To Mr. Lee Caney and the members of the Board of Finance:
It has come to the attention of Westport’s residents that Mr. Caney, Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Stern have, or have had, close ties and affiliation with Westport baseball and/or Westport soccer community that extend beyond the common or casual.
Mrs. Gordon has promoted herself as being a “Westport PAL Cheerleader Board Member,” as well as being the “Westport Soccer Association Team Manager.”
Mr. Stern continues to promote himself as having been “a soccer coach.”
Mr. Caney continues to promote himself as being both a soccer coach and being a baseball coach.
In addition, because Mr. Caney’s son currently plays Westport baseball, he has also publicly acknowledged that he is deeply tied to the baseball community.
Furthermore, Mr. Caney has been heard publicly commenting (at a recent Board of Eduction meeting and perhaps elsewhere) about the importance that a large athletic field be constructed at the expense of the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve.
The LLSBC current recommendation includes the following known facts:
- It includes the construction of a new baseball field (Babe Ruth) at the expense of the existing community gardens and preserve.
- It includes the construction of a new soccer field at the expense of the existing community gardens and Preserve.
- That the Westport Soccer Association has played a significant role in the decision-making and support to replace the community gardens with the new baseball/soccer fields.
It is incontrovertible that Westport’s baseball and soccer community, which (by his own admission) includes Mr. Caney and his son, will directly benefit from a decision that replaces the community gardens with the above athletic fields.
Furthermore: Mr. Caney’s capacity as both a baseball coach and soccer coach is evidence of Mr. Caney having a personal interest in this decision.
Mr. Caney’s publicly acknowledged prejudice that the above mentioned athletic fields should be constructed, as recommended by the LLSBC, at the expense of the community gardens is consistent with, and supports, his personal interests in ensuring this recommendation become approved.
Being a “Westport PAL Cheerleader Board Member” and the “Westport Soccer Association Team Manager” elucidates Mrs. Gordon’s own personal interest in ensuring that the community gardens are replaced by the above mentioned athletic fields.
Mr. Stern’s promoted history of being one of Westport’s soccer coaches provides, at minimum, the perception of a personal interest in seeing that the community gardens are replaced by the above mentioned athletic fields.
Mr. Caney (as chairman of the Board of Finance) and Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Stern (as members of the Board of Finance) are in an important decision-making position. This authority is entrusted to them by Westport’s residents with the expectation that they act without being impacted or encumbered by any current or pre-existing influence(s).
In this instance, given their personal interests and affiliation with baseball and/or soccer, it requires the recusal of town officials who are in a position of influence and decision-making.
To ensure fair and objective impartiality, both the Westport Town Charter and the Westport’s Policies and Procedures clearly mandate that all town officials participate without having any personal or family member interests.
Town Charter § C38-2. — Conflict of Interest: No Town employee or any member, whether elected or appointed, of any Board, Commission, Agency, Committee, Department or of the Representative Town Meeting of the Town shall participate in any official capacity in the hearing or decision upon any matter in which such person has, directly or indirectly, a personal or financial interest. In the event of such disqualification, such fact shall be entered on the records of the commission or board.
Town of Westport Policies and Procedures Handbook: 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
No Town employee or any member, whether elected or appointed, of any Board, Commission, Agency, Committee, Department or of the Representative Town Meeting of the Town shall participate in any official capacity in the hearing or decision upon any matter in which such person, spouse or other immediate family member has, directly or indirectly, a personal or financial interest. In the event of such disqualification, such fact shall be entered on the records of the commission or board.
Therefore: Given the facts, in accordance with both the Town Charter § C38-2 and the Town of Westport Policies and Procedures Handbook 1.7, on behalf of Westport residents, I respectfully request that Mr. Caney, Mrs. Gordon, and Mr. Stern recuse themselves of any discussion, and from any subsequent voting, that concerns a LLSBC (or any other) recommendation that includes the construction of athletic fields resulting in the destruction of the current community gardens and preserve.
Such recusals would not be a hardship as the Board of Finance Vice Chair, Mr. James Foster, could readily preside over any Board of Finance discussion and public comment.
The residents of Westport require all assurance that the contentious LLSBC recommendation currently before the town boards and commissions is removed from any taint of personal interest bias and influence. In addition, under these circumstances failure to recuse could unnecessarily jeopardize the Town’s approval process, potentially resulting in avoidable ground for contention and delays.
