To the editor:

I’ve been thinking about what might be done to ensure that the Westport Community Gardens are not destroyed in the process of planning for a new Long Lots School and playing fields. 

But I have come to understand that what is at stake is more than preservation of the gardens. In addition, and perhaps more important, is the issue of how we conduct ourselves in the course of making these kinds of decisions; whether public input is solicited and given weight; whether deliberations are made in public, with adequate public notice, and in the end, whether the results are fair and are accepted as having resulted from a democratic process where all interested parties have been heard and their points of view taken into account.

To better understand just what’s going on here, I would like answers to the following questions :

• To what extent, if any, does the Long Lots Building Committee — an appointed body — answer to the elected members of the Board of Education, and, who resolves matters if they  disagree about the project design?

• What is the scope of the committee’s authority, and from whence does it derive?

• Why has the committee failed to engage with the community gardens and its advocates in an effort to find a mutually acceptable resolution of the conflict?

We should insist upon answers to those questions and should require the administration to make public whatever documentation exists. (Thus far, my request to the Board of Selectwomen, copied to the Town Attorney, has been ignored).

Here are some of my thoughts as to how to proceed if the conflict between the committee and the gardens cannot be resolved by negotiation:

1. If, despite a good faith attempt to resolve the matter through discussions taking place in public, the committee endorses a plan which requires that the gardens be removed or relocated, we could urge the Board of Finance to reject the necessary appropriation.

2. If, despite our efforts, the BOF approves the appropriation, we could launch an effort to compel a referendum on the appropriation.

3. We should continue to insist that the matter be placed on the RTM agenda.

4. If all else fails, we could seek a court order to enjoin implementation of the plan, although to permit things to go that far would surely be a disservice to Long Lots students. But attending school in a building that needs improvement is hardly a tragic consequence, and it just may be the price that has to be paid to assure that matters such as this are dealt with fairly, openly and with opportunities for meaningful public participation.

The electorate is beginning to understand that this has been and continues to be poorly handled, and in a way that suggests a lack of concern for transparency and public involvement. Something should be done to compel the powers-that-be to recognize that this is undemocratic and unacceptable.

Larry Weisman

Westport