By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday spent the bulk of its meeting debating the “inclusionary housing fee” at the rate suggested in December by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
After two and a half hours, surprising no one, the RTM voted overwhelmingly, 30-1, to pass the new fee, with Jimmy Izzo, District 4, opposing. It means new zoning permits will bring in $5 for every $1,000 spent on zoning permit construction costs.
But a motion from the floor brought by new member Clarence Hayes, District 4, asking the body to take another look at the RTM’s previously anointed Long Lots School Building Committee, caused quite a rumpus.
“Resolved that the RTM moderator use his authority under the rules to appoint an ad hoc committee for the one-time purpose of investigating possible modifications to the memberships powers and obligations of the Long Lots School Building Committee which was established by the RTM,” Hayes said.
The reconstruction of Long Lots School is the town’s latest major project, perhaps costing $100 million. Questions have been raised about the committee’s transparency, and why its building committee meetings are not recorded and archived.
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser said Hayes’s motion would need a two-thirds vote to be added to the RTM’s agenda, and then a simple majority to create the committee.
The matter clearly had some triggered.
Deputy Moderator Lauran Karpf asked if the motion was unsuccessful, could it be brought back at a future hearing.
“Is it just now or then? We’re just going to keep discussing this every month?” she exclaimed.
“At what point can you not bring the same motion over and over and over on the same thing to discuss every single meeting?” she asked.
“This is ridiculous …,” she said as Wieser banged his gavel, an occurrence he’s not known for, but wielded more than once Tuesday night.
Several Long Lots parents scrambled to the meeting.
“This seems to us parents who are here in force at the last minute, and we are not going to accept another delay,” said Veronika Tysseland.
“This motion seems for some reason to want to delay the process, we have yet to figure out those reasons,” Tysseland said.
“This school needs to be built now,” she said.
Seth Braunstein, District 6, weighed in with lengthy comments.
“The Long Lots School Committee is a just body,” he said. “That was fairly and fully and adequately disclosed, vetted, voted upon.”
“Fair point,” Wieser said, breaking in.
“What’s the fair point?” Braunstein said. “Just hold on. That I am opposing the special interests? And trying to say and call this for what it is? I’m not gonna be silenced.”
“I am saying, in no uncertain terms, that it is not a transparent process,” he said. “And for people who have been screaming about transparency, boy, it’s pretty incredible that there’s now an effort to do an end-run where an important constituency doesn’t have a voice.”
“What just occurred is probably the most dysfunctional process that has occurred since the Long Lots School Building Committee was put together,” said Andrew Colabella, District 4.
“This is ridiculous,” he said. “I’m not going to let a mirage of keyboard warriors who call [First Selectwoman] Jen Tooker or [Selectwoman] Andrea Moore or Jay Keenan, Don O’Day and other members of the Long Lots School Building Committee horrible names and then go after the parents.”
“You are making it personal, you are making it personal, we are not doing this tonight,” Colabella said.
Dick Lowenstein, District 5, took a more tempered tone.
“I don’t like the use of the ‘we’ OK in conversation, it implies that if you’re not with the we, you’re on the other side,” he said. “And I think that when people speak at this podium, they must speak for themselves, not for us. That’s a very important point I think in terms of decorum.”
“I sent comments to the whole RTM,” Hayes said. “I withdraw the motion, I think it’s a little bit mis-characterized, we’re starting to debate things which aren’t real. The commentary hasn’t addressed anything that I’ve said or suggested — could we do this better from a process prospective, a better transparency.”
A vote on Hayes’s motion appeared evenly split but needed two-thirds to proceed. Hayes ultimately withdrew this motion.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here..
“A vote on Hayes’s motion appeared evenly split but needed two-thirds to proceed.”
That’s incorrect. The vote was on whether to continue debating the addition of the motion, not a vote on the motion itself. There was not vote a vote on adding the motion to the agenda.
RTM members should also look into whether this process is sustainable, and whether they need to take action on their own to stop this madness, and make the call through an agenda item in next March meeting to move the WCG to a different location in town. We can’t be fighting on every minutiae in the procedures and constant barrage of factual innacuracies. We need to focus on building the new school as quickly as possible.
Joe, the WCG is never moving. Might as well get used to that fact.
Thankfully so says the 8-24, and you should be most grateful to the P&Z because they were protecting the neighbors in the process.
Had the 8-24 gone any other way there might have been some very long drawn out litigation which would most assuredly have delayed the much needed school by years.
In fact that litigation is still potentially looming and would have teeth so if I were you I would be celebrating the 8-24 result and once and for all move on from blaming the gardens and neighbors.
