To the editor:
I will leave the ethics and legality of the means used to create the LLSBC sausage to others.
A not so secret “dirty little secret:” Once elected or appointed, far too many town officials find it distressing to accept the fact that (with rare exception) they were granted authority NOT because they are that much smarter or more competent than other members of the electorate. The fact is they are in that position for myriad OTHER more mundane reasons — opportunity, availability, desire, interest, cronyism, influence, finances, etc., AND primarily due to the limited alternatives offered the electorate.
These realities SHOULD NOT serve as basis for the residents to be ignored or dismissed in the fashion that has become epidemic in Westport.
With this acknowledgment, in some circumstances the pontification, lecturing and paternalistic attitude is understood for what it actually is: HUBRIS. This was on full display at the Oct. 3 RTM meeting, and we are now witnessing another of those circumstances.
As I predicted in my prior posting, because of the way Westport’s approval process is fashioned, once on the move the LLSBC proposal train will ride tracks engineered to run downhill.
Despite the few inevitable “bumps in the road,” each approval SILO where it briefly pauses will ultimately nudge it along while proclaiming “We must stay in our narrow-minded lane.” Each will invoke its “limited authority,” thereby providing the train’s conductor ever-increasing fuel. This is precisely what the BoE did last week, and the others will follow. Momentum will increase because successive silos become increasingly reticent to become “responsible for delaying the project.”
We’ve been here before.
As BoE member Robert Harrington observed, the display of “moral cowardice” by his colleagues (other than Ms. Hordon) at Thursday evening’s BoE meeting is appalling.
A project of this magnitude and importance should have unanimoussupport by the BoE before moving forward. The fact that TWO of the BoE members demanded that the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve be protected should have been meaningful. The contention over the destruction of the community gardens and the creation of a Babe Ruth ball field should be meaningful. Instead, the voices of Mr. Harrington, Ms. Hordon, impacted neighbors and passionate residents were merely relegated to being deftly traversed “bumps in the road.”
Quite foreseeable, as the first selectwoman declared “the public will have opportunities to provide input” — not opportunities to “participate in” or “influence” the decision-making. An intentional and revealing distinction.
The BoF will have opportunity to derail this locomotive IF it stays true to its purpose as previously espoused by then Chair Brian Stern, who articulated their responsibility thusly:
1. To determine IF the appropriation request is something that Westport can afford.
2. To determine IF the cost is “reasonable” and provides commensurate value.
3. To determine IF the expenditure is something that the residents of Westport want.
Given its fiscal expertise the BoF is relatively well suited to determine criteria 1 and 2. Criteria 3? Not so much.
As has been articulated in multiple forums, a sizable proportion of Westport’s electorate is not currently convinced that the LLSBC Option C is the project design that they want to pay for. Multiple prudent and viable alternatives have been offered by residents with knowledge and expertise, and resounding objections have been articulated by residents. In short, as it stands the BoF cannot possibly adhere to its third, and arguably most important criteria. Likewise the RTM which is (theoretically at least) “sworn” to represent its constituents.
The BoF and RTM are OBLIGATED to address criteria No. 3 PRIOR to rendering their appropriation decision.
Determining the desire of the electorate is a responsibility too often overlooked. When it comes to funding the extraordinary Long Lots project, THIS is the least of what Westport’s residents deserve. It is incumbent upon the members of the BoF and the RTM to figure out a way to obtain sufficient and accurate resident sentiment, and ensure that the electorate gets the decision that THEY desire. In this instance, the personal desires and prejudices of individual members MUST NOT be permitted to be determinative.
This decision is far too important to be determined by hubris.
Jay M. Walshon, MD FACEP
Westport
Wow, Dr. J. You said it all.
An electorate that wants to be heard, that so passionately believes in its cause… will be blamed to trying to derail a school that they so passionately want.
We’ve been played, not by smarter people, but by those whose moral compass is out of whack.
Very well said.
