By Jarret Liotta
WESTPORT — Whichever direction it ultimately chooses to go, the Representative Town Meeting is being asked by several parties to make some new decisions this year regarding police oversight.
First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker made an official request to the RTM Tuesday night to take over responsibility for appointing two new members to the existing five-member appointed Civilian Review Panel, which her predecessor, Jim Marpe, created in 2020.
New Proposal
Meanwhile, the RTM heard a first introduction to a new ordinance proposal for creation of a Civilian Police Review Board, presented by resident Tom Prince.
In October the RTM was nearly unanimously opposed to an ordinance creating a CPRB that had been discussed for close to two years in committees.
The revised proposal, Prince said, includes several changes that will make it more palatable to both the RTM and the Westport Police Department, including omission of the controversial request for subpoena power for the board that was requested in the first proposal.
“The support for reasonable police oversight in town is strong,” he said.
Prince told the RTM that Westport had fallen behind other communities in terms of having an oversight vehicle in place.
“Objectivity and Independence”
“Objectivity and independence are needed … We give police great powers — guns and the ability to take away life and liberty,” he said. “Nevertheless, police have self-review in our town.”
Prince also criticized the timing of Tooker’s request that the RTM appoint two new members to the CRP, which he described as a largely impotent and ineffectual body.
He said Marpe created the CRP in response to the original ordinance proposal in 2020 and, likewise, offered the RTM a chance to pick two of the members, but then withdraw the offer, leaving it in quiet and limited operation with only three people.
Unlike the CRP — the rules and procedures of which Prince said are subject to changes at Tooker’s discretion — a CPRB would operate consistently under the new law.
“She can change the rules at any time …” he said of the CRP. “They are still making up new rules as they go along.”
“In contrast, an ordnance passed by the RTM has fixed rules … and becomes a law that both the police and citizens can rely on,” Prince said.
“RTM has not sloughed off”
Though the body was asked to refrain from commenting on the proposal at this time, RTM member Louis Mall, District 2, said that part of the reason the vacant seats on the CRP were never filled was because the RTM committees consumed so much time reviewing the previous ordnance proposal.
“The public needs to understand that the RTM has not sloughed off on its responsibilities here,” he said, “and with the selectwoman’s announcement tonight, this gives us the opportunity to go full force and move ahead with the right members on the panel.”
“I don’t want to get into comments about what happened in the past,” RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser said, closing down other members who raised questions about the new proposal.
Since its inception the CRP has only had three of five members in place — Harold Bailey, current chair of TEAM Westport, and the second and third selectpersons — previously Tooker and Melissa Kane, and currently Andrea Moore and Candice Savin.
“Accept that responsibility”
“I have changed the mission statement and the charge,” Tooker said, “and it now states that the RTM will now appoint the two additional members. I’m here tonight now asking the RTM to accept that responsibility.”
Wieser said the request would be handed over to the Public Protection and Ordinance Committees to review.
“We will decide … whether we want to accept that charge,” he said.
In other police-related business, the RTM unanimously approved $843,844.40 to purchase body and vehicle dash cameras, helmet cams, modems, building security cameras and tasers.
Following recent approval of the allocation by the Board of Finance, Deputy Police Chief Ryan Paulsson gave a presentation on the equipment, noting some of the older cameras are “plagued with maintenance issues.”
Dear Tom Prince,
I read your proposal; these are my thoughts:
You say reasonable “police oversite is strong in Westport” show your proof to the Westport Citizens.
Maybe we need an oversite committee to oversee the RTM
You say Police have “power and guns” without power you can’t arrest, without guns you can’t protect yourself from the bad guy.
You Criticized First Selectwomen Jen Tooker. Maybe we need an oversite committee to watch over The First Selectwomen’s office.
While you’re at it maybe we need an oversite committee to watch over the Planning and Zoning Department.
Maybe we need an oversite committee to watch over the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Maybe we need an oversite committee to watch over the Board of Finance.
Maybe we need an oversite committee to watch over the oversite committee.
Etc, etc.
Sincerely,
Gerald F. Romano, Jr.
You write, “You say reasonable ‘police oversite [sic] is strong in Westport’ show your proof to the Westport Citizens.” I don’t really know what you’re trying to say, but this appears to be the opposite of what I said. The police department is not elected; the other groups you mention are. This is some pretty basic civics. Have a great day.
Seems like RTM could use a review board!
Jay Keenan, district 2:
When we met last week, one of the things that we didn’t have an answer on was
whether we have to approve this as a yes or no, it stays at $104,000 or it goes to
$150,000. Eileen actually informed me today that we could have, at that meeting, made
a motion to reduce it to come up with another number. We couldn’t have gone more but
we could have gone less. I think I would have done that at the meeting if I knew that we
could. I think the optics of taking any salary, regardless of the position, and increasing it
by 45 percent is really bad optics. I agree with what the subcommittee of the Board of
Finance actually started with to do it in two tranches. I won’t be supporting $150,000. I
think we should have stuck with what the Board of Finance recommended originally in
two tranches.
Wendy Batteau, district 8:
I have to agree with what Jay said. We’re in a period where the economy is pretty lousy
and we’re not increasing anybody else’s salary by 40 percent or barely four percent. In
the last eight years, we added a position to the Selectman’s Office. I forget what the
exact title is but that was a $90,000 position so that effectively added to the Selectman’s
Office’s salaries and I just have to say that at this particular time, increasing the
Selectman’s salary by close to 50 percent seems unseemly and excessive so I don’t
think I can vote for that at this point.
Dick Lowenstein, district 5:
I have a question for Mr. Chetcuti. You said you analyzed the executive salaries of the
other Fairfield towns, Mayors and First Selectpersons. Did you include in your analysis
DRAFT
8
whether they were supported by an Executive Assistant like Sara Harris supported Jim
Marpe. We are spending almost $190,000 on the First Selectman’s Office a opposed to
the pure salary. Did you analyze that at all?
Mr. Chetcuti:
Yes I did. I’ll go down the short list: Greenwich, Stamford, Bridgeport, Fairfield, Danbury,
Trumbull and New Canaan, they all have a second person who works with the Mayor or
First Selectman. In most cases, it’s called the Chief Appointed Official. Some towns
actually have a Deputy Chief Appointed Official as well. So, I did take that into account.
Mr. Lowenstein:
What was the result? Were the Chief Executive’s salaries lower with the combined
assistant, quite high? What was the net of the analysis?
Mr. Chetcuti:
In some cases, ironically, the Chief Appointed Official was higher than the Chief
Executive. In some cases, substantially.
Mr. Lowenstein: Like a City Manager as opposed to a Mayor, for example.
Mr. Chetcuti:
Correct. For example, in Greenwich, the First Selectman is making $150,000 and the
Chief Appointed Official is making $192,000. It’s similar in other towns.
Lisa Newman, district 8:
I have a comment and a question for Ralph or the Employee Comp Committee. I just
wanted to respond to something Connor had suggested. I don’t think it’s fair that
because many people in this town have means to step up into what is essentially a fulltime role to run this town that it should not be compensated adequately. What we do if
we’re not compensating that role adequately, then we are limiting that role to only those
who can afford to stay in that role which means they have a spouse to help support their
family or they are retired and they can live off their savings but I think it would be remiss
not to just touch on, not the amount, I understand the concerns about the dollar amount
and the percentage we are raising it but we don’t want to limit the position of CEO of our
town to only those who can afford to serve in such a role. I think that’s not really the look
that any of us are going for. I, myself, at one time was a single mother. I would not have
been able to leave a full-time job even if I was highly qualified. I wasn’t qualified at the
time to be CEO of a town; however, I wouldn’t have been able to swing that. We may
have single parents in this town who can’t afford to leave their full-time job. They might
be highly qualified. I worry about access to that role if we’re not compensating
DRAFT
9
adequately. My question is if we were to vote no tonight as a body, correct me if I’m
wrong, that this is an adjustment that can only be made in certain times in the cycle so if
we say no tonight, we don’t get to look at this for another four years. Is that correct?
Mr. Chetcuti: Yes. That’s correct.
Mr. Lowenstein: That’s not correct.
Mr. Mall:
The salary being set, the number that it is at this period of time. We could do a cost of
living mid-term or we could amend the dollar amount to something less but not
something more. That’s what I understand.
Ms. Newman:
Yes but we have to keep in mind that the mid-term cost of living increase is not a
substantial raise for this position. We’re talking a small percentage. We passed one two
years ago and it was very minimal. It amounted to $2,000 or $3,000. So, I think it’s
important for people to be aware if we were to vote no outright or amend or not amend,
we lose this window for another four year.
Mr. Mall:
The last major salary increase for the First Selectman happened during Diane Farrell’s
administration in 2003. There was no increase in Gordon Joseloff’s administration for
eight years. Jim Marpe became First Selectman in 2013 and it became a question by
the Board of Finance before the election, ‘Do you want a pay raise?’ and both
candidates said ‘No. Thank you very much’ because that would have become a
campaign issue. Then in 2017, it was brought up again and they said that we had just
started the new position of Director of Operations. We had Dewey Loselle in it and now
Sara Harris. The one thing I’d like to say about that is Sara Harris who was an
employee of the town of Westport that helped get the work done. We don’t go and say
to the Director of Public Works, for example, or Parks and Rec., we’re going to give you
a lower paid position but we’re going to take that salary out of yours and not give you a
pay raise. That is a poor argument. What I’m trying to bring this back to is this hasn’t
had a significant pay increase since 2003. The cost of living was 2.5 percent, what we
managed to get it up to. It’s no reflection of the amount of time and the work that was
done by our First Selectman. We got off really cheap. We had a First Selectman that
was 24/7 working with the RTM until one o’clock in the morning and then he is in his
office at nine o’clock conducting First Selectman meetings. Jim Marpe set the high bar.
It’s going to be tough for the next Selectman or Selectwoman, whoever it’s going to be,
they have big shoes to fill. What we came out of the committee meeting with was the