By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting has received a petition from a citizen seeking clarity on the petition process itself.
The town has rules governing petitions to the RTM, but there has been disagreement recently over how they have been handled by RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser, District 4, and questions about whether he overstepped his authority in deciding which ones make the agenda, and when.
John McCarthy, a former RTM member and the lead petitioner on two recent petitions, requested in June that the legislative body discuss the downtown parking redevelopment plan at Tuesday’s meeting. It didn’t make the agenda.
Wieser, with a memo from an assistant town attorney saying it’s up to the moderator to decide which petitions are pertinent, didn’t put that petition on the Sept. 5 agenda. He has said that there have been extensive discussions about the issues involved, and noted the request did not call for a “legislative action.”
When the Sept. 5 RTM agenda was posted, some petitioners cried foul. They see the petition mechanism not as a matter for lawyers and arguments and caselaw from afar, but a simply worded, straightforward form of democracy — if Westporters want a topic addressed before the RTM, just collect 20 voters’ signatures.
The RTM Rules of Procedure, enacted in 1979, and amended since, state:
“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, not including the day of the meeting or the day of delivery of the notice. The Moderator may place any item on the agenda for any Representative Town Meeting.”
The crux of the latest petition boils down to one word: “Shall.” As in “shall place on the agenda.”
McCarthy’s second petition, again with more than enough signatures, was submitted to the Town Clerk’s Office and certified on Tuesday. Here is the text:
In the interest of clarifying for all Westport residents the meaning and intent of “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” of the “Representative Town Meeting Rules of Procedures” as found in Exhibit A of the “Code of Ordinances of Westport Connecticut,” the undersigned Electors of the Town of Westport request that the following Resolution be placed on the Agenda of the October 3, 2023 meeting of the Westport RTM for a vote of the full RTM:
RESOLVED, that the full Westport RTM at its October 3, 2023 meeting affirms that the meaning of the term “Shall” in “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” of the “Representative Town Meeting Rules of Procedures” as found in Exhibit A of the “Code of Ordinances of Westport Connecticut” is to be “construed as being mandatory,” per the definition of the word “Shall” in “Sec. 1-2. – Definitions and rules of construction” and that “Sec. A162-6. – Agenda” compels and requires 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 to place on the RTM meeting agenda such matters as petitioned by at least 20 Westport Electors not less than 14 days prior to a Representative Town Meeting.
How discussions outside public meetings have progressed since are another point of contention.
At Tuesday’s RTM meeting, Wieser read a long statement about the issue.
“As of yesterday, the lead petitioner and I spoke and he suggested that we no longer needed to speak about the Parker Harding proposed changes, which will continue to be the discussion of public debate and will ultimately come to the RTM for a fully transparent discussion debate and appropriations for the funds required to complete that proposal,” he said.
“And I do think that proposal will now be pursued through fully transparent, appropriate channels that are the normal course and will receive substantial public input before any shovel is put in the ground.
“The lead petitioners and others have changed their focus to a reform of the RTM, which per a petition received today will attempt to focus the RTM more on current issues that can be debated by the RTM, even if no legislative action is expected,” he continued.
After the meeting in the Town Hall auditorium, McCarthy emailed all the members of the RTM, disputing Wieser’s take on their discussion.
“Facts matter,” he wrote. “To be clear I did not withdraw the Parker Harding petition. It is still an unfulfilled ‘request.’”
“In my conversation with Mr. Wieser yesterday I made it clear I was opposed to having the RTM vote on whether it should be put on tonight’s agenda,” McCarthy said. “Had I supported that course of action, it would have only served to legitimize the moderator’s refusal to act according to the rules.”
“This is no longer about a parking lot, it is about having the right to petition the RTM taken away from the Westport voter,” McCarthy told the Westport Journal in another email. “The RTM moderator and I have a fundamental different view on what the word ‘shall’ in the Rules of Procedure mean. If the RTM views this as a popularity contest, then the moderator’s view will prevail and the residents of Westport and the RTM members themselves will lose a right they have had for many years. If the RTM members look at the issue with an open mind and use common sense, then we will continue to have the right to petition the RTM. Pretty simple.”
John F. Suggs, a former candidate for first selectman and former RTM member who now is a candidate from District 9 in the RTM election in November, also weighed in with an email to RTM members, and to the Westport Journal.
“Last night we got two competing narratives about the status of the Parker Harding Petition,” he told the Westport Journal on Wednesday. “The lead petitioner insists that it was absolutely not withdrawn, yet the moderator informed everyone that it was withdrawn. This has obviously caused a great deal of confusion. I hope the moderator might be willing to clarify things. Perhaps he misspoke.”
