To the editor:

On Oct. 3, 29 RTM members voted to define which petitioned “matters” will be permitted for RTM agenda inclusion. Scheduled for Dec. 13, this must not be permitted. Instead, their decision to modulate petitions must be rescinded as it violates the Bill of Rights, Connecticut’s constitution, the Westport charter and foundational principal of unfettered government oversight by the governed. 

Because RTM’s powers flow from state provisions it may not take actions inconsistent with the Connecticut constitution or laws enacted by our legislature. The Connecticut constitution (1818) forbids any violation of citizen rights to petition, and the Connecticut legislature doesn’t grant the RTM authority to infringe upon petitioner’s rights in any manner. 

As creatures of the state, towns have only powers provided them through the General Assembly — authorized only to conduct affairs when “expressly granted the right to do so by the General Assembly.” The power to infringe upon citizen petition rights is NOT one of them — our RTM lacks authority to inhibit a citizen’s right to petition in any manner or degree. Upon its creation in 1949, the RTM became Westport’s ONLY forum where citizens are charter-authorized to petition their representatives. Any trespass upon this authorization is unconstitutional and illegal. 

In 1693, Westport was informally known as Bankside before being officially named Green’s Farm in 1732. Incorporated May 28, 1835, “To promote participation in local governance” Westport’s initial chosen governance was the Town Assembly empowering citizens direct deliberation and vote in a town forum. Like all others utilizing “Open” New England Town Meeting governance, for 256 years Westport granted citizen(s) the ability to petition agenda items without restrictions. 

In 1949, Westport switched to a Representative or “Limited” Town Meeting. While intended to make issues more “manageable,” this change did not curtail the ability of Westport’s citizenry from participation via petition as practiced the preceding 256 years. By memorializing the right and procedure to petition the RTM for agenda items (including the 20-plus resident capability) the charter was specific in acknowledging this. 

With intention the charter’s framers:

DID NOT inscribe a provision permitting topic exclusion.

DID NOT delineate a procedure for evaluating petition “appropriateness,” and

DID NOT grant the RTM moderator (or anyone) authority to filter, or review, certified petitions. 

ON THE CONTRARY, what they DID DO was state:

“The Moderator of the Representative Town Meeting shall have all the powers and duties of a Moderator of an OPEN TOWN MEETING;” i.e., the format where for 256 years citizens were free to petition without subjection to an appropriateness test. The RTM moderator was not imbued with new powers to filter petitions; rather he/she bore the “OPEN MEETING” duty to preside over uncensored petitioning liberty. As was during our open meetings, upon transition to the RTM format in 1949, as codified in the Bill of Rights and CT’s Constitution, Westport’s citizenry retained their 256 year liberty to petition in an unfetter manner. 

The RTM has incorrectly asserted that “petition agenda items must be both within its purview and immediately actionable” to be heard and deliberated. This IS NOT a town charter requirement and unsupported by RTM’s history. This restriction IS NOT authorized by state legislation, or Westport’s town charter, which states that, “The Moderator may place ANY ITEM on the agenda for ANY RTM MEETING.” This requirement violates Connecticut’s Declaration of Rights Section 16, as well as the intent of U.S. Bill of Rights Amendment 1.

This “actionability requirement” was famously addressed in 1840 when John Quincy Adams provoked a near riot on the House floor when presenting petitions from slaves seeking their freedom — resulting in supporters of slavery instituting “gag rules” on abolitionist petitions on the basis of them “not being actionable” due to the Constitutional recognition of slavery. 

In his “A Short History of the Right To Petition Government for the Redress of Grievances” (Yale Law Journal, Vol. 96: 142, 1986) constitutional law professor and circuit judge, Stephen A. Higginson (Obama appointee), details the following: 

Adams declared: “Even if want of authority required the ultimate denial of a petition, the preliminary rights of communication and consideration ought not to be infringed … To illustrate, Adams introduced a petition from Haverhill, Massachusetts, requesting the dissolution of the Union. Admitting that Congress could not take such action, Adams denied that the unavailability of the requested remedy should preclude the processes of petition and hearing. Even if want of authority required the ultimate denial of a petition, the preliminary rights of communication and consideration ought not to be infringed.” 

“Adams believed that citizens had the liberty, even the responsibility, to petition on any matter, irrespectively of the legislature’s power of redress. Furthermore, both the offer a petition and its consideration were indispensable to effective petitioning.” The First Amendment petition right was codified without exceptions of what could be petitioned. 

At Adam’s behest, in 1844 the slavery “gag rule” was rescinded as being unconstitutional and the ability for citizens to petition without infringement was ultimately deemed inviolate. 

By petitioning citizens make their voices heard and desires known, seeking to influence decisions of policy makers or bring issues of concern to the attention of their representatives. “While elections give citizens a say over who will represent them in government, petitions ensure that what representatives do aligns with constituents’ interests.” Petitioning is the most direct form of citizen participation in policy making, and deemed so important that petition rights were granted not only to eligible voters, but also to women, slaves and aliens. 

The citizen right to petition is not a right to “instruct.” While the RTM is mandated to hear and consider all certified petitions, it is not mandated to satisfy the petitioner’s wants — and the RTM has a variety of means with which to consider any agendized matter, including direct floor debate for action or dismissal, and referral to (or creation of) an appropriate committee for further examination. 

The intention to modulate petitions is not only unlawful, but dangerous: “One of the risks of representative democracy is that elected officials may favor interests of powerful supporters, or choose to advance personal interests instead of viewing themselves as faithful agents of their constituents. A robust right to petition is designed to minimize such risks.” By being forced to respond to petitions, officials become better informed and must openly defend their positions, enabling voters to pass more informed judgment. 

Infringing upon petition liberty will bring our RTM one step closer towards oligarchy where, instead of being “required to hear and represent all concerns of the governed,” a small group of people hold most or all political power and make determinations based upon their own opinions or interests. The RTM is the linchpin in citizen oversight of town governance; having unfettered petition liberty is pivotal for ensuring that citizen oversight is comprehensive and effective. 

Barring any petition is described to be: “An arbitrary act akin to a judicial decision pronounced in advance of the facts,” and “Minority expression would be silenced if petitioning were confined only to those subjects approved by a majority.” 

“Gag rules” not only “subvert popular self-government,” but “make a mockery of the speech and debate privilege” of the RTM representatives themselves. 

While the RTM is empowered to create rules governing its functioning, when so doing it may not infringe upon citizen rights, violate the U.S. and state constitutions, or invoke an authority not granted by the General Assembly. 

The RTM cannot lawfully subject petitioners to a self-determined “appropriateness test” and any attempt is tantamount to re-instituting the “gag rules” of 1840 that “choke debate.” The RTM Rules Committee should abort this foolishness now as it is an unnecessary and egregious unconstitutional trespass upon foundational citizen rights, destined to further resident disharmony and invite legal contention. 

In his conclusion, Judge Stephen A. Higginson observed that any attempt to modulate petitioner rights: “will appear to rest not on the Framers’ intent, but on the deference to the resolve of antebellum Congresses to defeat a right which threatened the institution of slavery.” Does our RTM wish this to be their identity? 

Akin to the House’s 1844 action, the RTM’s determination to filter resident petitions must be rescinded.

Jay M Walshon, MD FACEP 

Westport