By Meghan Muldonn
WESTPORT–A dispute over tone and decorum has emerged within the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), following comments made at the conclusion of its April 7 meeting.
In an email, RTM member Jennifer Johnson formally requested an apology from Moderator Jeff Wieser after what she described as “inappropriate” and “disparaging” remarks made moments after a vote on the reappointment of fellow RTM member Peter Gold to the Westport Transit District.
The RTM voted 32-2, with one recusal, to approve Gold’s reappointment. Johnson and fellow RTM member Joe Carson cast the two dissenting votes. Carson cited concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
Before the vote, Johnson and Carson both praised Gold but argued that appointing a sitting RTM member to oversee an entity meant to operate independently raised governance issues.
Johnson also pointed to what she described as inefficiencies within the Transit District and expressed her disappointment in Gold’s lack of support for a potential merger with the neighboring Norwalk Transit District. Johnson, a former Westport Transit District director, shared her belief that consolidating into a regional system would serve to streamline operations and better leverage state funding.
In her letter to Wieser, Johnson said that after announcing the vote tally, Weiser, apparently unaware his microphone was still on, turned to the Deputy Moderator and stated “I just can’t believe …they vote, they actively vote against…they’re really crazy, they’re really just so disrupt-, so disruptive.”
Johnson characterized the comments as a clear violation of the RTM’s Conduct Guidelines and Expectations, which emphasize respect, civility and the avoidance of personal attacks, both in public and private settings.
“Differing views do not justify personal attacks,” Johnson wrote, adding that “characterizing colleagues as ‘crazy’ or ‘disruptive’ undermines the integrity of our work and the respect owed to elected officials.”
Johnson called on Wieser to issue an apology and to provide assurances that members expressing dissenting views would not face similar “disparagement” in the future.
On Friday, Wieser responded to Johnson in an email, a copy of which was obtained by Westport Journal.
In his response, Wieser acknowledged that his comments referring to Johnson’s actions as “crazy” and “disruptive” did not meet the RTM’s standards for respectful conduct, regardless of whether they were made privately or after the meeting. He emphasized that the remarks do not reflect his respect for fellow members.
He also explained that he had been surprised and disappointed by Johnson’s “no” vote, particularly after what he described as her strong praise for Gold during the meeting. Wieser said he had hoped she would support the appointment while continuing to work “to solve some of those underlying problems” at the Transit District.
While defending his reaction as stemming from frustration, Wieser clarified that his criticism was directed at the actions and their impact on consensus-building, not at Johnson personally.
Wieser concluded by thanking Johnson for her “vigilance” to the Guidelines and Expectations of behavior and said he would strive to do better moving forward.
When reached for comment today, Johnson said she did receive Wieser’s email and is grateful for his “thoughtful response.”
Meghan Muldoon
Meghan Muldoon is a freelance journalist based in Darien, Connecticut. As a television and print journalist, Muldoon has covered state government and politics in Virginia and Connecticut.
Watching how this group handles its obligations to constituents, it’s clear that some have grown far too comfortable in their elected positions, and a shake-up is definitely needed.
I believe there is systemic bully behavior on the part of certain RTM reps. RTM members have referred to me as “Crazy Simonetti,” and worse. I have witnessed disparagements of others, and frequent occasions of conduct unbecoming.
I have had private discussions with RTM leadership urging them to rein in this behavior and discipline offenders. And yet it continues, usually by the same group of people with no consequence.
In the case cited above, it continues to amaze me that if there is dissent in a vote, the dissenters are labeled “disrupters,” “obstructionists,” and more by this same cabal of RTM bullies.
Unanimous votes should NOT be an RTM objective, but rather fair and respectful discourse about matters of consequence to Westport citizens.
Thank you again, Toni, for your thoughtful and detailed comments. They continue to educate me, and I, for one, appreciate your opinions!
Jennifer Johnson refused to vote with the herd and cast her dissenting vote. Another example and there are many of Jennifer’s courage.
How about the other district 9 members? They voted with the herd which was no surprise.
Sal Liccione another courageous individual should be voted back into the RTM in the next election in district 9 where he belongs.
Casting dissenting votes is part of American history. President Andrew Johnson avoided being thrown out of office by a Senator who refused to go along with the herd and cast his dissenting vote because he knew the situation had turned into a political witch hunt.
Why does the video of the RTM meeting on the town website stop seconds before the comments in question? That seems…strange, coincidental, or convenient.
I’d love to know the explanation.
It’s still incomplete on Saturday morning.
I agree Robbie, over the past few years that I’ve been participating more as a member of the public in the relationship with local government, the RTM is the only group within our town boards of elected officials that leaves me shaking my head on a regular basis.
To me, it seems like an unprofessional, clicky, tribal club. The town charter with intricate rules are an afterthought.
Repeatedly I have been shocked when members have dual roles within the town that conflict with their fiduciary responsibility as voting members of the RTM. They never seem required to recuse themselves, and they never seem to have the sense to step back from a vote when a conflict is clearly present.
The other thing that has seemed stunning is how unprepared they can be when an important issue is before them. The BOF, PNZ, and BOE all seem extremely knowledgable with issues before them, but I had attended meeting where it is obvious that many members have not done their homework. This elected board must do better remembering they chose to run and serve. They must govern with the town charter as its guiding document, with the highest standards of decorum and they should encourage public discourse and public engagement.