Wieser told the Journal Wednesday night that he’d let his comments from Tuesday’s meeting speak for themselves.
Jennifer Johnson, another former RTM member who is now running again in District 9, wondered how things had become so complicated.
“Sixty people want to discuss a topic, what’s wrong with discussing the topic?” she asked. “If it’s too much democracy and it becomes a problem, we can revisit it.”
“This is what the RTM’s about — it’s representative town meeting. If we’re not going to do that, why do we have an RTM?” she asked.
Wieser also said at Tuesday’s meeting that the Rules Committee of the RTM would discuss McCarthy’s second petition Oct. 2. He warned that the timing might be tight, with the petition requesting it be heard by the full RTM the next night, Oct. 3.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
This has become such a pathetic and avoidable embarrassment that one has to wonder what is driving this – for even schoolchildren understand that “shall” means “must”. This makes one wonder what conversation(s) took place between whom, resulting in the Town Attorney involvement and “cover”… and why exactly was that avenue considered? The residents deserve a full accounting of THAT – and prior to Novemberelections. What parties were involved?
Given the RTM agenda history (as elsewhere delineated by Mr. Suggs and others) including this same RTM’s lengthy discussion & resolution regarding national abortion rights AND even dictating their opinion to our Federal Supreme Court, “relevance”, “pertinence”, “efficiency “, “time constraints”, and “vote authority ” are all insipid excuses seen for what they really are.
Surely the RTM moderator understands that “his discretion ” translates to: WHICH factions receive HIS (and other Town leadership’s) favor and which do not, WHICH special interest groups get HIS attention and which aren’t special enough, and WHICH issues get discussed (and decided) and which remain closeted and buried. The potential for cronyism, and for citizenry getting shepherded become easier. THAT is what’s going on.
Control of the agenda in many circumstances is tantamount to control of the citizenry. THAT is precisely why the Town ordinance creators obviously chose “SHALL” instead of “MAY”… it is the only way to at least guarantee citizenry voice in chosing what to discuss at the RTM.
This debacle should end right now. The RTM moderator should just admit his mistake…(as well intentioned to allegedly “save the RTM time” as it might have been)… and move on.
The involvement of the Town Attorney has needlessly escalated this to where it should have never gone…very dangerous autocratic territory. Perhaps due to Ms. Flug’s assertion the RTM must now define “Shall” as always meaning “Mandatory” in order to override her interpretation. If so, that should only take the time it takes to read the resolution and count a unanimous raise of hands.
Anything other will be seen for exactly what it is.
One final comment: Somilar to the RTM, there should be a mechanism for residents to get an item on the agenda of EVERY pertinent Commission – especially the Parks and Recreation Commission. Apparently none exists; therfore the Baron’s South rehabilition is permitted to remain buried under years of neglect.
A few decades ago, a Westport Selectman crowed about the lineage which tied him to Moe, Curley, and Larry. The judge in Disorder in the Court asks Curley if he’ll swear, he says, “no, but I know all the words.”
Some taint of the Three Stooges seems to waft out of the RTM with the speaker’s refusal to recognize the right of 20 citizens to bring a matter before the body and the vitiating of the legal meaning of “shall” in town regulations and legal matters.
As is generally understood, when “shall” is used in a legal context, it indicates that something is required to be done, and there is no discretion or choice involved. It implies a legal duty or obligation that must be followed.
“Shall” occurs 53 times in our Parks and Regulation regulations.
Being wishy washy with a “shall” in our Parks and Recreation regulations could result in:
Hand passes issued to Sex Offenders.
Gardeners no longer having access to their gardens.
Boat owners discharging trash, fuel, and head waste into our basin.
And just imagine the consternation our planning and zoning officials and employees would experience if the thousands of “shall’s” in our Planning and Zoning regulations became optional…
Please, RTM Speaker… do not speak Stoogeese. A loosey goosey interpretation of language could lead to chaos.
The Westport RTM has faced a string of incidents attempting to quash the right of Westport citizens to petition. In 2019, Speaker Heller faced a similarly uncomfortable situation regarding the institution of a police review board. One has to wonder why the RTM speaker’s office is often faced with the urge to gatekeep the democratic process and why the Three Stooges keep popping up. Plus, they’re not funny.
I never would have imagined that a citizen driven petition such as this would ever be necessary in Westport. It’s particularly dispiriting because we all can easily grasp the plain meaning of the language at issue. That this attempted theft of what has been one of our core rights is taking place in broad daylight is an especially bad sign.