By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — Monday night’s meeting of the Rules Committee of the Representative Town Meeting was at times, well, unruly.
The body took up the question of whether it should still follow a decades-long tradition of hearing any petition brought by 20 of the town’s electorate. In a split decision, the committee voted otherwise.
During the lengthy meeting, people were talking over each other. Murmuring. Raised voices. A chairman without a gavel banging fingers on a table for order.
Such is the nature of democracy, a couple participants pointed out. Democracy can be messy, unpleasant.
Perhaps the discourse of Monday’s meeting was appropriate because at the crux of it all of it all: Whose voice can be heard, and when.
The agenda item before the committee addressed whether 20 registered voters in the town of Westport do indeed have the right to petition the Representative Town Meeting to place a matter for discussion on the legislative body’s agenda:
“RESOLVED, that the full Westport RTM at its October 3, 2023 meeting affirms that the meaning of the term “Shall” in “Sec. A 162-6. – 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. A 162-6. -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.”
Old-timers have long thought that to be the case. But recent petitions have been sidetracked to committees, dissuaded by the moderator, delayed, sent to lawyers for opinions.
The issue arose to public attention after a petition by John McCarthy was sent to RTM Moderator Jeffrey Wieser, with more than enough registered voters (confirmed by the town clerk) requesting a discussion on the reconfiguration plan for downtown parking.
That petition did not make the requested agenda and the debate morphed from a parking lot to the question of who decides who has a voice to petition town government.
To the petitioners, the right to petition the RTM was codified in the late 1950s when the RTM form of government was approved by the Connecticut General Assembly. Bedrock New England democracy, the people run the town.
To others in power lately, it’s apparently more complicated. Views vary.
The rules 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.”
More recently, Wieser bounced a downtown parking plan discussion petition to town lawyers. It didn’t make the requested agenda.
“The RTM rules do not give the moderator veto powers over agenda items,” McCarthy said Monday.
He said the original authors of the rules could have given the moderator that power, but they did not.
“They knew that they were giving the moderator a simple clerical job,” he said. “The moderator shall place on the agenda, very simple, in clear and unambiguous language.”
Some committee members worried about “opening this up” to discussions from whatever groups, be they Nazis, book-banners, etc., though the petitioning process has been in place more than six decades.
McCarthy said a well-respected attorney described the town lawyer’s opinion as: “A tortured analysis crafted to support a predetermined conclusion, ultimately telling one person, the RTM moderator, that they alone have the right to determine what matters will be placed on the RTM agenda.”
Beyond the petitoners and RTM members, there was not a large public presence at the meeting in the Town Hall auditorium.
Jon Polayes voiced concern about citizens’ difficulty being heard on topics townwide.
He said the Parks and Recreation Commission would not hear the public’s concerns about the Long Lots Elementary School rebuilding until after the school building committee finishes its work.
“It’s not that people care one way or another, it feels as if they’ve lost their voice,” Polayes said.
Some committee members had definite opinions, one way or the other. Others were wishy-washy in between.
Matthew Mandell, District 1, said that if 20 people get together and want to talk about something, why not let them?
“Why can’t we give, whoever, if they want, they’ve got 20 people together and they want to get five minutes?” he said. “If the Nazis want to talk, they get to talk for five minutes.”
Andrew Colabella, District 4, said that public service means hearing things you don’t want to hear.
“That’s what you have to take with government,” he said. “When you sit in this chair, you have to listen to things that you don’t want to hear.”
“Suck it up and hear from some people we don’t really want to hear from,” he said. “That’s what democracy is.”
Wieser said he believes the RTM is practicing democracy very well. “We practice it very openly,” he said.
“The role of the RTM is not to listen to whether or not the Yankees or the Red Sox are the better baseball team,” Wieser said, playing off an opposing view expressed by John Suggs earlier.
He said he feels empowered to protect the body against frivolous petitions.
When the committee appeared to readying for a vote to delay any action, Suggs, a former RTM member and petitioner who spent some time researching the legislative history in the town archives, demanded they take a vote to show voters where they stand before the Nov. 7 election.
In a Lord of the Rings moment, he thumped his walking stick to punctuate his point.
“You’re so rude,” said member Louis Mall, District 2.
