By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — On April 17, the Transit Committee of the Representative Town meeting was discussing the future of the town’s shuttle bus service.
It was a three-hour meeting about a recurring issue, the Board of Finance’s annual defunding of the Wheels 2U commuter shuttle service and whether the RTM should once again restore the money or steer in another direction, such as merging the Westport Transit District with a neighboring district.
But something new did come out of the meeting.
After Sal Liccione, District 9, questioned the town’s relatively new operations director’s experience in transit issues and government, some other members apparently contacted RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser.
The RTM’s “Conduct Guidelines and Expectations,” passed in November 2021, frowns upon public criticism of town employees. It also allows anonymous reporting of fellow members for infractions (though it is doubtful any such communications could be kept private under the state’s open government law).
Two days later, Wieser sent Liccione an email. It read:
“I have heard, now from four people, of some unwarranted behavior by you in dealing with a Town official on Monday evening.
I am reluctant to believe that you would disrespect employees of the Town but in light of multiple complaints, I am forced to remind you of the RTM’s Code of Conduct.
That document which the RTM approved and for which you voted states:
‘RTM members should treat all Town staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. RTM members must remember that Town employees work for the Town, not for the RTM. Any concerns about a Town employee’s performance, other than in connection with an agenda item under discussion by the RTM, may be raised either to the employee or to the employee’s department head or the First Selectman, but should not be aired in a public meeting.’
I consider this a first warning that I would like to discuss with you. Because there is no precedent, I am not certain what happens with a second offense, but I am certain that it will not happen again.
I copy the Town Clerk to ensure that this is recorded as an unusual event and ask that you act more like the respected Town leader and passionate representative of your District that you are.”
It appears to be the first time the code has been invoked.
In the days that followed, Liccione circulated the email, and sent responses to Wieser. One read in part:
“Having been presented with complaints about this trivial episode from my fellow committee members, it would have been far more appropriate and professional for you (and the complainants) to speak directly to me. Instead you chose to send an email copying Jeff Dunkerton, the Town Clerk, which insinuated in a vague and anonymous way that I was somehow responsible for some kind of grievous misbehavior, without providing any specifics. That was completely unwarranted and misleading.
In short you have clearly blown this entire episode out of proportion and I think an apology and retraction are in order. Maybe then we can focus on more important issues facing the town and RTM.”
Liccione told the Westport Journal that while Wieser took input from other members, he was never asked about it before receiving the April 19 email.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “In no way did I show aggression, force of any kind.”
The meeting was not recorded by the town, but it was by the Westport Journal. Listen to the conversation in question here:
The perils of policing conduct, aka speech
If anything, the incident highlights the perils of policing “conduct,” which in some cases essentially means speech.
Debate on the guidelines in 2021 touched on such issues. Some language, including avoiding “sarcastic” statements, was removed. (“Is it one of those things like, ‘I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it’ type of things?” Harris Falk, District 2 said at the time. “I mean, I don’t know sarcasm, but I know it when I hear it? — Was that sarcastic, what I just did?”)
Fast forward to 2023. What might seem to some as legitimate governmental scrutiny by Liccione might be seen by others as a breach of RTM etiquette.
As far as etiquette goes, if you insist on some kind of country club collegiality, Liccione’s probably not your guy.
He’s personable and spends his days walking around his downtown district, talking with residents, merchants, restaurateurs and employees. But he speaks his mind, and rubs some people the wrong way.
In a body of 36 members, he’s recently been the sole vote on the losing side, including a potential RTM challenge to the Hamlet at Saugatuck rezoning, and the re-election of Wieser as moderator. And at the meeting in question, his motion to cut the funding of all but senior citizen shuttle service died with a soundtrack of crickets — no one gave it a second.
Liccione said he feels unfairly targeted. Others criticize department heads and the administration, but only he has been warned.
“I believe I’ve been threatened because I’m not afraid to stand up to power, to our leadership, and hold them accountable,” he said, adding that he’ll “challenge the status quo in all areas.”
Wieser told the Westport Journal he sent his email only to Liccione on the RTM. He said he sends all official communications to the town clerk for Freedom of Information Act purposes.
“I really didn’t want to single him out in any public way, but to remind him of the position we need to take being respectful of town employees,” Wieser said.
“He’s a very good, active representative for his district,” Wieser said of Liccione.
Recording the incident with the town clerk?
The Westport Journal asked what was meant by the matter being recorded with the town clerk. Was it some kind of scarlet letter inscribed for eternity in the land records?
“Absolutely no scarlet letter, no three strikes and you’re out, nothing like that at all,” Wieser said, acknowledging the RTM conduct expectations have no enforcement mechanism.
“This is not Tennessee,” he said. “If someone stands up and says something, there is nothing in the code that says you’re kicked out of the RTM. It’s just a reminder that we need to be respectful of everybody in the town.”
“It is a challenging thing and we’re working our way how to work through it,” Wieser said of the guidelines.
