By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday voted to turn down a petition that sought clarity on the public’s right to petition the body.
The petition was filed by John McCarthy after an earlier petition filed by more than the 20 required registered voters from town was sidetracked by Moderator Jeff Wieser, District 4, rather than put on the September agenda as requested.
The agenda item before the RTM on Tuesday sought to clarify whether 20 registered voters in the town of Westport do indeed have the right to petition the town’s legislative body to have a matter placed on its 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.”
The petition was the subject of a three-hour debate Monday night when the RTM’s Rules Committee voted to not recommend the full RTM pass the measure, in a vote of 6-4, with one abstention.
Tuesday, the vote was six in favor, 29 against. The debate lasted more than two hours.
“The first section gives the moderator a very simple and clear mandate,” McCarthy said. “Place requested matters on the agenda.”
“This is a simple and clear responsibility with no leeway for opinion or subjective analysis as to whether an item is appropriate or falls within the RTM purview.”
“By attempting to interpret the agenda section of the charter … the petitioners are trying to expand what that section says,” Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Flug said. “The [Town] Charter provides the authority of the RTM and if the people who wrote the charter wanted to include anything that any petitioner wanted to put on the RTM agenda they could have easily put that in …”
Gloria Gouveia, a signer of the petition, said, “The dispositive issue here is whether the moderator of the RTM has the authority to determine if a matter may be considered by the RTM .. I’m here to tell you the answer is no.”
She said the town’s powers are granted by the Connecticut General Statutes. Whenever there’s a question about a body or official’s powers, “We are first told to look to the Connecticut General Statutes to see if there is language that enables that behavior.”
“There is nothing in the statutes, nor as you have been told, is there anything in the Town Charter, which must conform to the statutes, which enables the moderator to become an intercessor for matters petitioned to the RTM,” Gouveia said.
“As someone who’s brought petitions here before, I’m really concerned about this discussion tonight,” said Morley Boyd. “I’m having a hard time understanding how it could be that two-thirds of you may enjoy a right that 20 of us may not.”
“I think to myself, why would I run around and get signatures if there’s the very real possibility that a single person might have their thumb on the scale,” he said. “And I really hope that you’ll come down on the side of freedom and democracy.”
A few RTM members spoke in favor of preserving the public’s right to directly petition the RTM.
“I don’t think we want to change something that’s really part of Westport’s history,” said Liz Milwe, District 1.
“Some of the alternatives to me sound a little weak,” she said. “I do think our petitioners have a point, that they would like to be heard … I think we need to think about it more before we change all the rules on this.”
Several RTM members said they agreed with Wieser’s position that not any subject should have to be taken up by the RTM. There was discussion both nights about possible ways to ensure the public feels it’s being heard. They might be discussed in the future by the Rules Committee.
“I feel like we’re being bullied,” member Seth Braunstein, District 6, said of the petition. “We’re being told you must do this because this is what someone 74 years ago said.”
“I say let’s stand up, let’s be thoughtful, and let’s come up with a solution that provides a better outcome for the future,” he said.
Milwe; Harris Falk, District 2; Ross Burkhardt, District 3; Matthew Mandell, District 1; Ellen Lautenberg, District 7, and Sal Liccione, District 9, voted in favor. Twenty-nine others voted against.
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.
Wake up Westport. Last night’s RTM vote is really quite scary. The RTM just took away your voice and your rights as citizen to petition the RTM to be formally added to a published agenda.
The RTM is way out of line on this. If the RTM is so concerned about people petitioning to be heard, then maybe it’s time to rethink whether Westport has outgrown the RTM structure. That’s a topic for another day. But right now the public needs to know that 29 RTM members voted to take away your fundamental and long established right to be heard. That’s chilling.
I agree with Jennifer Johnson. This is a stunningly authoritarian misreading of English and is a clear and present danger to Westport’s democratic roots. Furthermore, the idea that because a law (which is what the Town Charter is) somehow loses effect because it was adopted “74 years” ago is ludicrous. Adopting that logic would nullify the Constitution of the United States, the first 21 Amendments thereto and countless laws. Acceding this kind of authority to the RTM Moderator is clearly not what the State intended when it authorized adoption of the Town Charter. I think the next step will be to take this issue to William Tong, the State Attorney General, and perhaps to Court.
The RTM can not ignore the Town Charter and does not have the power to change it.
The ONLY way to amend the Town Charter is through a process defined by State law.
I said it in a comment yesterday, an interested party should petition a matter to RTM and, if the Moderator and Town Attorney don’t think it is worthy of discussion, the party should sue Westport. It will answer the question once and for all.
Maybe it’s time for a Charter Revision Commission.
Last night’s RTM vote, influenced in part by a tortured, made-to-order legal opinion, (which could just as persuasively reached the opposite conclusion in the hands of another lawyer), is just one more example of a disturbing trend away from respect for the public forum and in favor of governance by executive and administrative fiat.
Another example is the adamant refusal of both the Long Lots School Building Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission to allow adequate time for public comment and to deny the gardeners a seat at the planning table.,
And now we face the possibility that a radical right candidate for the Board of Education, nominated by a major political party, who would like to tell us what our children should be allowed to read, may be seated even if he loses the popular vote, due to a proportional representation provision in the Charter.
This is a worrisome trend which should be resisted by all who believe in government by the people.
RTM members, if you are not interested in what your electors care about, step down now please . Why are you here?
I watched the full RTM discuss this last night. There was full agreement that “shall” means “shall,” ie they are compelled to act. However, The town attorneys then said “matters” was more ambiguous. The moderator could use discretion/judgement on which “matters” could be brought before the RTM. This is prior censorship; how can “matters” be better adjudicated? Please work on this aspect!.
It is scary that 29 RTM members did not want 20 electors to be able to compel an RTM agenda item. Such excuses as “hate speech,” “pro choice” “frivolous issues” were raised. (Imagine if GOP BOE candidates wanted to stand up and make accusations of grooming ..oh my).
What is truly stunning to me is that almost all agreed that the RTM meetings are by and large sleepy get togethers with no citizen interest. Two exceptions noted are Parker Harding and Long Lots. And one RTM member said those issues were expressed through social and news media. Yay us! Doing our civic duty no thanks to town government. We shouldn’t have to resort to media to be heard.
Well I’m here to say an interested citizenry is 1000 percent better than an apathetic one.
Some ideas were briefly touched upon to put more structure into citizen petitioning. Go on…
One idea is to allow public discussion on non-agenda items. Allowing “open mike” to the public on non agenda items is NOT the same. That is a one-way conversation since members of the public body cannot comment on non-noticed items. For a full two-way public discourse, an agenda item is a must.
This IS scary. And it is NOT Democracy in action. Seth Braunstein says he “won’t be threatened” by election talk. Poke a sleeping bear? Come on District 6, you are one of the few contested districts!
What is scary is how many uncontested races we have in our town.
The electorate does have rights. Why are they so darn hard to exercise in this town?
VOTE! It is your right and your duty.
Let’s begin by looking at the definition of “shall” in the Merriam Webster dictionary:
” …used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.”
MANDATORY.
I do not like what is happening in the governance of Westport lately. There is rampant development – far more than this town can handle – with no real Master Plan and with no plan at all for improving and strengthening our infrastructure, our roads, our traffic.
The compromise at Parker Harding wasn’t at all adequate, as all we gained was the adding back of just a few of the dozens of eliminated parking spaces. Oh, yes, and the cut-through road — the initial elimination of which, frankly, felt like a red herring: something they never actually intended to eliminate, but by suggesting it were able to refocus people’s attention away from the parking disaster.
There’s a massive development coming to Saugatuck which is a small, lovely, quaint area of town completely unable to handle “The Hamlet” that is planned for it.
And now we, the people, have been told we are no longer guaranteed a voice with the RTM — our legislative body. We’re allowed to talk about THEIR agenda items, but we can only place our own agenda items if it pleases them, even though our Charter states they MUST do so if petitioned by 20 residents. Shall = Mandatory.
WE NEED A CHANGE IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
VOTE OUT THE CURRENT FIRST AND SECOND SELECTWOMEN.
