Editor’s note: this is part three in a series about the candidates running to serve on the RTM. We covered District 1 Monday and District 2 yesterday.
WESTPORT–The Representative Town Meeting (RTM) is the Town of Westport’s legislative body.
The RTM’s responsibilities include approving all town expenditures of over $20,000, passing ordinances, reviewing changes to town property and reviewing changes in zoning regulations, among others.
Westport is divided into nine districts, each with a similar number of residents. In odd years, like 2025, each district votes for four members of the RTM.
This year, four districts are uncontested–there are four candidates for the four slots.
However, more than four people are vying for spots in five districts, Districts 1 through 4 and District 9.
This week, Westport Journal will publish the answers that each of the candidates in contested districts submitted last week, when asked the question:
Given the opportunity, how will you apply your experience and enthusiasm to best serve the members of your district?
Responses appear in the same order that District 3 candidate names will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.
District 3:
- Srikanth Puttagunta
- Adam Drake
- Jimmy Izzo
- Pamela Troy-Kopack
- Ross Burkhardt
Srikanth Puttagunta
I’m Srikanth “Sri” Puttagunta, a Westport resident since 2013 and CEO of Steven Winter Associates, a 115-person consulting firm focused on sustainability, energy efficiency, and accessibility in buildings. In my professional life, I help clients look beyond immediate needs and think long term to ensure investments are fiscally responsible, environmentally sustainable, and accessible. This perspective aligns closely with Westport’s 2050 net zero goals and our town’s commitment to creating spaces that serve both current and future generations.
I bring the same long-range mindset to my civic service. When Coleytown Middle School closed in 2018, I joined the CMS Building Committee to help guide the rebuild, and today I serve on the Long Lots Elementary School Building Committee. In both roles, I have learned how to balance competing needs such as safe and modern schools, neighborhood impacts, and recreation, while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
As Assistant Scoutmaster with Troop 36, I am currently working with Scouts on the Citizenship in the Community merit badge. It reinforces a simple lesson: good citizenship means listening with respect, engaging with civility, and making decisions that serve the greater good.
On the RTM, I will bring thoughtful leadership, fiscal responsibility, and a commitment to sustainability to represent District 3. My goal is to ensure that Westport’s choices today build a stronger, more resilient, and more accessible community for tomorrow.
Adam Drake
As a creative strategist, I’ve spent most of my professional life listening, looking for commonalities, and developing ideas that resonate with people. This skill set is well-suited to public service. Sitting on the RTM is not a matter of winning an argument, but of speaking up for neighbors, collaborating on solutions, and crafting outcomes that make Westport stronger.
Education is at the heart of why I am running. As a fourth-generation Westporter and the parent of two children in our public schools, I know firsthand that the quality of our education system is what defines this town. I want to ensure that Westport maintains its high standard of education and that our schools remain the pride of our community.
Getting on the ballot was transformative as people opened their doors to me, told me their fears, and trusted me with their stories. In those conversations, I discovered what this office is truly about. It is not policy, it’s people. It’s making sure their voices are heard.
I’ve been passive in politics for too long. It’s easy to sit back, to make statements on social media, and call it being involved, but I was feeling a bit like a hypocrite. This bid for the RTM is me taking a stand, rolling up my sleeves, and getting to work. Because each conversation at a kitchen table, each concern raised by a neighbor, deserves to be presented with care, creativity, and compassion. That is the spirit I will bring to the RTM.
Jimmy Izzo
If re-elected to the RTM, I will continue to deliver dedicated and passionate service to not only my district, and to the town of Westport.
I will continue to look at the big picture, and do what I feel is in the best interests of our residents, children and town as a whole. I will continue to always be available and present on all issues.
Pamela Troy-Kopack
As a 34-year resident of Westport I have been actively involved in the town since I moved here. I have been an active volunteer/leader in the Westport Young Women’s League, PTAs, PTA Council, A Better Chance of Westport, Christ & Holy Trinity Church and CHT Preschool.
I have been on the RTM for just 18 months but have been through 2 budget cycles for both the town and school district. As a CPA, reviewing budgets is second nature to me, but understanding the back story on each department’s requests is enlightening.