I’m certain that all members of our boards and commissions would agree with this.
Respectfully,
Jay M Walshon MD FACEP
Westport
Ask the young families with kids who go to Long Lots what they want. This school and the fields It is my understanding that they are in favor of the latest iteration plan for their children. Seriously, ask them.
They will speak at the polls…
I myself have eaten grown food, from the ground. Also , i have the utmost respect for farmers and people like that. However, … people working the soil arnt the cleanest, i mean in so far as looking presentable, to the kids… you know what i mean. If they had a new school, i went there, i was enrolled at LL, but for the kids to be on the playground with hundreds of potentially dirty, westpoters and others milling about with shovels, pitchforks, it sends a message to the children.rolling around in the mud or what have you, the kids could see it from the classroom windows.
Now history, thats a different story. The kids should learn all about how the farmers who settled westport called it long lots because the family owned farms stretched all the way to redding and farther, and further, right from the school. About 15 miles to almost danbury. It gets swamy up there so the farms made it to the swamps that the british dragoons had such a hard time with.
But you see, reading about farms and actually farming are 2 different things. Its best to keep the little kids away from the public soil lots. They could have a day where the kids visit the farms, but not everyday. Again, i have nothing against people who work the soil with their bare hands. It would be like me demanding that get to do my hobby on town land right next to the elemantary school, no matter how noble my personal cause is… westport is about the kids… the farmers should get over it. It is preposterous to say that being a soccer mom is a conflict, i mean what if i demanded to my old mans work out yoga club on town land right next to the school, we were all in our work clothes, stretchy pants, every morning, right where the kids get off the bus.. id say we are a good example for the kids and i demand to work out on town property…. well thats what the farmers sound like…. take a hike man… westport is for kids… go farm somewhere else… and i love farms and stuff, but we dont need the gardens and we need a school. So back off and let the school board do its job
The Gardeners are not against a new school for the students at LLES. As stated many times, contrary to the narrative from the LLSBC, we choose to grow together. Plan Alt-C enables this choice.
We are against a Babe Ruth Baseball Field catering to an elite, small group of HS boys supplanting our ONE and only 20-year old, national award winning Community Garden/Preserves which skews to an older population (some in condos) without representation on any of these boards/committees. Despite requests, those in power have denied putting this issue on their agenda at Town Hall meetings. So we have been purposefully shut out from the beginning of this process to have any influence on the outcome.
Again, the baseball field in question is not on school property, is not used by students at Long Lots, and was used for 6 games while simultaneously there were other baseball fields available for play in Westport. We have only one Garden. Can you put yourselves in our shoes for a minute and understand the Garden/Preserves cannot be ‘relocated’? It took twenty years of investing time, labor, and money to create this ecological treasure.
To all the Stepping Stone/LLES parents out there – don’t you think your children would benefit more educationally and mentally from incorporating time in the Garden/Preserves next door compared to a Babe Ruth Baseball field catering to an elite group of HS boys? Nature is educational and healing and is what young students need more than ever in this high speed, loud, busy modern world we inhabit.
Children at Long Lots won’t use a Babe Ruth-sized Little League field. That is for older children. The school can be built without destroying the Gardens.
Why does anyone think that the Community Gardens space should be destroyed for a turf field. We have 20+ athletic fields in Town and one Community Garden. This is an absurd suggestion.
The irony is that nobody lifted a finger to improve that very distressed plot of land until every town body had public meetings and ultimately voted to establish the Gardens. The gardeners did the heavy lifting to make the property sustainable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpbWuYcdqD8
I must be missing something, because I still haven’t seen that WSA did anything here about specifically taking over the gardens. Where is the evidence for this allegation? Why would WSA want a turf field anyway, isn’t it better for little kids to play on grass?
Mike – there have been hundreds of pages of correspondence gathered through FOIA. 900 pages of it were dumped upon the requestees two days before the last BOE meeting. It is part of why information has gotten out piecemeal to the general public. The LLSBC has *still* ignored the FOIA requests.
A turf field is good for Parks & Rec from a P&L perspective, if a private organization is willing to foot the bill for the field. It allows them to increase the capacity of field usage. But, yes, communities have been getting away from turf for health reasons.
Chris, my understanding is that WSA only offered to help pay for maintenance and upkeep of current grass fields and that Parks and Rec never took them up on the offer. Is there actual evidence that they offered to pay for the turf field over the Community Gardens?