Remember the gardens have just as much of a right to be there.
The latest calls for the RTM to stand up and do the job they were elected to do has nothing to do with the gardeners.
The rtm is not following the town charter laws.
They MUST. They were elected to do so and swore an oath. Of course the vast majority of them don’t even know the charter. Convenient for those who do not wish to be bound by it.
This latest call for them to step in and do their job has nothing to do with the garden or the gardeners.
It has to do with getting the expert PSBC involved in an oversight capacity which will not delay the project by even a day.
It will insure transparency and NO secrets. It is in our charter.
It is correct process.
It is not going to delay anything.
It might even make people relax and get on with things.
I suspect the latest RFQ fiasco is going to cause untold delays and that is because they were issued incorrectly.
Had the PSBC been already overseeing this would not have happened.
If you really knew the town charter and what it clearly stipulates you would be calling for the same thing.
The members of PSBC are knowledgeable and all well respected experts.
Led by Joseph Strickland l, their chairman, they bring vast expertise and experience to this project.
Why you or anyone else on LLSBC, would be purposefully wanting them excluded from this project makes no sense when they are supposed to be the official overseers. Far far greater experts than anyone involved in this project I might add.
They might even speed things up. Fewer mistakes such as the rfq will happen, which now MUST be corrected.
The P&Z was very clear in their issuance of the 8-24.
They want for example a 3 floor structure looked at.
They want parking needs looked at along with flood erosion etc.. the document is there for all to read. There were many guidances asked for in the 8-24. I suspect some to try and attempt to get a good close to perfect school.
Instead of berating the gardens, and gardeners and neighbors you might look to the administration and rtm, the boards of ed, finance, and FS most of whom have been involved in some way or another in town govt decisions over the last decade.
Why don’t you ask for a public apology from every single person who spoke up during that time in favor of kicking the can down the road. They are the only reason the school is in this state.
They are the reason it is in such dire need. And ironically they are now the ones shouting loudest for this new build. But WHERE is their apology ?
When Harris falk and Sal liccione, amongst a few others were begging for funds to do maintenance, warning of the consequences, and nobody was listening.
Yeah you might want to go back over the history of this school and the calls for funding to maintain it which were ignored.
Houses, schools, buildings, are all money pits. This is not new news.
They require maintenance.
When you refuse to maintain them they fall down.
A pity nobody thought about that til it was too late.
Mary,
There was nothing wrong with the way the LLS building committee was selected and appointed. The fact that you don’t like the outcome does not warrant a complete review of the committee so that another outcome is reached. That is absurd.
Longs Lots has been maintained and what was broken was getting fixed. That is not the issue. Many parents have been pushing for holistic look at the school, and that is why we are here now.
Woah, hang on a second. The FS was not supposed to appoint the committee the RTM WAS.
And they were to give a good reason as to why the PSBC with x10 times the expertise has.
In the event the rtm interviewed and appointed a committee, regardless, the PSBC oversees them.
This is good for multiple reasons such as conflicts of interest.
Kind of keeping everyone honest so to speak.
But what I would really like to have explained is the last part of your comment !
“Long lots has been maintained and what was broken was getting fixed”
( factually not true or it would not be now a new build)
But what does this mean?
“Many parents have been pushing for a holistic look at the school, and that is why we are here. “
What does that mean exactly Joe ?
They don’t like the look of it ?
They prefer it to be more country club like ?
I mean what exactly does that mean ?
You state it was being maintained and is not broken ?
Please do help me to understand what exactly I am paying for here ?
Regarding the role of the FS and RTM, and the role of the PSBC, there is a clause to in C21.2 which was omitted by Mr. Weisman oped because it didn’t fit his narrative:
“Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the First Selectman, the Public Site and Building Commission shall be designated as the school building committee as that term is defined by the General Statutes.”
The LLSBC was expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the FS.
Mary,
This is part 2 regarding maintenance/repair of the school.
As I have mentioned the school is maintained alright, broken systems are replaced, filters replaced, roof repaired/inspected for leaks, etc…
The issue is that LLS needs a lot more than a maintenance plan. It needs a capital plan to deal with larger issues. For a while, LLS windows was discussed in meetings for years. Some windows are from the original time they were placed. When it rains, water makes its way in.
But there are over 37 portable dehumidifiers and 14 commercial ones humming from the start of the humid season to keep indoor humidity in check and avoid more mold incidents. So the problem is much larger than replacing windows. The building envelope is compromised. There were many reports on the LLS conditions and the BOE decided that it was time to ask for a new building. The LLSBC was formed to make its own independent analysis and looked at renovate versus new build, and they came with the same conclusion. It is far more costly to renovate this building, and the town is better off in the long run to build a new school.
