By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — A petition to establish a committee to review the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s plans to redesign parking at Parker Harding Plaza and Jesup Green was soundly rejected Thursday by the Rules Committee of the Representative Town Meeting.
Nonetheless, the petition remains on the agenda for discussion by the full legislative body next week.
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser told the Rules Committee that he believes the full RTM should consider the petition, signed by at least 20 Westport voters. Bringing the petition to the Rules Committee first for discussion is part of the standard review process that provides checks and balances for RTM consideration of major issues, Wieser said.
“I feel that it was an appropriate petition to take to the RTM,” he said. “I believe it is something the RTM should respond to.”
The petition was started by Westport resident Larry Weisman, who told Thursday’s meeting that the town needs to assemble all the pieces of a downtown parking plan before funding it.
“The whole discussion about the Parker Harding Plaza and Jesup Green and the downtown parking has been mishandled,” Weisman said. He wants another committee appointed “to take a comprehensive look at all the pieces that are involved and make a decision.”
Most members of the Rules Committee didn’t agree, however.
“I get uncomfortable when we’re appointing committees that are overseeing other committees,” said Seth Braunstein, a District 6 member. “That unduly disrupts the electoral process.”
Others, including Louis Mall, District 2, and Jimmy Izzo, District 3, said downtown parking is already set to be discussed when the RTM takes up another agenda item: the administration’s request to use $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funding to redesign parking at Jesup Green and Imperial Avenue.
RTM members also made two site visits to Jesup Green to review the plan earlier this week, Mall said. “I don’t see why we need to appoint a committee when it’s coming to the RTM,” and will also be open to public comment then, he said.
The only Rules Committee member to vote in favor of establishing a group to review DPIC’s plan was Jennifer Johnson, District 9.
Various elements of plans to revamp downtown parking have been presented to separately and should be pulled together, she said. “The bottom line with this particular project is we get pieces — we don’t approve things in a holistic way. … Our constituents are confused. … There are so many questions about this, and so many concerns.”
Matthew Mandell, a DPIC member and RTM District 1 member, said DPIC has been working on downtown parking issues for nine years.
An 8-24 application and coastal site plan have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission to redesign Parker Harding Plaza, with the loss of about 40 parking spaces, and to replace the lost spaces by building new parking on upper Jesup Green. The plan previously was backed by the Flood and Erosion Control Board and Conservation Commission.
Appointing a new committee to review DPIC is not necessary and could result in future petitions to appoint committees to review other town bodies, he said.
Lauren Karpf, District 7, agreed. “I think it’s a really slippery slope to have petitions act as an appeal process on every decision we make,” she said.
Several Rules Committee members also said that a major point in Weisman’s petition — to research the idea of building a parking deck at the Baldwin parking lot as an alternative to more Jesup parking — now will be included in the study funded by the ARPA appropriation.
That assurance was given by Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich during RTM members’ visit to Jesup Green on Wednesday.
The petition proposing the full RTM approve a new committee to review DPIC plans was voted down 6-1, with three abstentions: Mandell because of his DPIC membership; Wieser because he is the RTM moderator, and Peter Gold, District 5, saying he did not have enough information about the proposed committee to feel comfortable voting on the petition.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York and Southern Connecticut State universities.
Heave ho !!!!!
It has now become glaringly obvious that many of the active RTM members have on this Parker Harding, Jesup Green stopped any sort of objections to their approvals of of the scope, methods and funding and a large number of their represented constituents from expressing their lack of support for these parking modifications.
Instead they seem to be rubber stamping approvals of the project concept and design. It seems from their lack of objectivity comes from a display of ” they have been appointed and therefore know better than the we!
Ray,
I my opinion this RTM Rules Committee Meeting illustrated that it is even worse than what you say.
The RTM is supposed to be promoting the interests and desires of the residents who elected them. They do not when they knowingly neglect to elicit that resident direction. Relying upon constituents to contact them is not sufficient. RTM deputy moderator Karph stating that the public is not very interesting in this issue because, allegedly, SHE”S hardly received any opposing calls or email is telling. As you correctly observe, this comes from a display of hubris that permeates once elected.
But it is worse than that. The RTM was created to be the fundamental check on the other Town bodies – including the First Select-person. The Town Charter intentionally provides the RTM with BROAD investigatory authority AND through its multiple committees is charged with the oversight of virtually all the other Town functions, from Education to Environment to Finance to Health. Yet time and time again, this RTM intentionally fails to serve in that critical capacity.
In this meeting it was stated: “I get uncomfortable when we’re appointing committees that are overseeing other committees,” said Seth Braunstein, a District 6 member. “That unduly disrupts the electoral process.”
First of all, the DPIC (like the LLSBC) is an APPOINTED body:
“The Westport Downtown Plan Implementation Committee (“Downtown PIC”) shall serve as the APPOINTED committee responsible for initiating and carrying out the implementation of the Downtown Master Plan (“DMP” or “Plan”).” “The Downtown PIC shall work closely with town departments, boards, commissions, civic groups, merchant associations, developers, property owners, state/federal officials, and citizens on tasks associated with planning and implementing the DMP.”
Westport’s residents never had a say in the formulation of the DPIC, so reviewing the work of the DPIC does not impact the electoral process. In addition, this DPIC is not implementing the Downtown Master Plan as written. Furthermore, from the DPIC charge, the RTM is RESPONSIBLE for reviewing their work.
