By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT–A complaint against Westport’s RTM Finance Committee for approval of the $103 million appropriation for Long Lots Elementary School will be the subject of a Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission hearing in Hartford on Wednesday. The purpose of the hearing is to investigate if the RTM’s vote on the appropriation, “the largest appropriation in the town’s history,” was made without giving enough information to the public, according to the complaint made by RTM member Jennifer Johnson.
Johnson, an RTM member from District 9, has said that she was concerned about the large appropriation raising taxes for Westport residents.
The committee’s discussion on the appropriation “was held in executive session in violation of FOIA rules,” Johnson said in her complaint. “My requests for an open session were ignored by the RTM finance chair and ultimately denied by the moderator. As a result of this action, the public’s right to understand and ask questions as necessary ahead of this highly consequential vote was completely undermined.”
The RTM Finance Committee discussed the appropriation on June 10 and the full RTM approved it on June 12.
“I urge the FOIA Commission to investigate and consider imposing civil penalties … against the individuals responsible,” for the violations of the Open Public Meeting law of the FOI Commission, Johnson said in the complaint.
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser did not expect Johnson to ask for punitive action to be taken against other RTM members, he said on Saturday. “I was surprised that an RTM member would call for civil penalties against fellow RTM members.”
When the vote for the $103 million appropriation came before the entire 36 member RTM, the vote was 35 in favor of the appropriation and none against, he said. Johnson did not vote against it, but left the meeting before the vote, according to Wieser.
The $103 million appropriation is comprised of many, many estimates compiled by the town’s consulting engineers for all kinds of work and all kinds of equipment needed for the construction of a new school, “down to toilet paper holders,” he said. “This was an overall view, including the general estimates of where those bids would come in,” he said. The appropriation was based on about 40 pages of estimates, he said, as well as drawing on the town’s experience from the Coleytown Middle School project.
Holding the RTM Finance Committee meeting in public session would have given bidding companies an unfair advantage that would have worked against the town’s efforts to keep costs down, he said. Town attorneys Ira Bloom and Eileen Lavigne were also consulted on the issue and agreed that they did not believe an executive session on the Long Lots School project violated FOI laws, according to Weiser. “They requested that the town not open all those bids to the world and give them guidance on how to bid,” Wieser said.
Johnson also said in her complaint that the information discussed in the executive session was not just about bids, but also about the whole “scope of the budget,” for the school project.
“The public has a right to understand the estimated annual increases in their tax bill before the RTM votes,” she said in a letter to Weiser and Gary Conrad, finance director for the town before the executive session on the project was held. “Any citizen has a right to this information, and to listen and participate in a public discussion.”
Weiser, in a letter to all RTM members before the executive session, said, “although it is not possible to provide access to the general public in this matter, all Westport residents will be represented at the executive session by their elected representatives.”
Another Westport resident, Toni Simonetti, who is not an RTM member, has also submitted complaints to the FOI Commission on the Long Lots School appropriation. She has two complaints against the Board of Finance, one against holding a meeting in executive session, and the other about not releasing cost information to the public in time for them to study it. The public and RTM members should have had access to the complete appropriation request long before votes were taken, she said.
“The RTM and the public need time to review, digest and question the funding request,” she said in a letter to the FOI Commission. “I believe an executive session on this matter is totally inappropriate.”
Separate hearings on Simonetti’s two complaints will both be held on Dec. 12.
Gretchen Webster
Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, has reported for the daily Greenwich Time and Norwalk Hour, the weekly Westport News, Fairfield Citizen and Weston Forum. She was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman for ten years. She has won numerous journalism awards over the years, and taught journalism at New York University and Southern Connecticut State University.
In prior posts, Ms. Johnson said that the executive sessions are “under review” by the CT Freedom of Information Commission. In reality, this is just a hearing where Ms. Johnson needs to present facts on why she thinks there is a violation of the act.
The FOIA specifically allows the boards to go into executive sessions to review details of a construction when doing so publicly would adversely impact the price of the construction.
See below of full reference, but most importantly this allowed purpose under executive sessions:
D) discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by the state or a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would adversely impact the price of such site
https://portal.ct.gov/foi/regulations/the-foi-act/section-1200-formerly-sec-118a–definitions
(6) “Executive sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes: (A) Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting; (B) strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled; (C) matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security; (D) discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by the state or a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would adversely impact the price of such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been terminated or abandoned; and (E) discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-210.
The town’s explanation for its lack of transparency is as bad as its lack of transparency.
The RTM moderator instructed its members not to worry about secrecy, writing, “although it is not possible to provide access to the general public in this matter, all Westport residents will be represented at the executive session by their elected representatives.”
Well, perhaps up to one-third of the elected RTM did not attend the backroom session but voted on the appropriation anyway. Further, that is no alibi for keeping the public in the dark. And more, there is far more to the $120m appropriation than “pricing estimates” for toilet paper implements.
The moderator admonished Ms. Johnson for demanding consequences for the RTM’s actions. “I was surprised that an RTM member would call for civil penalties against fellow RTM members,” he is reported to have said.
This is not a country club or a fraternity! See something, say something. It calls to mind another current event: when a commander orders illegal activities to his military troops. There should —and will— be consequences, including for the troops.
Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your rights. And for justice.
Toni, it’s hard to take your outrage at face value when the hyperbole is dialed all the way up to “military crimes.” Comparing an RTM executive session about a budget appropriation to troops being ordered to commit illegal acts is ludicrous — and it wildly conflates the severity of one with your personal grievance over another.
Because let’s be honest: everyone can see what’s really going on here. This isn’t some high-stakes moral stand; it’s the latest round of retribution over the Community Gardens issue, fueled by the belief that certain members were somehow personally wronged by not being intimately involved in every step of the process.
You’re absolutely free to be upset. But attacking from the sidelines with overwrought metaphors doesn’t make your argument stronger — just louder. And the insinuation that there was insidious behavior by fellow Westport residents who volunteer their time to serve in local government is insulting — made even worse by Johnson’s suggestion that civil penalties be slapped on her own colleagues.
The WCG topic has been front and center in Westport for over a year — it was raised at every single First Selectman debate about the town’s “biggest issues,” sometimes even before flooding. I mean, come on. At this point, dressing up a long-running personal grievance in dramatic comparisons doesn’t make it righteous — it just makes it obvious.
Oops. Sorry Mrs. Rose. I should be more clear so that you can better understand the subtleties: I am differentiating between right and wrong, using current events. I am not comparing the extravagant tax increase to a military crimes. I do believe the citizens have been deliberately misled and shielded from important facts about this school funding. That’s the bottom line, and that is Ms. Johnson’s bottom line. Is that clear enough?
Oh, it’s been crystal clear — from the very beginning, in fact. This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to draw parallels between the LLSBC process and the horrors of the Trump presidency. I called you out on it then, too. It’s irresponsible, and frankly enraging to those of us who take the news seriously. Dramatic framing doesn’t make your claims — or MS. Johnson’s — any more accurate, and the sad irony is that you end up behaving like the very people you condemn.
What a tremendous use of Ms Johnson’s time. Surely what her constituency voted for. I fear we’ve entered “Scooby Doo villain” territory now.