VOTE OUT THE MAJORITY OF THE RTM MEMBERS.
VOTING IS THE ONLY REAL WAY OUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD.
Stop the intention to turn Westport from a small town into a destination city.
Stop the back door deals, and the silencing of the people.
Remind our leaders that they are there to represent our interests, not to dictate to us their own.
Last night’s RTM meeting was, at times, like an intervention gone sideways; the acting out, the nothingisms, the kooky rationalizations, the shop worn straw man arguments. One member didn’t even realize he was being asked to uphold an existing rule. It was, by turns, appalling and embarrassing. To the six RTMs who voted to uphold the rights of their constituents, thank you! To the rest, all I can say is, at least we now know what you really think.
“I feel like we’re being bullied,” member Seth Braunstein, District 6, said of the petition. “We’re being told you must do this because this is what someone 74 years ago said.”
“I say let’s stand up, let’s be thoughtful, and let’s come up with a solution that provides a better outcome for the future,” he said.
Bullied by whom ? 20 petitioners who have a clear, or had, until you shot it down with your colleagues, a clear right to bring forth a petition ? Seriously ? Just the sheer unadulterated ignorance of this comment !
Do something because 74 years ago it was written in the charter ? Yes bro ! Yes !
Should we all say the same about the laws in our country… that because they were created century’s ago they should now be ignored ? NOPE.
Let’s tell the petitioners to take their petition and shove it ! That’s what let’s stand up, stood for.
The utter cheek and audacity.
“Let’s come up with a solution that provides a better outcome”
No ! How about do what the charter clearly tells you, you must do! Albeit written 74 years ago.
How about listen to the residents.
How about do your bloody job.
How about get off your fake pity pot and just do what you were elected to do.
And if you find that too onerous, how about don’t run for the rtm.
In fact everyone who voted last night against the rtm charter, should take a long hard look in the mirror.
You crapped on democracy last night.
You chose authoritarianism and dictatorship over democracy.
Shame on you
We have rights… or at least we used to.
A strange thing happened last night. History was made at the RTM meeting by 29 RTM members – the RTM 29.
First, they, along with the Assistant Town Attorney, openly and proudly acknowledged a dirty little secret that before this was rarely, if ever, talked about much less admitted to. The secret? In recent years and under a succession of administrations and RTM moderators, an official blind eye has been turned while moderators have routinely exceeded their legislative authority by placing a thumb on the scale of 20 electors petitions and on even 2 RTMers seeking to make a motion. The documented proof was amply, gleefully even, offered up by the Assistant Town Attorney with even more cases given in her public testimony.
It was astounding to behold!
It all came tumbling out like the bursting of a dam.
We petitioners had merely asked that the RTM perform a, seemingly, very simple act. To affirm an existing sentence from the actual language of the RTM Rules, the Town Charter and the State enabling legislation that created Westport’s form of government that we all live under. A sentence, a single sentence, that each and every one of them had already sworn an oath – many with their children proudly standing by their side – to faithfully uphold and support.
Instead we got over five hours of debate over two consecutive nights as to why they would not affirm the sentence. And in their protestations the truth came out. The dirty little secret, that they had all knowingly colluded with and accepted was that a thumb was regularly being placed on the scale. You see, some peoples matters are routinely accepted for debate and attention to while other peoples matters are not.
And then, as if that admission was not jarring enough, 29 of them “doubled down” and insisted that they refuse to stop this undemocratic practice. And so, when the time came for the vote, they refuse to vote to affirm the existing rule which, again they had already sworn to uphold and support.
The RTM 29 made history last night. Yes, they certainly did that. A tragedy that will not age well, but history nonetheless.
John F. Suggs
We are a town meeting form of government. Meaning that any citizen can show up and speak their peace. The fact that we have chosen representatives. does not negate our opportunity speak our mind. It is truly unfortunate that so many of our elected representatives have lost their way in such an astounding fashion.
For years, elected officials have over-relied on the town’s attorneys. Not sure if it’s a CYA thing, or fear, or just not wanting to be seen to have an opinion, but it’s been most frustrating.