It is unfortunate the embarrassing recording was redacted. I’m sited the town attorneys have weighed in on some gavel-to-gavel rule. Meh. It should be reinstated. Meanwhile, the clip is circulating widely by word of mouth. If you want it let me know.
Yes, who decided to cut the two minutes out of the end of the tape? Despite claims to the contrary, this is not standard procedure. Other tapes run right to the end and then fade out. In this case, the tape abruptly ends–just in time to avoid showing the moderator’s comments. Wesporters deserve to see what was broadcast–not some edited version that conveniently protects the moderator. Two years ago I wrote about the systemic dysfunction at the RTM–and, if anything, things have gotten worse. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the majority is cast as crazy or disruptive. As I said before, good governance demands healthy debate and even disagreement. It’s time for the RTM to stop insisting on collegiality at the expense of democracy.
For whatever it is worth, when I sat on the RTM in the early 1990s; RTM members were NOT permitted to sit on any other town boards or committees – period, end of sentence.
You were an elected official with the expectation from your constituents you would provide 100% of your free time to your appointed committee seats – period.
During my time, if a member desired to work on any Town appointed committee or board you had to resign your seat on the RTM.
This was modeled after our Federal government. You are not permitted to be a sitting US Senator while being appointed to a Cabinet seat. You have to resign your Senate seat.
Why RTM members are permitted to sit on both the Long Lots School Building Committee and the RTM concurrently IS a direct conflict on interest.
I am unsure it was a written rule or just a gentleman’s understanding when I was a member (there are way less gentlemen today, that’s for sure) but if it isn’t a documented rule, it certainly should be.
In reality, think of it this way; understanding the incredible amount of work and time commitment a dedicated RTM member should contribute to their committee seat, how could it be possible, any such individual can also find the time required to dedicate a herculean effort to complete productive work on the Long Lots School Committee ? I use the Long Lots School committee as an example but the thinking applies to any and all other committees.
There are over 25,000 residents in our town, we can find other competent people to fill these non-elected boards and committees.
As an elected RTM Member, you were selected by the voters in your district to commit to addressing Town wide issues.
You were not elected to dilute your time with other committees or boards that you will be required to vote on as an RTM member.
The board or committee you are working on most likely will involve Town funding when it comes before the RTM. That is a blatant conflict of interest.
In this case, an RTM member should abstain, but do they?
I expect this comment will fall on deaf ears.
~ Joseph V. Vallone, A.I.A.
Here here. I’ve been shouting this from the rooftops. It does indeed fall on deaf ears.
No elected official is (or should be) permitted to sit on an appointed board. Period. When I raised this as a conflict of interest in various Long Lots funding decisions before both the Board of Finance and RTM, I was widely ridiculed by sitting members of those boards. Jay Keenan, Don O’Day, Liz Heir are three that come to mind. Having voted to fund their own town spending proposal is a blatant conflict of interest. Period.
Having the same legal counsel represent all branches of Westport government is also blatantly wrong. How can the BoF, RTM, or PZC get independent and sound legal counsel from the guy who is representing the petitioner before these bodies?
While Mr. Wieser’s comments were unacceptable, more importantly it’s the fact that in his heart he believes what he stated.
Whether serving the Westport community as an RTM representative, or serving in ANY other official Town Hall capacity, his belief is a disqualifying characteristic to bring to the position. He is supposed to equally serve the public.
While an apology to Ms. Johnson was certainly in order, it doesn’t resolve the foundational issue that IT ISN’T THE WORDS that were spoken, IT IS THE BELIEF that evoked them that is most egregious.
And while the apology to Ms. Johnson may be well and good, Mr. Wieser owed an even greater apology to the Westport residents who he has clearly forgotten that he serves.
As experienced and noted by many engaged residents, the ignoring of this most basic obligation (to meaningfully respect disagreement and actually welcome opposing thought) by too many RTM cronies and sycophants has been an epidemic during recent administrations.
Registering complaints, submitting editorials, and writing commentary about unacceptable and disrespectful RTM behavior with the expectation of ending such is the proverbial definition of insanity.
It won’t happen.
With his heart-felt statement at the end of the RTM meeting, Mr. Wieser has done the electorate a service: By being unintentionally forthcoming he has finally, truthfully informed us – and in so doing once again proven that the election of the RTM moderators should be taken out of the hands of its membership, and instead (as it occurs elsewhere) entrusted to the electorate.
The RTM moderators set the example, the tone, the expectations and the business for the RTM. Unfortunately, it is incontrovertable that under Mr. Wieser’s tenure indecorious behavior and the disrespectful treatment of dissent has been repeatedly permitted – and now we understand why.
His disparagment of dissent and disdain for resident determination even culminated in his utilizing our assistant Town Attorney to enable him to breach foundational Town Charter resident rights by using unauthorized petition censorship to stifle resident voice.
Having the electorate directly determine the critical RTM leadership positions would be the only way to break this unacceptable cycle once and for all.
Women on the RTM have been historically maligned and mistreated. It’s systemic.
The same grumpy old men (I have a list) shout them down in the halls, cluck loudly in their seats, shoot them withering glances, and subject them to eye-rolling that is almost audible.
Of course, these guys are all about “civility” and “community” and “working together to solve problems.” Spare us the BS, fellas.