Rules Committee members Wieser, Mall, Karen Kramer, District 5; Lauren Karpf, District 7; Seth Braunstein, District 6, and Kristin Schneeman, District 9, voted to recommend the full RTM not pass the agenda item.
Mandell, Jimmy Izzo, District 3; Colabello and Ellen Launtenberg, District 7, voted in favor.
Wendy Batteau, District 8, abstained.
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.
Just to make it clear. I said, If Nazis want to talk, they get five minutes, but I get 20. In other words they would hear more about what’s wrong with them. That’s democracy.
“If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” ― Noam Chomsky, linguist and social critic.
I thank the members of the Rules Committee for what was an important and valuable conversation. Taking the personalities out of the picture, we need to keep the focus on the larger principles and goals that are being discussed.
I look forward to a good discussion on this tonight with the full RTM.
The RTM does not have the power to change the Town Charter.
If RTM wants to increase the number citizens required to petition a matter to an agenda, State law has specific requirements for amending a Town Charter.
The moderator is showing a Trumpian level of disregard for the law. An interested party should sue over the matter to have it appropriately decided.
Just fyi, this is the section of the charter that allows RTM rules to be amended:
ARTICLE VIII. – AMENDMENTS
The rules governing the conduct and organization of this body may be amended at any meeting by a majority of the total number of Representative Town Meeting members; provided, however, that no amendment shall be acted upon which shall not have laid over for at least one meeting or which shall not have been specified in the call as part of the business to be transacted at such meeting.
Wendy, the Town Charter contains the exact same language re RTM Agenda, etc as does Chapter 5 of the Town Charter. That was really a key point which was missed last night. You can’t change the RTM Rules if they would then be in violation of Chapter 5 of the Town Charter.
Thanks, John. I’m not arguing here, but am genuinely perplexed. (Also confused by what you mean in the first sentence of your response).fhe above language is Article VIII Section
A162-22. Of the Charter.
Charter Article V Section A 162-16 is: C. The responsibilities and duties of the Rules Committee are to report to the Representative Town Meeting upon the appropriateness of proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure and upon such other matters as the Moderator of the Representative Town Meeting may refer to it.
I’d greatly appreciate clarification on how to resolve what seems a conflict in the charter. Not sure how to get that, though.
In any case, I was responding to Chris Grimm’s comment that there is no way to change the RTM rules in the charter, Looking ahead to trying to create better methods of appealing an agenda decision and creating other forums for public discussion, this information would be important.
RTM rules are just that. The rules by which the RTM operates to carry out its Charter mandate. The Charter can not be changed or superseded by the rules by which the RTM governs its proceedings. As Chris mentioned, that can only be done with Charter Revision.
In my opinion, the writers of the Charter (& revisers) clarified their intent by suggesting in a very quiet, kind sort of way that if neither the moderator nor the deputy was willing to agenda a properly executed petition; the Town Clerk was to do so.
Thank you to all who have openly discussed this issue; especially to those who voted to uphold the Charter by hearing the petition. I believe there is more work to be done. The petition was worded as an ordinance change only because the original petition was denied hearing. I believe that a proper chain of events on the first petition would have been to have the petitioners take the original item to the Town Clerk to be added to the agenda as allowed.
Sunlight is always the best disinfectant. The exercise has been less than bright and shiny. Westport has operated for decades with electors being able to weigh in via petition to the RTM. It would have been nice to continue that. When a right is perceived to be circumvented others who also “feel” that right are more likely to exercise it just to be certain that the right is preserved.
Effectively quashing the right to be heard does not fit well in a “Representative TM” form of government.
This account of the demise of democracy in Westport is painful to read… The right to speak openly, to have one’s opinions aired and grievances addressed by the community has been embedded in democratic society since Homeric Greece….as Mr. Suggs’ thumping of his cane reminds us of the sanctity of the speaker’s staff giving the floor and a right to be heard to each of us equally.
Changing the rules because all of a sudden you don’t like them appears to be an endorsed practice by RTM Moderator Weiser. He has failed completely to respect the language and the intent to give (in this case) twenty petitioners the right to bring a matter before the RTM for discussion.
This is dangerous and in no way reflects a truly open government process.
Mr. Weiser ‘s actions are unacceptable and harmful to all of us.