By John Schwing
WESTPORT — Officials have called off a meeting planned Thursday night by the Long Lots Building Committee, which was publicly announced less than nine hours earlier.
Less than one-half hour after the Westport Journal published an article Thursday morning questioning why the meeting was scheduled with so little advance notice, announcement of its cancellation was circulated at 12:18 p.m. Thursday via the town’s email system.
Notice of the meeting was officially filed with the Town Clerk’s Office at 1:13 p.m. Wednesday, according to Town Clerk Jeffrey Dunkerton, who also provided the document with a time stamp verifying the filing.
The meeting, however, was not publicly announced until 8:52 a.m. Thursday when it was posted on the town website’s calendar and sent through the municipal system.
Although the Wednesday afternoon filing in the clerk’s office could justifiably be called last-minute, Dunkerton said it technically conformed with the advance notice for public meetings required by the state Freedom of Information Act.
The now-cancelled Thursday meeting was to have begun with a 5:45 p.m. executive session, followed by a 6 o’clock public session at Town Hall.
The Long Lots Building Committee has been in the spotlight over the last several months as it weighs options on whether to rebuild or replace the aging Lot Lots Elementary School — a decision hotly anticipated by the education community, neighbors of the Hyde Lane campus, the town’s fiscal watchdogs and, most particularly, members of the Westport Community Gardens and their allies. Various scenarios under consideration for the project call for claiming all, or part, of the 20-year-old gardens.
The public notification of the planned meeting, just before 9 a.m. Thursday, falls well short of what a typical citizen may understand is the 24-hour advance notice required for town meetings to be legally conducted under FOI regulations.
And, at that point, it may well have escaped the attention of many interested in the Long Lots issues, who might otherwise have planned to attend the meeting.
There was no immediate response as to why, if the notice was filed with the Town Clerk’s Office at 1:13 p.m. Wednesday, it was not posted on the town’s meeting calendar or circulated via email until just before 9 a.m. Thursday — only eight and three-quarter hours before the meeting was scheduled to convene.
While the Wednesday filing may have complied with the letter of the FOI law, does posting general public notice of a meeting with such widespread interest on the morning of the day when it is supposed to take place adhere to the spirit of the law or the issue of government transparency?
Neither Jay Keenan, chairman of the building committee, nor Eileen Flug, the assistant town attorney — both of whom were copied on an email exchange with Dunkerton — had any response to that broader open-government issue or the reason why Thursday’s meeting was subsequently cancelled after the Westport Journal highlighted the questions.
However, Lou Weinberg, chairman of the Westport Community Gardens, contacted by phone early Wenesday afternoon before the meeting was cancelled, said, “It is unfortunate we are getting public notice of the meeting at a very late date,” but added he understands at least one Long Lots neighbor was contacted several days ago about the meeting before it was publicly announced.
This article will be updated with additional comments, if received, after publication.
This highlights the need for the town to change how it does business and why openwestport.org exists:
The agenda for today’s LL School Building Committee has this item: “It is anticipated that the LLSBC will vote to enter into Executive Session at 5:45 PM to discuss contracts.”
“Executive Session” is also known as “Closed to the Public” or “Behind Closed Doors.”
Some legitimate questions arise: What is in those contracts? What are they for? What will the taxpayers be paying? Who benefits? Was one contract approved over another? Why? What was the decsion criteria? Does a member of the committee have a possible conflict of interest for or against one of the contracts? Why doe these need to be reviewed in private? Etc.
Doing the Town’s Business behind Closed Doors invites distrust of town government and doesn’t serve the public’s interest.
It’d be great to see the 1st Selectwoman’s hand-picked committee review these contracts today in public session. Or do it in a properly noticed meeting.
The reason for “closed door” is we have committees to try to speed up the flow of meetings, they do the legwork,and the board makes a decision based upon that, Otherwise these meetings would drag on forever,,,and nothing would get done, The public can always question the rulings at a later date, but the public seems to want want a voice in every matter… Why elect these people to represent us if we cannot stand behind them. Remember we are a republic.
All I want to see is exactly what the committee is seeing, when they are seeing it. I don’t want a say in the committee’s decision. I just want to see all the ingredients that are being brought into the sausage making process. Pretty simple.
Shawn, in this case the LLBC is representing the BOE’s agenda which involves property that has never been part of the school district’s purview.
It would be nice to understand:
1. What public official determined that this property was the BOE’s if they wanted it.
2. What public meetings were held when that possibility was debated?
3. The public should also see detailed agendas and minutes.
The Committee is simply trying to avoid accountability while attempting a land-grab. It’s disgraceful.