I serve on both the RTM Finance and IT Committees. Finance reviews all funding requests before they go to the full RTM. Department head reviews provide insight into the workings of many town departments. As part of the IT Committee, I drafted guidelines for other RTM members to use in reviewing annual budgets, understanding that not everyone has a financial background.
We need to continue to prioritize the things that make Westport great – schools, town amenities, a low mill rate and keeping the town safe for all who work and live here. This needs to be balanced against the cost to maintain our infrastructure throughout the entire town and not delay necessary investments.
Traffic safety, congestion and enforcement is a significant townwide concern, but also a prominent issue in District 3. We border the Merritt Parkway and are a cut through for many. Recent sidewalk work on Cross Highway/Weston Road has greatly improved walkability in the area.
Ross Burkhardt
Westport needs a dynamic vision of the future that recognizes the need to address the challenges of climate change and the development pressures facing the town and the region. If re-elected to the RTM I will continue to:
- Advocate for the preparation of a Climate Action Plan for the town that focuses on the resiliency of coastal areas and flood zones throughout the town and invests in meeting our goal of net zero by 2050 or earlier;
- Seek to involve greater citizen participation in preparing visions for the future of areas such as Saugatuck, Downtown and other neighborhoods;
- Continue to support policies and budgets that will sustain and strengthen our town’s leadership in public education;
- Seek creative solutions to traffic and parking problems in Saugatuck and Downtown and promote expansion of public transit services.
I have been a Westport resident for 47 years. My two children are graduates from Staples, and my wife is a professor of ESL at CT State Community College, Norwalk. I served on the P&Z and the Housing Authority, I have a master’s degree in Community Planning and Area Development (URI), and a BA in History (UW Madison). My professional career includes thirty plus years of not-for-profit leadership in affordable housing development, including Executive Director, Broad Park development Corp. (Hartford) and President and CEO of New Neighborhoods, Inc. (Stamford). Currently I am president of the Board of Wassell Lane Corporation, an affordable homeownership development in town.
I do not vote in District 3, but I know enough about some of these candidates. Ross Burkhardt is a winner, who has been working to engage our town into more effective and wholistic long-term planning. Plesse vote for Ross.
Anyone who sports the O’Day logo in his portrait is a fast no. Izzo is a staunch supporter of the current Republican administration and a hard line Republican. Yes, his working class family is legendary to Westport but that does not make him a good leader, nor does it entitle him to special privilege.
Sri Puttagunta gleefully killed the community garden and Long Lots Preserve. His arrogance toward the citizenry has been notable. Just say no.
I respect that everyone is entitled to their perspective, and I appreciate those who care enough to speak up. That said: this decision was never as simple as “gardens or no gardens.”
The Long Lots project is complex. The top priority had to be constructing a new school within budget and on schedule, while also keeping the existing school fully functional throughout. That balancing act guided every decision. Early in the process, the committee and town made a good faith effort to work with the leadership of the gardens to discuss a new location (even before the Baron’s South proposal) that would have allowed gardening to continue without losing a season. Unfortunately, that option was rejected because the garden leadership would only accept keeping the gardens in their current location.
For me personally, this is not about being “against” gardens. I am an avid home gardener and landscaper—you’ll often find me in my yard with my son on weekends.
At the heart of Westport is a community that cares deeply about its schools, neighborhoods, and the future we’re building for our children. We don’t all agree on every detail, and that’s natural. In fact, differences of opinion are a sign of a healthy democracy. What matters most is how we listen to one another and how we approach decisions with respect, civility, and a focus on the greater good.
I truly appreciate the hard work that goes into building a school in a problematic tract of land.
But that does not forgive:
— The project is extremely delayed and well over budget at $113 million plus interest.
— Spending A LOT of taxpayer money is easy work, and doing it behind closed doors is dishonest and possibly illegal.
— Burying the cost of Parks and Rec fields under the cover of a much needed school is dishonest.
— Treating adjoining homeowners and gardeners with such disregard precludes that entire committee from being entrusted with our votes.
– Delays in construction are normal, but you know why this project was delayed.
– Well over what budget? You mean compared to the feasibility study before the actual building design and having to account for tariffs on construction materials?
– Protecting the town in terms of its ability to get competitive bids from contractors…there is nothing dishonest or illegal about that. You can go to the LLSBC committee webpage for the summarized cost breakdowns.
– You believe we are burying the cost of grass fields for Parks and Rec?