More fundamentally, RTM Moderator should not have brought Attorney Weisman’s petition to this Rules Committee. According to the Town Charter, this petition should have been placed on to the RTM agenda WITHOUT first being polluted by this negative influence. There is no Charter authorization to have done so. It was an unprecedented move intended to 1) Provide the RTM Moderator an appearance of propriety by having the Rules Committee sink this petition instead of him issuing the agenda denial as he has to other recent petitions, and 2) affording him the veneer of fairness of “abstaining” during this already certain vote outcome.
In addition, the lament that: “A new committee … could result in future petitions to appoint committees to review other town bodies” is a frank admission that this RTM has zero interest in performing its fundamental duty to oversee Town governances when serious resident concerns are identified.
Even worse: The Deputy RTM Moderator Lauren Karpf, District 7, stated “I think it’s a really slippery slope to have petitions act as an APPEAL PROCESS on every decision we make”. This hyperbole is an insult to every Westport resident. First of all, it is INFREQUENT that a 20+ resident petition is brought to the RTM for agenda inclusion. Secondly, each 20+ resident petition has been on a legitimate and important issue. Thirdly, she admitted that the RTM has not yet made a decision on this issue – so her assertion was non-sensical.
But more critically, Ms. Karph does not fundamentally understand that the word “APPEAL” primarily means: “TO MAKE A SERIOUS OR URGENT REQUEST”. The Charter authorization for 20+ residents to petition the RTM IS THE MEANS FOR RESIDENTS TO MAKE A SERIOUS OR URGENT REQUEST. It does not mean to “overturn every RTM decision” – a referendum process is for that – and often petitions occur PRIOR TO RTM decisions occurring, as it was with Attorney Weisman’s petition (as well as the denied petition for the RTM to review the LLSBC recommendation to replace the CGs with a Babe Ruth Baseball Field.) Ms. Karph believes in denying petitioner rights for fear of being influenced, or G-d forbid, overruled by the residents whom she is sworn to serve.
One last atrocity at this meeting. The new RTMer Ari Benmosche shared a shocking sentiment when he asserted that (and I am paraphrasing) because our First Selectwoman was elected by the residents, she gets to set the agenda for the Town and we are obligated to go along with that direction. I give Mr. Benmosche significant leeway since he explained that he is a brand new RTM representative and still “learning the ropes” from the other RTM members. HOWEVER, it is a bit unsettling that he doesn’t understand that the role of the RTM is to promote THE CONSTITUENT’S DESIRES and to serve as THE resident check on the First Selectwoman’s decisions when they are misaligned with what the residents desire. In addition, a mere 69 votes – a victory likely determined by the third party candidate – is hardly a mandate or comfort to determine Westport’s direction. (And the P&Z 8-24 approval 5-4 vote on this issue could have easily been a denial – also hardly a mandate).
This RTM Rules Committee Meeting was exactly what it was – a veiled attempt to sink another legitimate and important request by the residents to consider other options before making a determination. Hopefully this week the full RTM will not fall for this attempt to once again suffocate the public’s desire.
As long as the “rules” committee of the rtm is made up of the names or the majority of names on it, there is no chance that anything going before this group will EVER reflect the opinion of those who elected them.
It is a disturbing group with the exception of Jennifer Johnson, and one or two others.
It was so easy to predict the outcome of the vote, actually all the way down to who would abstain knowing their personal opinion would be carried by their croneys.
OUTRAGEOUS SKULLDUGGERY !
They have forgotten their role in this administration.
They do not even know a page of the charter, and continue to take the complete piss out of the residents of Westport.
They are now a standing joke, except the joke is on us because they refuse to listen to public opinion, the same public that elected them.
Lauren karph’s assertions have always been and continue to be in direct opposition to her electors, and I suppose that is exactly why she is the deputy moderator.
It’s incredulous.
As for the scandalous words and interpretation of Ari Benmosche, of his role as an rtm’er, I pray he redeems himself and fast learns from someone other than who has been guiding him to get with the program and do the job he was elected to do.
Read the charter for gods sake ! Not the charter according to the crones rtm or the town attorney, but the charter as it was written. It’s actually very simple.
It is all there. In bold black and white.
And no your job Ari is not to vote against public opinion.
Even if that means going against the administrations agenda.
A frightening interpretation of your job !!!!
And on that subject you had the nerve to lambast a fellow and far far far far more experienced rtm’er this week “, the nerve of you.
That rtm’er chose to share with other members of the electorate an email he was sent, as is his absolute right.
Do you realize everything you discuss is subject to FOIA ! Everything including emails.
As it should be.
Maybe you should go to that same rtm’er and take his lead on your job description, since you have been clearly misled by anyone you have spoken to thus far.
Everything you and any committee discusses is governed by FOIA, and not this towns interpretation of FOIA, but the real FOIA interpretation.
One that is going to come back to bite this town in their ASS !
I suggest you reach out to the few rtm who understand and uphold the charter not the majority who do not.
Let’s watch with keen interest who on the rtm is listening to the public on the destruction of our town green !
It is going to be very interesting indeed !
Ciara, We’ll agree to disagree on this one. Lauren is one of the most amazing people I know and she always does what’s best for the people in her district.
Eric, I am sure then that Lauren, “shall” vote along with her electorates opinion.
Absent of “letters” ( the new excuse) she has plenty recent public opinion such as media articles- 50 of them, concluding that 95% of residents are against the desecration of jesup.
On top of that simply walk up to 100 people in town or in stop and shop and ask them what they think.
I did it this weekend.
I got 1/100 who sided with the plan.
I was expecting 5/100.. but nope.
Looks like the monstrous majority of this town is against using jesup green for parking.
Myself included.