago. And while they are important, a dog bite from a year ago and the occasional child custody incident are merely straw man attempt to obfuscate what this is about. Had our excellent police department truly believed that the Community Gardens represented a significant security threat, this would have been raised many years ago. It wasn’t and it’s not. In the face of gushing praise for the character of our resident community gardeners, the timing of this sudden resolution speaks for itself.
As stated last evening, a main problem is monitoring the shared parking lot. However it is not credible that creating segregated access is an insurmountable obstacle given that the entire Long Lots School campus will be redesigned anyway. Nor is it credible to believe that regulating those who access the Community Gardens is insurmountable. Nor is it credible to believe that the Gardens cannot be adequately “barricaded” from the remainder of the Long Lots campus if that poses an actual concern greater than other contiguous unmonitored properties.
The truth lies in Crissy O’Keefe’s statement: “I just don’t think that school grounds is the right place for a community garden.” THIS is the underlying issue. Despite two decades of responsible and uneventful coexistence, those with current decision-making power suddenly espouse this opinion as if it were supported by data. But we know that it is not. It’s merely an uninformed opinion.
As example: “Community Gardens: Interactions between Communities, Schools, and Impact on Students”: “Educators and health professionals have spent a significant amount of time examining how to approach the childhood obesity epidemic. An alternative that could prove to be effective is the collaboration of community gardens and schools. Community gardens are effective and the integration within schools could prove to be an effective means to promote health through skill-based learning. Children spend the majority of their days in school, but opportunities to be outside are limited due to the increasing pressures of academia filling the majority of time. This comes at a great detriment to school aged children as the time spent in an indoor environment can yield uncertain effects on motor skill development, activity adherence, and general health outcomes. School is a favorable setting for children to have the opportunity to experience nature because schools can reach almost all children and adolescents, provide an area to practice skills, and are surrounded by educators who already promote learning.”
School Gardens: Community Gardens owned and run by schools or educational facilities, are most often found DIRECTLY ON SITE, and are paired with varieties of classroom instruction that expand traditional learning spaces to promote not only academic success but also fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and the development of social and leadership skills. CGs show a unique opportunity to improve public health as they possess not only the ability to address initiatives such as increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity in children, but also being able to influence the community members inside and outside the educational system. Historically, CGs have been found in the United States since the late 19th century and have recently become a topic of interest in the schools again. A pilot study of a school in Nevada showed that the school garden’s success is dependent on the educators’ motivation, attitude, and knowledge of the positive impacts of the school garden on their students’ lives and wellbeing.”
“Bringing Community Gardens into the school has become very popular and schools can use these trends to enhance education through skill-based learning (competency based) as well as to enhance the health of students. CGs may serve as a great avenue to teach students science components that are already taught in classrooms, learn techniques necessary to grow food that promote/reinforce health-enhancing behaviors, and provide an interactive route to learning.”
The USDA reports that there are now OVER 7,000 SCHOOL GARDENS in the USA – a number that has TRIPLED in the last 10 years despite increasing violence incidents at schools. This is the fact.
Because of the increasingly recognized importance of instituting and maintaining gardens ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, in their article School Gardens in the United States: Current Barriers to Integration and Sustainability, the National Institute of Health (https://www.ncbi.nim,nih.gov) stated the following:
“SCHOOLS ARE IDEAL SETTINGS (for gardens) … because they provide continuous and intensive contact with children and adolescents during their formative years. Research demonstrates that school gardening is a promising strategy for promoting healthy physical, psychosocial, and dietary behaviors. Gardens give students an opportunity to be physically active and to build connections to other students, the school community and the environment. They have also been shown to improve students’ academic achievement in science, math, language arts, and writing. In addition to the direct benefits, school gardens have been shown to improve perceptions of well being, quality of life, and social and cultural cohesion which are important public health concerns. TO GENERATE THESE BENEFITS, GARDENS MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO SCHOOLS. A WELL INTEGRATED SCHOOL GARDEN HAS BEEN DEFINED AS ONE THAT IS MAINTAINED AT OR NEAR A SCHOOL AND IS VALUED AS PART OF THE SCHOOL CULTURE.”
The NIH identified five main necessary characteristics deemed essential to having a successful school garden: 1. Creates COMMUNITY (“brings people together”). 2. Is inviting. 3. Is resourced and supported. 4. Is thriving (healthy). 5. Is used (“The space is used by teachers, students, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS”).
The primary barriers to initiating and sustaining a successful school garden: #1. The biggest barrier was “Finding an adequate number of volunteers” to participate in the garden, and “Teacher – faculty disinterest”. #2. “A general lack of funding”. Other barriers included lack of space, garden maintenance challenges, and lack of adequate summer utilization.
What is notable is that Westport’s Community Garden has none of the identified barriers. NONE.
Note: Ensuring sufficient security at the school was NOT a barrier.
In summary: The data, growth trends, reputable national health and educational organizations’ observations and recommendations contradict Chrissy O’Keefes personal opinion.
The FACT is that Community Gardens that are LOCATED ON SCHOOL PREMISES provide these proven benefits:
A strategy to confront childhood obesity; Education in math, plant science, biology, soil science, chemistry, nature, insects and toxins, nutrition & healthy eating habits; Multifaceted skill development; Intergenerational relationships; Perseverance, problem solving, commitment, patience; Self confidence; Physical activity; Teamwork & cooperation; Personal responsibility; Strengthening bonds between students & communities; Positive effect on scholastic achievement and environmental awareness.
Locating a community garden ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES provides the following benefits deemed essential for its success: Convenience so that all the above is achieved; Successful curriculum integration; Intergenerational relationships; Necessary volunteers to aide in teaching; Volunteer manpower to perform necessary maintenance and continuous garden utilization; Bonds between school & community; Residents who serve as ancillary staff to support SROs (akin to a Community Watch Group).
Consistent and uniform policies can be beneficial as long as it a) Does not impair the implementation of desirable programs, improvements, and ideas, and b) it is not weaponized. History is replete with policies created for “the sake of uniformity” but have had quite deleterious impacts and outcomes because consistency and uniformity are not inherently “good”. Broad brush policies are notorious for not being optimal – and even resulting in adverse consequences.
Last evening Matthew Haynes had it right when (because of the Gardens) he stated “I think Long Lots is completely different situation than other schools. It doesn’t seem to be a great threat to see someone gardening”. We all know this is the truth.
What is needed is for the chosen architects to sufficiently address any supposed “security concerns” AND for the BoE to integrate Westport’s Community Gardens into the school curriculum. Broad brush “policy” resolutions based upon personal opinions of those with decision-making power are not appropriate nor in our best interests (including our school children). Neither should predetermined agendas.
Instead, facts should prevail, and opportunities & resources should not be squandered. They should be appreciated, treasured, supported and incorporated. In this instance, there is no political will or desire to do so. On the contrary, the intention is to utilize a straw-man rationale destroy.
That our “innovative” BoE is so intentioned is an incomprehensible disappointment.
Hopefully other contemplative minds will overturn the PRC decision permitting more visionary intellects to prevail.
Dr. Jay
Again you have illuminated the state of play in our town governance.
Some town proceedings can be excruciating. As for the P&R Commission: Oh, the bluster. A commissioner, not having done the requisite homework beforehand, confidently proselytized with n’er a modicum of visionary intellect.
Secondly, your white paper on community gardens + education is a good primer for the uninitiated on the social, moral and practical concepts of community gardens. I’ve been truly surprised that young affluent town residents have little prior knowledge of the community garden concept and its role in the community.
And then I remember: It’s no gateway to the Ivies, like a good fastball can be.
I’m hopeful our town representatives find their way out of Plato’s cave and into the light.
As for the garden in Westport it is soon to be a thing of the past like The Clam House, Kleins, Sally’s and Age of Reason. Us old timers will remember when..,,
There is now a petition to bring this matter to the full RTM. I will be at the Westport Community Garden on Sunday, 4/7 before 11:30 and after 2 p.m. gathering signatures. Town Charter Section C5-1G gives the RTM the power to review regulations concerning recreation facilities, and Town Charter Section C4-6 allows 20 citizens to petition the RTM to consider the item. Therefore this is clearly an item within the purview of the RTM, and is seeking action to amend the regulation.
Further, the Board of Selectwomen has placed this item on their agenda for April 10. However, the town charter requires a five-day published notice of the hearing, not including the day it was voted on by P&R Commission nor the day of the BOS meeting. Therefore I believe sufficient notice has not been given for this hearing.
Please plan to attend the BOS on April 10 to voice your concerns about this new regulation, which has not yet gotten a full review by town residents.
Oh, that’s nice: thinly veiled political retribution. Certainly there are things more corrosive to a sense of community than government sanctioned vindictiveness. But it’s a poison that lasts because it produces pessimism.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what the gardens are. The community gardens is to provide plots for people to grow food, and a place to gather as a community. And when the gardens are located on the same lot as a school, there is a shared common interest that needs to be adhered to. This conflict in interest was recognized by the town and the gardeners were given the choice to relocate the gardens to its own location where they did not have to be restricted with school imposed access hours. Hence this should not be a surprised to anyone that this is happening. The new access times for Parks & Recs facilities is to bring all schools in line and update them to modern realities. There are idealists who want things to be done differently, but we need to be realistic and apply common sense safety rules that are simple and easy to follow. I applaud the town for making these changes.
Another nail in the coffin for our town.
But as long as tooker is in office we had best get used to it.
I keep thinking, hoping enough people will wake up.
The vindictiveness of this administration knows no bounds !
Do the people who want people roaming around campuses during school hours actually have children inside tbe school? That is a very important question to ask
Also, has anyone who commented studied school security and school shootings?