– If you believe listening to all adjoining homeowners and gardeners and responding to all their questions is disregard, then I won’t change your mind. If, by disregard, you mean that we didn’t give everyone what they wanted. Then I agree that everyone did not get what they wanted, but I would say that of the school administration, parks & rec, Sustainable Westport, and countless others. Those are the decisions that you have to make when in leadership roles.
“Early in the process the committee and town made a good faith effort to work with the leadership of the gardens…” Seriously? This is a blatant untruth. Neither you, your committee or your first select woman EVER made any effort to reach out to the gardeners.
Mr. Puttugunta:
In an era of alternative facts, misrepresentations, and downright lies, you have every opportunity, while running for public office, to negate those tactics and support truth, honesty, and decency. Unfortunately, in your comments above you err on the side of the former.
You state that early in the process, the Town and the building committee made a good faith effort to work with Westport Community Gardens leadership. That is categorically false. “Oops, I guess they found out” is a more succinct way to put it. You failed to contact us, you kept your back to us during your “public “meetings and you ignored us during a tour of the gardens that we had to beg you to attend.
The fact that you, or anyone else, could have provided the 120 Westport families and voting citizens with an opportunity to not lose a gardening season is a fantasy you like to promote to get egg off your face.
Your statement that the garden leadership would only consider staying at the current location on Hyde Lane is a complete misrepresentation.
The vast majority of Westport citizens who are members of the Westport Community Gardens much preferred to stay at that location either during construction or after construction was over. That is the point that we tried to get across. You would not listen. The building committee would not listen and this Town’s leadership would not listen.
Your comments about listening to each other as a sign of healthy democracy ring hollow.
The citizens of your district deserve better.
Leadership is not about pushing aside voices or chasing consensus for its own sake. It’s about caring enough to listen, weighing each perspective with seriousness, and then making a decision that reflects both today’s realities and tomorrow’s opportunities. It also means being transparent—explaining priorities, actions, and reasons, even when the outcome is not what everyone had hoped for.
I know I won’t change your view, but since you chose to share your perspective publicly, I will share mine as well.
On the claim that I “kept my back” to you during LLSBC meetings: when seated at the committee table with other members and consultants, I was engaged in the working session. Am I expected to physically turn my chair 100% around for each speaker during public comment? Across 50+ meetings, I have listened and responded to countless questions and comments, with no time limits imposed. Everyone was free to speak as long as they wished, and we responded.
On the tour of the gardens, the suggestion that I “ignored” you is simply not accurate. My son and I walked alongside you the entire time—I have a very different recollection of that day.
And regarding alternate garden locations: The statement on not considering any other location until a decision on Hyde lane was directly stated by you early on and another garden steering committee member during the P&Z approvals. You are free to deny those meetings now, but that position was expressed directly.
Listening does not mean agreeing. Not every stakeholder received the outcome they wanted with the Long Lots project. But I have consistently explained the reasoning behind the committee’s approach, and I stand by those decisions as being in the best long-term interest of our schools and our community.
Thank you Toni for the kind words! I expected nothing less. I am so glad you are exercising your First Amendment Rights on all our media outlets. We all do the best we can as volunteer elected officials. You can attack me on anything, but please, the last thing you should ever call me “entitled with special privilege.”
It insults me, from the Tedesche – Gilbertie side to the Izzo side of my family, has ever felt an “entitlement to special privilege.” Every relative of mine, and there are many, are all hard working giving people.
To the Public Please stop by the Westport Public Library this Saturday October 4th from 11:00am to 12:00 pm and meet the RTM candidates. Everyone is volunteering to run to serve our community.
Please feel free to contact me anytime with any questions about me, my RTM accomplishments, and our wonderful town.
Peace and Love
Jimmy Izzo
RTM 3
I don’t live in District 3, but residents there have a tough choice to only pick 4 of these candidates. I know and have worked with 4 of them. I have heard good things about the 5th. They are all genuinely nice people who are committed to what’s best for Westport. None of them are party-driven hacks. Good luck to each of you!
While these questions were asked by Mr. Vann in the comments for the District 1 RTM candidates, I thought they were good questions, so figured I would provide my responses:
1. Do they support the P&Z’s rejection of the Hamlet at Saugatuck, and, if so, what do they believe the next steps should be as far as redevelopement there?