Town Clerk Jeffrey Dunkerton was asked if any such recording had been made.
“No, this has not happened,” Dunkerton told the Westport Journal.
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.
Given the excellent training and long professional experience of the Westport Journal administration and staff, it’s a rare occasion that I read a piece two or three times and remain unclear about the events reported. Today’s post about what appears to be serious but unfounded allegations about the conduct of a sitting RTM member is one such rare occasion.
As I understand it, the RTM Chair authored a warning letter, sent by email to an RTM member, criticizing his conduct on the basis of statements made by four other RTM members, but not observed directly by the Chair. In the words of the Chair, the letter was copied “to the Town Clerk to ensure that this (it) was recorded…”.
Yet the Journal reports the RTM Chair stated that he only sent the letter by email to the the RTM member that he was warning.
Am I missing something? Please advise.
Ms Gouveia, You have not “missed” anything. Your question cuts to the heart of but one disconcerting aspect of this clear case of abuse of power by the RTM Moderator Mr. Wieser: Namely that Mr. Weiser lied when he stated to the press that he only sent his correspondence to Mr. Liccione. He did not. Mr. Weiser copied the Town Clerk and thus created it as a public document.
In addition to that lie, Mr. Weiser also has done a grave disservice to myself and every other Town Resident of District 9. Mr. Liccione is one of our duly elected representatives on the RTM. I voted for him. By abusing his leadership position and authority to single out and publicly attack MY Representative (via the CC to the Town Clerk) on a matter that he only heard about secondhand, Mr. Weiser has revealed his contempt and disregard for me and to all the electors of District 9.
We do not need you, Mr. Weiser, to be our “nanny.” We have duly elected Mr. liccione to represent us several times now. He has shown himself time and again to be a great advocate for the 9th District and the Town. In short, Mr. Weiser, we expect you to treat “our” representative with the same respect and courtesy that we expect you to treat us.
Mr. Suggs, regarding Mr. Wieser’s statement about only contacting Mr. Liccione about this issue, I failed to make it clear that he was talking about other RTM members. He was clear to me that he copies all official communications to the town clerk, for Freedom of Information purposes. Many issues come into play here, but I wanted to clarify that.
Article updated to include that.
Mr. Liccione said the town manager, a former state trooper, “doesn’t have a clue” about local transit issues. If this is not an acceptable observation from an elected representative who is communicating the concerns of his constituents, Westport has a problem that’s bigger than anyone has acknowledged. Mr. Liccione deserves an immediate apology. We’re waiting.
Ok, I listened to the tape. What’s the problem?
“Weaponization”: an overused word in today’s politics. I have full faith in Sal’s dedication to his constituents. Isn’t questioning a town employee who is paid by us, appropriate?
Agree. The notion that town employees “don’t work for the RTM” is a ploy that has been used for years to enforce conformity and muzzle those who have the temerity to ask questions. Town employees work for the residents who pay them. And our RTMs are our direct representatives.
Mr Hood,
As I remember many many RTM members “went after” Ms Fava, but of course being in the inner circle got a big fat zero reprimand.
Sal Liccione did not grandstand or “go after “ Mr Kiely, on the contrary he in a non aggressive way stated his opinion (and not being used as a weapon by anyone) and Sal as a representative elected by district 9 has every right to do so.
The fact that the RTM has a completely and utterly screwed up system of electing chairs to all these committees, does not serve us the electors well. For example there are many chairs of these committees who would not be voted chairs by the electors. This is a fact.
That system needs to be changed.
You do realize once our RTMs are elected and then from within, chairs appointed, the other RTM members do not have any say other than an a final vote. So start the secret meetings we all despise.
So, no the system does nothing to serve the public, nothing at all.
As for Sal apologizing? For WHAT, having an opinion? Oh no no no ! Definitely not. Freedom of speech.
Sal and Tom Kiely had a good laugh about it in the days after. Tom has no issue with Sal. Or his comment.
However it was totally out of line for Ms Scheenman to tell Sal to stop and Ms Milwe. Again freedom of speech.
Have you even listened to the tape ? Nothing out of line on it.
Perhaps Mr. Wieser, Ms Scheenman and Ms Milwe, all owe Sal a public apology, in fact they most definitely do.
There is a proven history here of witch hunts all directed at Sal, and quite frankly his voters are sick of it. Moving into a zero tolerance zone with regards to the bullying of Sal. And the attempts to intimidate him into keeping his opinion to himself. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.
And it will no longer be tolerated by his electors who put him there to speak and act on their behalf.
I think Mr. Wiesner was completely out of order. If anyone was inappropriate, if not defamatory, it was when he said this was a warning. He then went on to say something like this is not 2 or 3 strikes and you’re out, but ” i am certain this not will happen again.” Who is really disrespectful here? Sal simply stated an opinion which he has every right to do. Expressing an opinion is a constructive thing and everything I heard, as well as knowing Sal, he was respectful. Assuming Mr. Weisner does not want to suppress constructive thought, or suppress what he may not want to hear, he owes Sal a serious public.