Just for clarity…
The LLBC is NOT a Board of Ed. Committee. It is a committee appointed by the Town Selectwomen.
At the beginning of the project, the BOE submitted (to the town) the educational requirements that would be needed at the LLS building and that was where their participation ended. One member of the BOE was appointed to the committee by the town, but only as a NON-VOTING member.
How we ended up here I have no idea, but in this particular instance it cannot be blamed on the BOE.
For whatever it’s worth, I think the gardens should stay.
This town LOVES, starting committees and appointing their chosen little people to sit on them. Wasting everyone’s time with crap we all want to literally choke on.
Thank you for the reply, Sue – and thank you for your support of the Gardens.
Yes, the First Selectwoman appointed the LLBC and failed to represent Sustainable Westport or the Gardens/Parks & Rec on that Committee, but the LLBC is following the directive of the BOE – something that Jay Keenan has made abundantly clear.
Given that the property on which the Gardens (and Preserve) are placed were acquired, after vigorous debate, for municipal purposes (Long Lots was getting less than three acres for additional parking) and given that for nearly twenty years the Gardens (under the auspices of Parks & Rec) have been the chosen municipal use (a decision that was also made after vigorous public debate), I’m having a hard time fathoming why the LLBC is including the Garden and Preserve land in their scope at all. It contradicts the decisions that were made by our Town’s governing bodies twenty years ago.
Was there a public meeting that I missed when a decision was made to take this land away from Parks & Rec (and the Community Garden) if the BOE wanted it? I’m sure the BOE will say “this will be fully debated down the road,” but that is putting the cart before the horse. There is almost no public support for destroying the Gardens, so why are we being pushed down this path to begin with, by the LLBC. And how on earth does a baseball field (replacing the Gardens in one of the three plans) help fulfill educational requirements?
Yes, it is misfeasance by the First Selectwoman, but the BOE seems to be collectively willing to let this move along because it serves their interests, as they don’t seem to hold any regard for anyone else’s interests. In a Town where, “it’s for the children” seems to stifle any public debate, nobody seems to support where this is being pushed.
There are explicit circumstance for which a public body may hold Exec Sessions but those circumstances need to be disclosed. “Contracts” is not a disclosure. Which specific contracts warrant an exec session should be disclosed.
No they do not do the legwork ! They lie and bluster about how transparent they are but are given one purpose and demanded outcome.
I know not much about the gardens but I’m a monster supporter.
But I do know the DPIC has lied and lied and lied and continues to lie about downtown.. to the point of it being actually incredible..
it is deeply aggravating and fascinating to watch the depth of sh.. to which they will stoop hoping none of us have noticed…
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic. But we will get it all exposed.
Unbelievable
The committee has tried to get by with barely law-abiding disclosures that meet the letter of the law but NOT the spirit of the law nor the Selectwoman’s declaration that there is absolute transparency. This time they even missed on the letter of the law.
This is amateurish gamesmanship. The community has voiced a deep concern about the direction of this important project; thoughtful and well-meaning representatives would open the process beyond the letter of the law if they were truly interested in representing the community.
The Town has a 24-hour notice for live meetings that do not have an annual calendar posted. There is a 48-hour required notice for virtual “Zoom” meetings, according to the Town’s legal counsel. The reason for Exec Sessions must be spelled out.
And again, beyond the lack of transparency is the tone-deaf implied goals of the committee: Why in the world would an elementary school need a high-school-caliber ball field, which IS NOT among the Board of Education’s specifications?
“Executive session” behind closed doors is a euphemism for “Hidden from the public” which is the antithesis of “Transparency ” and too often the means to control outcomes while avoiding accountability. ALL information and options under review should be made known to every resident in real time.
In addition, that we elect representatives does not equate with a desire to abrogate the desire to see how those representatives actually operate, deliberate, and decide – in other words how they represent the residents who they are accountable to.
If 8 and three quarters hours public notice is appropriate, what is considered not appropriate notice.?
Is three quarters of an hour appropriate notice ? Or fifteen minutes even ?
It would be nice to know what the official notice time for meetings being held is.
Because 8 and three quarters hours notice on the day of a meeting equals in reality no notice at all. I mean why even bother ?
In this town, today, there remains zero transparency. Zero, nil, none, come on folks, with what’s happening in Parker Harding fiasco/joke/charade, are you really surprised ?
I am new to the garden this week and plan to write a longer comment later, but I have an ask if you are reading this.
If you believe the garden should be taken off the table for the new long lots project and not be considered as available leave a comment that says…..
TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE
TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE