By Andy Brophy
WESTPORT–Passions ran high during the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) on Oct. 8, including the use of profanity by two RTM members, but the ruckus had nothing to do with an agenda item.
Instead, the arguments centered on a Freedom of Information complaint filed by an RTM member against 36 town officials and the town in July 2025 that was dismissed by the Freedom of Information Commission on June 10.
Jennifer Johnson, RTM D-9, had filed the FOI complaint against Seth Braunstein, RTM D-6 and chairman of the RTM’s Finance Committee; the RTM’s Finance Committee; the full RTM; and the town over an executive session (essentially a closed-door meeting) that Braunstein called on June 10, 2025 to discuss detailed cost estimates for the construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School.
Johnson alleged in the complaint that the executive session violated FOI laws because it was entered into “for an improper purpose” and “improperly permitted certain individuals to attend the executive session.”
But Braunstein said on Oct. 8 that the executive session was necessary to prevent potential bidders from learning detailed cost estimates on the Long Lots project, which at the time had risen to $102 million, and potentially manipulating their bids to match the cost estimates.
Near the start of the RTM’s Oct. 8 meeting, Braunstein made an announcement regarding the FOI Commission’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint “to set the record straight and repudiate the allegations that have been made against me” and because “the Westport electorate deserves to really understand what went on here.”
“Let’s put to rest any and all accusations that the town, the RTM, the Finance Committee and the chair of the Finance Committee did anything at all that would violate the law, and more importantly, the spirit of the law,” Braunstein said.
He said Johnson’s FOI complaint had “baselessly alleged that the decision to move to executive session was made because the costs of the Long Lots project had escalated and that the decision makers were trying to somehow obscure this escalation.”
After Braunstein started his roughly 16-minute announcement, Johnson twice called for a “point of order” to object, which led Jimmy Izzo, RTM D-3, to tell Johnson to stop “your point of order bullshit.”
But Johnson said what Braunstein wanted to announce should be on an RTM agenda, rather than having one person, who was a respondent in her complaint, present information.
“I think it’s inappropriate for Mr. Braunstein to continue at this point until there is an opportunity for that to be either added to the agenda or coordinated, so if we could postpone it to another meeting, I’d appreciate it,” Johnson said.
But Jeff Wieser, the RTM moderator, said Johnson’s FOI complaint “really affected a number of people personally and the [RTM] Finance Committee so I’d like to hear what he has to say.”
Near the end of Braunstein’s announcement, when he alleged Johnson “decided to share privileged information that was purloined from the podium on June 12th [2025] with a member of the public,” Johnson again called for a point of order.
“This is outrageous character assassination, out of context and one-sided. This is unadulterated bullshit that is being allowed to play out in a public meeting,” Johnson said.
Izzo interjected, “Seth Braunstein has the floor. Jennifer Johnson, it’s not your floor, buddy. Sit down and listen.”
Wieser several times asked Braunstein to “wrap up” and said Johnson could have her say during an announcement at the RTM’s Nov. 10 meeting. But Johnson wanted the FOI Commission’s action to be added to the agenda.
She said Braunstein was not giving an announcement. “This is him playing out his side of what happened,” she said.
“What Mr. Braunstein is proceeding to do is totally gloss over actually what was learned along the way, which is so imperative for our community to understand, and I have no trouble explaining that,” Johnson said.
When Wieser said to Johnson that the RTM would “hear the facts from your side,” Braunstein said, “I feel like we’ve heard Ms. Johnson’s facts and they’ve been repudiated.”
“You’ve actually not heard anything from me,” Johnson retorted.
Braunstein said a civil lawsuit had been filed against him, though didn’t elaborate beyond saying, “Instead of civil suits, there should be a more civil discussion amongst colleagues.”
Regarding Johnson’s allegation that RTM members not on the Finance Committee had improperly attended the executive session, the FOI Commission found that all RTM members in Westport are non-voting members of the RTM’s Finance Committee.
And the FOI Commission found the executive session was not called for an improper purpose because the FOI Act allows executive sessions when publicity could adversely impact the cost of construction.
During the executive session, a binder with 35 to 40 pages of “specific detailed cost estimates” for the Long Lots project was provided, and at the time of the executive session, no contracts had been bid or rewarded for the Long Lots project, the FOI Commission’s decision says.
Oddly enough, Thomas Hennick, the FOI hearing officer on Johnson’s complaint, had recommended that the FOI Commission find the respondents did violate a section of the FOI Act.
But that was apparently a typo as the FOI Commission voted unanimously and without discussion to add the word “not” to Hennick’s recommendation, according to an audio recording of its deliberations. And the preceding text of Hennick’s recommendation and his conclusion that Johnson’s complaint be dismissed didn’t support excluding the word “not.”
Andy Brophy
Andy Brophy is an experienced Fairfield County journalist. Andy was a staff writer at The Connecticut Post for 10 years. He also wrote for the Norwalk Hour, Fairfield Minuteman, Fairfield Patch and weekly newspapers in Westport, Fairfield and Norwalk. When not reporting, Andy enjoys playing chess and listening to pianist Art Tatum. .
1. Mr. Braunstein (and before him Mr. Wieser) accuses with willful disregard a fellow RTM member of “purloining” (aka stealing) a document which contained public information. All of it was public information that was being withheld and that had been requested under FOIA. That information was posted to the town website immediately shortly thereafter. The crime here was not stealing; it was withholding public information that was being discussed by an elected town body.
2. I have searched the CT Superior Court records for a civil suit brought against Mr. Braunstein and there is no record of such a suit. What exactly is “the truth” of a civil lawsuit of which he speaks.
3. As elected officials and chairs of public committees, individuals choose to place themselves in a public light and subject themselves to public scrutiny— including demands for information and checks on their governing through FOIA. There is nothing personal about it, as Mr. Braunstein decries. However, you cannot defame a public person with willful disregard of the truth, as he appears to be doing to others.
4. Mr. Izzo’s conduct unbecoming is wholly predictable. He has acting inappropriately on numerous occasions to the point where I personally asked the Moderator to step in and discipline him. Izzo deserves a public censure for his many inappropriate outbursts at public meetings.
5. This retaliatory proselytizing against a fellow public servant and a member of the public (yes he brought me into this tirade) is not “an announcement” for the RTM. It was an unannounced angry retaliatory public grievance at a public meeting for which there was no notice. Braunstein and Wieser used their power and privilege to carry on in this manner. What’s next? Wrestling tigers in Jesup Green?
Yo
It’s time to move past the noise and focus on what really matters, namely: what this lavish elementary school project will cost Westport taxpayers.
One looming issue is the rate of reimbursement to be provided by the State of Connecticut. Depending on how that issue plays out, Westport taxpayers could be left paying a whole lot more in additional costs.
That should have been the subject of a robust public discussion last year. Instead, just when the price suddenly jumped by $10 million the RTM switched a scheduled public meeting to an unprecedented closed executive session just two days before final approval.
There’s more: the RTM Finance Committee insisted an executive session was needed to protect sensitive pricing information from being disclosed to potential contractors. But according to sworn testimony at the FOIA hearing in Hartford, the pricing estimates were developed by contractors who were subsequently allowed to bid on the project. Which means the whole thing was basically a charade. The public—the very people ultimately responsible for paying the bill—was the only party kept in the dark.
The FOI Commission’s ruling on my complaint was narrow: the RTM was technically allowed to invoke an executive session to discuss pricing. But, as the Commissioners themselves suggested, just because officials can close a meeting doesn’t necessarily mean they should.