It would seem that the RTM moderator has tried to play the power card against an RTM member. It would be beneficial for District 9 along with all of Westport RTM districts to consider a new moderator asap.
Sal is the ONLY elected official who has actually responded to my concerns (when I have them) and the ONLY elected official who has put me in direct touch with town employees that actually address my concerns (when I have them).
If the moderator of the RTM wishes to send out admonitions to elected representatives who have failed to respond to citizens, please notify us. I am certain he will receive a veritable tsunami of candidates from citizens of Westport, me included.
Werner is absolutely right. Sal is super responsive to his constituents – and he takes action. I’ll say this as politely as I can: other D9 reps could learn a thing or two from him.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
Clearly, having listened to the recording at issue, there is no “there” there. It is also evident that Sal has every right, indeed the obligation, to offer his opinion when representing his constituents. There was no personal “attack” voiced – it was merely an opinion regarding qualifications. Basic, and benign.
And as Morley has stated, the RTM is elected to protect and represent Westport’s citizenry, and that includes holding Town officials accountable. While derogatory insult is unacceptable, honest perspective is warranted and desired.
But Sal’s comment and comportment is not the critical issue here.
Although I cannot locate the final version of the RTM’s approved 2021 Code of Conduct, having attended each subcommittee meeting I do recall its contents. This document served merely as a “guideline” for RTM members to aspire to. As I recall it had no provision for sanctions. As I recall it did not empower authority. And I certainly do not recall any provision permitting Mr. Wieser to rebuke in the fashion that he chose.
By his own admission, Mr. Wieser implied that his action has set a “precedent” – a very dangerous one that must not stand.
It’s confusing to me that that although being “reluctant”, based solely upon alleged “anonymous complaints” Mr. Wieser felt “forced” to take the action he chose – as if he had no other alternative(s). Really?
So according to Mr. Wieser, “anonymous complaints” have become the basis for formal censure without even affording the targeted person any due process? Given his extraordinary experience, it’s certain that Mr. Wieser understands the importance of due process, and that his next step, if any, should have been direct communication with Sal to inform him, and at a minimum obtain Sal’s perspective of what transpired. Then, if necessary, the perspectives of others who were present during the incident in question should have been elicited. This process is so basic that it’s natural to wonder who, or what, “forced” Mr. Wieser to take the “unprecedented” and unauthorized action he chose. What might be the underlying true motivation, and intended consequence?
So now, at a minimum, Mr. Wieser should publicly apologize for his abuse of position and unauthorized disparagement; and the document he immortalized with the Town Clerk should be formally rescinded – that’s the easy part. Given any integrity, I trust that will be forthcoming.
Next, the RTM Code of Conduct resolution should be revisited to address a “Due Process” procedural clause, IF AND ONLY IF the RTM suddenly desires that asserted breaches of their Code of Conduct guidelines deserves action against alleged perpetrators. In 2021, the concept of having “categories of breaches” with matching “punishments” was briefly discussed, and discarded. If this sentiment has changed since its inception, that must be properly addressed, formally codified, and applied equitably.
However, as it stands, permitting the RTM moderator to unilaterally decide to censure anyone, especially in the absence of affording the basic tenets of due process, and absent the proscribed authorization to do so, is the more important precedent at issue – THAT is dangerous, and must not be permitted to stand.
Mr. Hood,
Grandstanding? Oh, absolutely! Sal wakes up every morning thinking, ‘How can I grandstand today?’ It’s his life’s mission to hog the spotlight and make everything about him. You do realize he remembers every name he learns and goes out of his way to acknowledge Westport residents and is impressively complimentary to just about everyone he encounters throughout his day. Does that sound like someone who grandstands? Having been a Hollywood sports agent for many years, I know grandstanding and your use of the word would be more a reflection of your comments and not his character. I’d think twice before making such flippant remarks and perhaps move away from the mirror before typing. Mr.. Gardner also emphasizes that the world loves talent, but pays off in character. This is likely why the majority of this town agrees with Sal’s views and trust him.
Looks like Sal put his book dissecting the first amendment and the ten cases that define it to good use in speaking truth to power. Good for you Sal! Takes strength, integrity, courage, and leadership standing up to a bully while being targeted.
Some might remember a man named John Gardner, an advisor to Lyndon Johnson and author of an excellent book “Self Renewal”. In the early 90’s He gave a speech to McKinsey and begins it by saying:
“I’m going to talk about “Self-Renewal.” One of your most fundamental tasks is the renewal of the organizations you serve, and that usually includes persuading the top officers to accomplish a certain amount of self-renewal.” Safe to say that Sal is very persuasive as Jeff’s tail is still between his legs. Mr. Hood, next time you feel the urge to comment, first look up big words in the dictionary, because words really matter.
Have a great day everyone! Great to be back Westport.
Cheers,
Richard Montz