There is an avenue that I haven’t seen explored to save the the gardens and still build/update the school. Although tough to do since 10% of the electorate needs to sign the petitions, it is possible to petition for a referendum to explicitly take the gardens off the table. To be clear, there is a false narrative espoused. This is not a choice between a new or updated school versus the garden. The update/building of the school sounds like it is needed. This, however, does not need to be done at the expense of the gardens. We can and should have both!
BGS
Absolutely right
Thank you Dr. Walshon. What a deadly combination hubris and moral cowardice has wrought on Westport. The First Selectwoman and all her appointees on the LLSBC knew better than to exclude stakeholders in this process. But their wants took priority over fairness, inclusion, town consensus, respect for tax-payer dollars and significant damage done to stakeholders.
In fact, the Chairman of the LLSBC has certainly read “How can you design accessible educational facilities in Sustainable Design?” as it was on his Linked In feed. I guess he didn’t feel like dealing with the portion titled: “Engage With Stakeholders and Users: Designing accessible and sustainable educational facilities is Not a one-way process. It requires collaboration and communication with your clients, users, and communities. You need to engage with them throughout the design process, from initial concept to the final evaluation. …By engaging with your stakeholders and users, you can ensure that your design meets their needs, expectations, and values and that it fosters a sense of ownership, belonging and pride.”
Not many Westporters are experiencing any of those feelings. Wouldn’t you think that a $95-$100MM price tag would call for, at a minimum, a diversity of opinions from stakeholders and residents at the table?
We got the exact opposite. The decision was made by a small group of like-minded cronies in power, in a secret silo who couldn’t care less about the harm inflicted on stakeholders as they, in cahoots with Parks and Rec., stealthily planned their land grab. They were so hoping to slip their recommendation to the BOE without stakeholders learning about their plan.
But we did learn of the plan ten months into its formal inception (prob in works before that) and Parks and Rec. Director Jen Fava stated in an e-mail, ‘I guess they got the news”. This administration has been treating its tax-paying residents as mere peasants throughout major decisions (LLES, Parker Harding, Pickleball Courts…) and each time it’s been a complete mess.
Since we ‘got the news’, the LLSBC has not been able to justify the destruction of our only 20-year old, national-award winning Garden/Preserves (not on school property) nor the significant property value loss to its neighbors. As Peter Perry has mentioned, the simple baseball field in question, also not on school property, nor used by elementary students, was used for six games last year and on every occasion, more than one other ball field in town was available. The LLSBC continues to ignore many alternative suggestions to place a ball field, of which there are already twenty in town.
Since then, we have also learned the proposed redundant Babe Ruth Baseball Field, which will abut Long Lots neighbors, comes with a wish list of a dugout, bleachers, electronic score sign, turf field, concession stand and lights. Imagine living next to that coupled with increased flooding in a flood-prone zone, thanks to the elimination of the Garden/Preserves acting as a sponge.
Let’s hope when the recommendation goes to the Board of Finance, they break-up the funding between the new LLES and the Babe Ruth Baseball Field ($423K not including big wishlist items – with zero funding from the State – which can easily double the cost). Is there a budgeted amount for destroying and rebuilding the Gardens/Preserves, which has cost taxpayers nothing?
In the past, the Board of Finance has slotted funding into one of four categories: (1). Sounds good (2). Sounds reasonable but needs more understanding (3) Needs a lot more understanding (4) Maybe we should re-think.
For four months, town residents have been crying out for a re-think and have offered up several solutions which would make all parties happy. We all want a new school for the students and it shouldn’t be held up while the insertion of a Parks and Rec land grab onto a new school design is re-evaluated carefully with all stakeholders seated at the table.
If the LLSBC truly cared about the students, why wouldn’t they take their Babe Ruth Baseball Field off the table to avoid future protests and referendums which none of us want. If they truly cared about students, why wouldn’t they keep the Garden/Preserves and integrate it educationally with the students? Also, what does it say about these same people, who – at the last minute – told the Gardeners they can start over on a toxic landfill at Baron’s South? There is even more than hubris and moral cowardice acting out here!
Yes, the hubris and exclusion are shocking. Thank you for your important comments!