I know what I am saying will not change your mind one single bit, and that you will write a whole essay with irrelevant and inaccurate statements as you always do. But you asked, and I answered.
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
Nothing wrong with it ? Huh ? Think again !
“…quite a rumpus.”
And that is why, at long last, the RTM needs to spend some quality time on this. There are a lot of viewpoints. A lot of questions. A lot of people who care. A lot of taxpayer money to be spent.
I am glad the three or four RTMers who spoke at length last night, and with passion, are finally able to have a conversation about this. Only 33 more to go. After public comments.
As much as I hate to point this out, Jimmy Izzo represents District 3, not District 4. It is a cross all of us here must bear.
It is interesting that Veronika Tysseland spoke, because (looking at her letter submitted for the 8-24 hearing) she seems to be part of the ball field brigade, using the school as the reason to hurry an unrelated issue along.
Joe – “Procedure” is what we have rather than just writing blank checks to the people scream the loudest. Everyone in Town is paying for this school project. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they are factually inaccurate. “
The process is working fine, but because you and a few other don’t like the outcome, you keep screaming and making up your own facts. The RTM voted 24-0 to appoint the building committee. No one is writing a blank check (another factual inaccuracy). If we were, we would be building the school 3 years ago already, and the building committee did not need to be formed, nor would they needed to make a decision whether we needed to renovated versus new build. It was clear from yesterday’s RTM meeting that the members are as fed up with this non-sense as the parents are.
The GARDENERS do not like the outcome! To be crystal clear!
The gardeners are fine with the outcome ! Only one complaining and annoying the rest of us tax payers is YOU
GET OVER YOURSELF!
Be grateful for christs sake.
Wait til your kids move on to staples and that dump is falling down !
Cos I am not paying for a second school !
Problem Joe is the rtm swear an oath to uphold the charter provisions.
They are not.
They MUST, like it or not !
The RTM were duped into rubber stamping the first selectwomans hand picked committee with out so much as a say. The rtm did not know the charter provisions with the exception of a few, Sal liccione, Harris falk, and Kristen scheenman.
It was in fact the rtms job to choose the committee.. and give reasons for why the PBSC was not chosen as a matter of course.
No reason was given. The proverbial wool pulled over their eyes.
Let’s see maybe the PSBC HAVE too much expertise and would have come up with a great plan that might have cost us a hella lot less than 100million.. but it might not have been the shiny trophy but either way the charter states the BSBC OVERSEES THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
And we want them there keeping a very very watchful eye. Because after zero transparency and the skullduggery which has gone on we don’t trust the LLSBC, to get this done without the oversight of the PSBC.
And as to your screaming comment. Only people screaming are the parents.
Joe, you lied about the Gardens being on school property not municipal property and falsely called the Gardens a “private club.” If the truth is on your side, I’m not sure why you misrepresent so much,
The truth is, you want what you want and are indifferent to the truth if it will help you to get what you want. Sad values that Westport children would get from the likes of you.
Chris,
I already shared with you the 8-24 P&Z which says explicitly that 11 Hyde Ln bought by the town was merged into Long Lots Elementary School building. Even the town system shows the co-owner of 13 Hyde Ln as the school. For all intents and purposes, this property is associated with the school, and owned by Westport. And hopefully the town will make those decisions based on that as well.
If the WCG is not a private club, then what is it? The open space fields and the soccer and other sports that have been labeled as clubs by some gardeners are more accessible than the gardens. So Chris, how do you describe those gardens? To me, these are plots provided by the town for Westport residents to grow their food and plants. It can be at Long Lots, or it can be somewhere else. The town is not providing anything more than that
Doubling down?
The Assistant Town Attorney was completely clear in her 2022 memo about the status of the land.
The Community Gardens are no more a “private club” than :Longshore is a private golf club. The irony is that the leagues that are the prime beneficiaries of the ball fields (Westport Baseball and Softball, Westport Soccer, and PAL) actually are private – that is not to diminish their positive impact on Town,
Repeating the same lies over and over doesn’t make them true. If you are so confident about the righteousness of your cause, why keep saying things you know aren’t true? You even acknowledged the correct status of the land in an 06880 comment, so why contradict yourself here.
Again Joe ! Smoke and mirrors..
wonder what will delay this ? It’s ppl like you ! Spewing garbage.