I believe redevelopment in Saugatuck could be very beneficial to the town. I don’t personally have an issue with the scale of the proposed project. My concerns are with flood risk, erosion, parking, and traffic. In my opinion, these issues weren’t adequately addressed by the applicant, and I hope they return with meaningful solutions that ensure the project strengthens, rather than strains, the community.
2. What is their position on the reconstruction/replacement of Cribari bridge and should access to tractor trailers be permitted?
The bridge needs reconstruction or replacement, but with clear vehicle restrictions—tractor trailers should not be permitted to cross.
3. What is their position on the various school rebuilds/reconstructions that have been raised recently? What should be done, how much should be spent and when?
Our school district was rated #1 in Connecticut and #19 nationally in the 2026 Niche rankings. That recognition reflects our incredible teachers and administrators, and we owe them learning spaces that allow them to continue to excel. These are generational investments—supporting our community for the next 50 years. While we must be fiscally disciplined, prioritizing schools means avoiding short-term “band-aid” fixes and instead making the right long-term choices.
4. Do they support the reconstruction of the community garden and, if yes, where and how much should the town contribute to support?
I support reconstruction of the community garden. The Long Lots project aimed to do this concurrently, but siting has been the challenge. Costs should be modest by identifying a location with existing infrastructure such as parking, water, and electricity.
5. Should developers be allowed to provide 530-g housing off-site?
No, developers should not be allowed to provide 8-30g affordable housing off-site.
6. What is their position/recommendations concerning downtown parking?
This is an area where I need to do more research. I typically walk downtown from my home and haven’t personally encountered parking challenges, likely because of the times I go. On the surface, the Baldwin Lot seems a logical option for a parking garage if the economics make sense, but I would want to better understand usage data and costs before forming a firm position.
7. What is their position on residents’ right to petition the RTM under the RTM’s rules and how did they vote on that question in the past?
I have no issues with residents’ right to petition the RTM.
Sri, if the bridge is replaced with federal funds, it must be accessible to “all legal loads” by law. That means tractor trailers. There will be no “restrictions”. DOT officials, in their public information sessions, have been very clear about this.
On another note, while I’m glad to learn you “have no issues” with Westport residents’ right to petition, it would be more useful to learn whether or not you support the reinstatement of that right since it was stripped from us by the majority in the current RTM.
I will admit that I haven’t been involved in town meetings about this bridge. My focus has been on getting Long Lots through design to start construction.
My understanding is that Westport can petition the state transportation agency (CTDOT) to impose weight restrictions on the local roads leading to the bridge. I believe the petition would require engineering studies that show the roadways would be materially damaged otherwise. I don’t know if a petition has been submitted and already rejected or if we have sought to get an engineering study as a town for the roadways leading to this bridge.
You have apparently been misinformed, Sri. In any event, the road leading to the bridge is part of a state route, not a local road. This is why so many concerned residents are focused on preserving the geometry of the extant span: it acts as pretty effective vehiclular filter, if you will.
As to the as yet unaddressed matter of our formerly unmolested right to petition, I’ll ask the same question using different words: do you agree with the majority of the current RTM members that the word “shall” means “may”? Or do you consider the word “shall” to mean “shall” as the rest of the world does?
The public should have a means to petition the RTM.
Ok, I give up.
Don’t give up, Morley. Vote.
I think I used the word arrogant earlier and I’m sticking with it.
Oh, don’t worry, Toni, I’m not giving up in THAT sense. I’m just giving up on getting a straight answer from this particular person. In any event, Sri said enough. I’m pretty sure I’ve got the picture.
Different people will express themselves differently, and that’s okay. We don’t have to interpret everything the same way, but we do need to approach each other with goodwill and civility. That’s how we move forward as a community.
Gee, and here I thought that the Town Charter was pretty clear:
“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,…”
Maybe elected Representatives swear some sort of oath?
You seem to want me to say my answer in a very specific way, so I will try again to have a civil discourse on my perspective. My reading of the town charter would indicate that if the requirements to petition are met, then the topic should be added to the agenda.
I asked Sri a simple, yes or no question. To wit: do you support the reinstatement of citizens’ right to petition? This resulted in an airbrushed public-official-speak salad -plus a lecture on “civility”. Sri is going to fit right in on today’s RTM.