But Chris,I believe, joe and Stephanie do not care what it costs, nor if we pay x2 what we should. They plan on continuing to have their kindergartener style tantrum over getting their own wicked way while you and I shut up and eat it…
They will continue to tell us we hate children, etc…
That we should go to Bridgeport and plant our tomatoes, even if we are not gardeners and where Bridgeport came from I have no idea.
I suppose just out of hatred.
SMH.
Disgraceful !
Those who needed further evidence that the RTM is short-sighted and immune to criticism got it last night.
Rather than take steps to correct the flawed LLSBC process, which would have caused minimal delay to the project, the RTM continues in the face of evidence to the contrary to insist that it acted properly in all respects. This is the height of hubris in failing to acknowledge that the manner in which this was done violates relevant Charter provisions and tacitly approves the vote of two of its members for themselves to serve on the committee.
I fear we will find that the project will be delayed to a greater extent than would have been necessary if the mistakes had been corrected in house at this juncture when the process comes under critical review by the State in connection with a funding request.
Wise words as always from Attorney Weisman, who if you are not aware Joe, has served Westport as town Attorney. Or are you going to accuse him also of a barrage of factual inaccuracies.
Attorney Weisman has I am sure dealt with the state during his tenure as Westports town attorney, he is also well versed on what is in our town charter.
He has provided plenty evidence of town charter violations to the RTM. The RTM are all well aware of it. Might be time to listen to those who elected them. ALL of those thousands of tax payers.
Completing a project of this size is a challenge for sure.
All rules and provisions in the charter must be followed in order to insure no delays.
The charter exists for a reason, just like our constitution does.
PSBC must be involved effective immediately.
Toni simonetti and the gardeners vs the parents, teachers, and children of Long Lots! Interesting times.
The need for transparency and upholding the provisions of our town charter is the RTM AND FS JOB !
You do realise all it’s going to take is for someone to say enough is enough on this matter and get out their check book for litigation purposes.
It is not a game.
And whoever does it will most assuredly win in a court of law.
Then I guess you would have to blame the rtm for refusing to do their job and causing who knows what kind of delay to the LLSBC build.
Upholding the charter provisions will not cause delays.
Not upholding it could have disastrous consequences.
Let’s get one thing clear here. None of this is being brought up on the gardeners behalf.
We the tax payers of this town who are going to all share in paying for this school DEMAND transparency.
And we as the tax payers are entitled to it.
The sure fire way to delay the school is this bickering which will likely be stopped in its tracks once the rest of the town feels there is transparency, and the rtm asks PSbC to oversee. Which in our charter is very very clear. As is the role of the RTM.
Stephanie – the Gardeners mantra from day one was “build the school, protect the garden.” People like you and Joe have made it an “us vs. them,” which will only serve to slow the process as the taxpaying gardeners AND the neighbors try to protect their hard work and their quality of life. Though I’m sure you think the neighbors are being selfish, too.
I disagree. I have been reading the blogs and posts. It is the gardener minority mob bs rhe parents, teachers, and students at Long Lots. Even the neighbors to Long Lots agree, with the exception of perhaps one who knows themself what purchasing a home next to a school building means.
The neighbors are who will end up suing this process and winning…
Winning easily.
Stop fooling yourself ! https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
Which neighbors are suing? The meeting I witnessed had neighbors who support the 8-24 and new build. When you buy a house near a school you know what you are getting into! It is a known fact. ! Ask me, I back up to Staples.
Which neighbors? You and I should meet for coffee sometime. I am not a selfish person as you called me. I care about children, their health, education and Special Education deeply. You do not know me, and I do not know you, but I do know a LOT about education, children, and school buildings. Maybe you could teach me a thing or two about gardens and gardening?
Does Lauren Karpf not know the provisions of the charter as deputy moderator ?
It would appear she does not ! In fact not even close.
If she did know them, as she should, then she would know that the motion proposed by Clarence Hayes was the only “north star” the rtm should be following, and it should be brought up at every single meeting until 2/3 of the rtm do the right thing which is to uphold the provisions in the charter they swore an oath to.
It’s not complicated. That’s what they were elected to do !
Not to go rogue.
Of all your inappropriate posts, this is among the most inappropriate (lots to choose from). You have no idea, obviously, how fortunate Westport is to have Lauren Karpf serving its citizens. She is devoted and smart and has risked, on many occasions, the rancor of friends, colleagues and peers standing up for what is best, not for you, but for Westport.
Please stick with your silly posts criticizing the Moderator. Lauren is a great public servant.
Not even remotely surprised you feel that way.
My most appropriate post and it was not personal. But it is drenched in facts.
Your reprimand might work with the rtm but not with me.
I always fact check.
You were wrong about the petition, no surprise. You are wrong about this.
There is a code of ethics ! There is a charter.
You do NOT get to make up the rules as you go.
The FS does NOT get to tell you what to do !
Facts which you seem to ignore.
Lauren karpf had no business behaving like a fish wife at that meeting.
Most unbecoming of your deputy moderator.
But I guess it’s anything goes until someone gets so sick and tired of this behavior they just take your body to court and DEMAND you do the job you were elected to do.
Might I remind you of your job ? I am getting very tired of it.
It is to uphold the charter. You are not doing that.
And if this continues there will be consequences. Court consequences.
I never asked Lauren to stand up for me, I would not dream of it. I’m just asking her to do her job, to the best of her ability.
Even by current standards, that RTM meeting was simply appalling. I’ve never seen a deputy moderator break silence and reveal their personal feelings that way. No one seems to be in charge and there’s an overwhelming focus on crushing critics to defend that which really isn’t defensible.
For a little while I’ve been quietly harboring the thought that our RTM is irretrievably broken. Yesterday was first time I heard others openly voice that view.
Morley,
I share Mrs. Karpf frustration.
At this point, this is not about the process anymore. This is purely about the outcome which few people do not like. And they have been busy finding anything to attack the process in order to get their way.
We don’t want to add more people to the building committee for the sake of adding. They don’t need more people. And we definitely don’t want a certain person from the PSBC who is less concerned about building a school and what the school needs are, and more interested in other objectives.
I do not share her frustration, in fact her behavior frustrates me. I am footing my part of the bill for this school. It is all about process and procedure Joe. Has nothing to do with the gardens as you so obsessively think.
More people were promised to be added to the committee way back when it was chosen by FS !
Ah you didn’t know that ? Yep !
And what exactly is your paranoia about a “particular someone” this is hilarious.
Far more chance that what we have now is a definitive conflict of interest for the tax payer.
Someone needs to make a documentary about this! The Gardener mob vs the parents, teachers, and students of Long Lots. It would be an interesting show! After all, it is the gardeners who do not want the new school, a ball field ect.. they want what THEY want and will do ANYTHING to get their way. I have never seen a scenario like this in a suburb in my life!
Guess what?
What?
Mr. Nadar,
I wasn’t going to participate in this train of commentary because the prior factual information I’ve taken the time to provide has gone ignored. You and others so doing are intelligent people, so the reason for ignoring and attacking is obviously motivated by emotion rather than caring about facts. I understand the frustration that has resulted in that.
However, despite being told why your mantra that “the LLSBC was appointed in conformance with the Town Charter provision” misinterprets the pertinent clause, you persist in promoting such fallacy because it might provide you false credence amongst those who are not familiar with the Charter and historical precedent.
You have the impertinence to lecture Attorney Weisman with the audacity to ascribe him intentional malicious motivation with this statement:
“Regarding the role of the FS and RTM, and the role of the PSBC, there is a clause to in C21.2 which WAS OMITTED BY MR. WEISMAN OPED BECAUSE IT DIDN’T FIT HIS NARRATIVE: Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the First Selectman, the Public Site and Building Commission shall be designated as the school building committee as that term is defined by the General Statutes.” “The LLSBC was expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the FS.”
CLEARLY, the Town Charter EMPOWERS THE RTM WITH THE AUTHORITY TO EXPRESSLY DESIGNATE a building committee (if the PS&BC is unable to serve in that role). It DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FIRST SELECT PERSON TO INITIATE A DECISION TO BYPASS THE PS&BC. The Charter states that THE RTM IS THE AUTHORIZED GOVERNING BODY that initiates this, and then the First Select person needs to concur with the decision by the RTM to do so. This ensures separation of powers.
In addition it is the RTM, not the First Select person, who is authorized to determine the formulation of the alternate building committee, including the number of members, and how those members would be determined, and which stakeholders would be included. In 1999 there was a precedent template in this regard.
In this instance, it was the First Selectwoman who decided to bypass the PS&BC, and then the RTM merely voted to concur with her decision. THIS WAS BACKWARDS – and IS NOT AUTHORIZED by the Town Charter. This inappropriately reversed who has the authority. This inappropriately transferred the authority of the governing body (RTM) to the executive (FS) – and violated the purpose of the intentional separation of powers between the FS and the RTM. The RTM abdicated a major constitutional authority that the residents depend upon to ensure that the Town executive does not make decisions without having the backing of the people. THIS ACTION, and the process in which it took place, essentially hijacked the ability of the people (Westport’s residents) to determine whether or not the PS&BC should be bypassed, and prohibited the people from having any substantive involvement in the designation of the LLSBC membership. This was the antithesis of what occurred in 1999 – and fostered the current vitriolic situation.
Certainly the RTM could have NOT endorsed what the First Selectwoman wanted; they didn’t. HOWEVER, the Charter DEMANDS THAT THE RTM INITIATES this critically important decision, not the Executive of the Town. The only authority that the Executive (FS) has in this instance IS TO CONCUR with the RTM. I have explained the reason why this is important distinction for the residents of Westport.
In addition, in this instance, it was also the First Selectwoman who CHOSE the membership of this LLSBC, rather than the RTM; the RTM merely endorsed her choice of membership. In this instance, the RTM representatives abrogated their responsibility to spend adequate time formulating the membership of this LLSBC WITH THE SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY BY THEIR ELECTORATE. AND CERTAINLY THE LLSBC SHOULD NOT HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE CONFLICTED BY LATER VOTING ON THEIR OWN RECOMMENDATIONS.
So are we to conclude that the RTM is simply incapable of making the important decision to bypass the PS&BC? Are we to conclude that the RTM is incapable of determining the membership of this LLSBC? Or do we conclude that, unlike in 1999 under Diane Farrell and Gordon Joseloff, the current RTM is just too lazy to do so? Or was it just that the First Selectwoman had something specific in mind, and the RTM was too agreeable to violate the Town Charter because it was expeditious or convenient for them to do?
Regardless of the motivation, it was improper. AND in so doing, the RTM AND THE FIRST SELECTWOMAN FAILED TO PROVIDE THE REASON THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BYPASS THE CHARTER AUTHORIZED PUBLIC SITE & BUILDING COMMITTEE. NO REASON OR RATIONALE WAS EVER GIVEN.
UNTIL NOW!!!
Your last comment FINALLY provided an answer to the burning question that has heretofore gone ignored: “Why was the PS&BC omitted from this project, and continues to be ghosted by the FS, RTM and LLSBC”? AT LONG LAST NOW WE KNOW:
Your reply: “Because we don’t want to add more people to the building committee for the sake of adding. They don’t need more people. And we definitely don’t want a certain person from the PSBC who is less concerned about building a school and what the school needs are, and more interested in other objectives.”
“For the sake of adding”? Really? The Charter authorized experts who designated as the experts in this matter is not there for their experience and expertise? The PS&BC so authorized by the Charter because they are appointed to be in the best interest of Westport’s citizenry? That the FS knows than the Town Charter as to who is best suited to look out for Westport’s taxpayers? This comment is simply outrageous.
“They don’t need more people” Really? Says who? You? Who made you the arbiter of what is necessary to ensure maximal benefit to any project when the Town Charter clearly prescribes that function?
But perhaps the most important comment you made: “And we definitely don’t want a certain person from the PSBC who is less concerned about building a school and what the school needs are, and more interested in other objectives.”
So here we have it. Another malicious accusation that disparages the integrity of the well intentioned experts who are Town Charter designated to be Westport resident’s protection to ensure that projects occur properly and in their best interest.
You owe ATTORNEY Weisman both the respect he has earned, and an apology for your audacious accusation of his motivation. Absent any legal education or experience, and regardless of a false basis of your opinion, you are still entitled to disagree with him. However in so doing you should not show disrespect and publicly ascribe the malicious intent as you have.
In addition I believe you owe the PS&BC an apology for your outrageous accusation that any one of their members would not put the best interests of all our residents first and foremost. I do not know which particular PS&BC member you were referring to in your outrageous statement, or if you were referring to all of them. Regardless, this should be immediately retracted unless you have evidence to substantiate your libelous accusation.
But now that we know WHY the PS&BC is being refused to do their Charter authorized job, I’m sure your explanation will be useful some time in the future. This was helpful.
Mr. Walshon,
First of all, my statements are my own opinion. It would be very funny if you use my comments as the basis to explain what the decision makers have decided.
It is rather interesting that at the 11th hour that there is a sudden push to question the LLSBC and its work when the committee has been approved by the RTM 24-0 over a year ago. So a few people do not like the outcome, and their strategy is to raise doubt and question every minutiae in the procedure. This is the ugly side of democracy. But I know why I am fighting for this. I know that this is more important than these shameful attacks, and I as well as other parents and hopefully Westport residents will keep speaking up.
For reference, this is the entirety of the Westport code related to school building committee. It is crystal clear to the point that you don’t need an attorney to explain it.
CHAPTER 21 – Public Site and Building Commission
C21-2. – Powers and Duties.
The Public Site and Building Commission shall manage and have control of those approved building projects specifically assigned to it by the First Selectman and may assist, upon the First Selectman’s request, in planning all other building projects of the Town of Westport and in supervision of construction of such projects. Contracts in connection with all building projects, whether or not assigned to the Public Site and Building Commission and including but not limited to school building projects, shall be authorized by the Board of Selectmen. The Public Site and Building Commission may request the First Selectman to appoint an engineer to work at its direction. Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the First Selectman, the Public Site and Building Commission shall be designated as the school building committee as that term is defined by the General Statutes.
As Joe said, these personal attacks need to stop. His comments are always informed, even-keeled and well-reasoned. Nowhere in this provision cited does it mandate that the process must be initiated by the RTM or that they must appoint members and then the FSW must concur. Rather, it states that the RTM and First Selectman shall concurrently designate the building committee. Indeed, concurrence means the “simultaneous occurrence of acts and circumstances.” That is precisely what happened here. On September 6, 2022, the RTM Education committee met with the FSW regarding this issue and approved a building committee concurrently. Later that day, the item was on the RTM agenda, was fully discussed and voted on, and the LLSBC was established, in concurrence with the FSW, by a 24-0 vote.
Individuals who are now arguing that the process was not followed, citing to events from 1997, are grasping at straws in a thinly veiled attempt to delay this process for whatever their own personal motivations may be. Moreover, this was the same process that was followed when the Coleytown Middle School Building Committee, and other school building committees before that, were designated. There is clear precedent for the procedure that was followed for the LLSBC, and the town attorney agrees as such. Enough. No more delays.
Just because other schools did not follow procedure and conducted business with shade does not mean that corrupt self serving practice now gets to be written in the history books as the new now !
Absolutely not.
If I get away with running a red light multiple times can I now assume it is ok for me to continue that practice ?
No Erika. It doesn’t work that way. !
Ask the police.
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
Read it Erika.. read it and weep ! And pass it along to the rtm who do not know the charter ! This is a legal memo written in 2019. Not 1950
Read it and weep? Have you been drinking heavily tonigbt? Your kids go to private school, correct? You hsve such an invested interest in the law and our children Mary?
Written in 2019 by town attorney to FS Marpe
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
Read it and weep !!!!’
Read it and weep? Wow, this woman is now the town everything!
The LLSBC are so bad at this point and their credibility is so in question that we must stand by our charter and demand the rtm do their job.
If they do not they should be fired.
I suggest Joe, that you apologize immediately for your ignorance and bias.
Dr Walshon has just outlined the truth of this entire fiasco. That you insulted he and Attorney Weisman, is despicable.
These are town residents eminently respected, and well read.
They also have no agenda.
You on the other hand would argue day was night.
Get a grip, and refocus.
It’s not about the gardens vs the school.
It is a joint town project which left in the hands of the LLSBC is going to end up problematic.
1000 people disagree, 27000 people do not.
JC!
Get a grip !
Stop using oh you hate children as your rationale.
There’s an 8-24…. It will be followed. It accommodates the garden and the field.
It will be watched and it will be under a microscope BECAUSE of people like you.
This project will remain under a microscope because of people like you.
It would be great if everyone stay focused on the discussion instead of turning this into meaningless personal attacks.
Why do you and Jay Walshon get so defensive if I question the statements or argument that other people have made? Let them defend their statements, because they might do a better job than you both are.
Oh ! Personal attacks.
I doubt Dr Walshon will even respond as I think it is a waste of his time.
It is a waste of my time also.
I really have so much going on in my life. This is the least of my concerns.
Keep spewing your nonsense and I will continue to refute it.
We have a common enemy !!! It is called the FS ! In the not too distant future I will once again tell you “I told you so”
Please explain this to me. I plan on attaching it to every single conversation ever had again about the school and llsbc !!!!!!!!
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83720/638379056461070000
Because this is a waste of my time, I will keep this brief. This is the last attempt I will make in this thread.
Mr. Nadar: Your disparagingly malicious assault on the motivation and honesty of the members of the PS&BC was prefaced with the word “WE”, not “I”. Personal opinions are prefaced with the word “I”, not “We”. You have finally provided the long awaited reason why the PS&BC has been prevented from taking their rightful place in overseeing this critical project.
Mrs. Pritikin: While I understand your desire to interpret the word “concurrence” as meaning “simultaneously”, in this instance the word means “in agreement with”. The Charter states: “Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the First Selectman…” It does not state: “Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM in concurrence with the First Selectman…” “WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF” not “IN CONCURRENCE WITH”. This is because the RTM and the First Selectman have a separation of powers. They do not function simultaneously. For very good reasons, they have separate authorities. This is similar to the Congress doing their work based upon their specific authorities, and then the President concurring (agreeing) afterwards, if he so desires, to accept a Congressional decision. Separate authorities. In this instance of the decision to bypass the PS&BC and appointment of a replacement building committee, the RTM is the sole governing authority. The First Selectman can then either agree, or not agree, with the RTM’s decision.
Mrs. Webster has provided you with both the precedent and the Town Attorney’s interpretation in 1999 to further elucidate this for you:
“The RTM as the legislative body must designate a school building committee if state funding is contemplated.
Westport’s Charter requires that the RTM designate the Public Site and Building Commission (“PB&BC”) to be the school building committee unless the First Selectman concurs in the designation of another committee.”
Unless the First Selectman “concurs” – i.e. agrees – with the RTM’s decision to designate a committee other than the PS&BC as mandated by the Town Charter. It is NOT that the First Selectman makes this decision and brings it to the RTM. It is not that the First Selectman makes this decision “simultaneously” with the RTM. It is that the RTM makes this decision divorced from the First Selectman, and then the First Selectman gets to either concur or disagree.
And when the RTM decides to designate a committee other than the Town Charter mandated PS&BC, the RTM provides their basis for bypassing the PS&BC to the First Selectman and to the entire Town so that they can understand the rationale. For obvious reasons, an RTM decision to forgo the mandated PS&BC cannot be capricious – particularly when an application for State funding will occur.
I have zero interest in personal attacks, nor am I being “defensive”. I understand the frustration that parents such as Mr. Nadar and Mr. & Mr. Pritikin have been enduring – and I sympathize with that frustration. However it does not excuse the tirade of irresponsible and malicious statements, nor the vitriolic targeting of good people that some have (and continue to be) engaged in. I need not reiterate what that has consisted of.
Citing the law is not an attempt to “maliciously delay” the construction of a much needed Long Lots remedy. The echo chamber of this blame game mantra will not rectify the breaches in policy, procedure, process and law. A new school will become a reality.
It just needs to be done correctly. This would not necessitate significant delay. However, as I’ve stated before, it would go a long way to end this unnecessary vitriol.
Jay. Thanks for keeping it brief. We all know your time is precious. Also thanks for mentioning me by name. I’ve lost interest in these comment sections because I’ve learned once you’ve won an argument it’s time to move on. That said, I do have one more purpose here and that’s to remind you and everyone that you are indeed attempting to “maliciously delay” the building of a new school. That’s not an insult or an attack but a statement of undeniable fact. You’re absolutely allowed to do it. In fact I encourage you and anyone else to keep it up. It’s the reason that this will end so much worse for whatever self serving goals you have in mind. Just understand this town has no interest in playing pretend that there is any reasonable, moral, or acceptable justification for continuing this delay effort. If you really cared about being labeled a “malicious delayer” I imagine you’d stop trying to “maliciously delay.” But I guess it’s your funeral. Hope it’s been fun for you at least.
I share Dr Walshons frustration.
Mr. Nader and Mr. And Mrs Pritikin. .
Read all the evidence.
Digest it please, because I would rather you not ruin another day for me.
I am having frequent headaches.
I feel like I could have a heart attack. And I would far rather die over something else.
Stop with your BS !
These are facts ! What you spew are wannabe facts.
DR Jay Walshon and Attorney Weisman are gentlemen in our town who are not going to lie to you. Not ever. They clearly know the rules better than the rtm and the FS. And I for one want those rules followed.and I demand the rtm does so. Even if Jeff weiser thinks my request inappropriate. Do your job Jeff !
Trust me when I tell you. You are mis informed.
You’ve been played.
Give it up.
Mary. I suggest for the sake of your own health which you state yourself is being affected negatively here, you take a break from all this commenting. For me it was at first kind of funny because I looked at the “delay campaign” as so preposterous that just sitting here sarcastically picking you all off was good for a laugh. But then it got kind of serious and dark when I realized that you folks were going through some sort of personal crisis or mental breakdown so intense that you’d actually try to follow through on harming the kids. Now that “good” is starting to clearly pull ahead of “evil” in this process, it’s time for all of us to step away and calm down. In all seriousness I think you and many others would feel better if this wasn’t such a big part of your day.