Editor’s note: The following opinion essay was submitted by Westport resident Lawrence Weisman for publication by the Westport Journal.
_______________________________
Governing a town like Westport in the 21st Century presents a formidable challenge.
While our population may not have increased significantly, our demographics, needs and expectations have changed and development has proceeded apace. I have a sense that the accelerated rate of change has outstripped the framework upon which we rely to provide governance and administration.
That being the case, we should act now to assure that elected officials have effective, updated tools to accommodate those changes now and in the future.
By way of example: Among the tools fundamental to effective government are the Town Charter, which outlines and defines the basic governmental structure under which we operate, and the zoning regulations which reflect our collective view about development.
Both of these are intended to be dynamic documents updated periodically to keep pace with rapidly changing times.
While both the executive and legislative branches of town government have, in my view, done an admirable job with what they have to work with, I think it is our responsibility periodically to re-examine the adequacy of these documents.
As for the charter, it has been almost 25 years since this was done and recent events surrounding the Long Lots School and the right to petition the RTM have revealed areas where the charter is insufficiently clear or fails to reflect the understanding of the community. It should not be necessary to seek a legal opinion each time a question arises as to what the charter means.
As for the zoning regulations, there is considerable room for improved clarity and concision without affecting policy or intent. The current regulations are an unwieldy compilation of disparate decisions, some which were made in response to individual cases.
I have no doubt that, properly edited, the regulations could be better codified, cross-referenced and considerably reduced in volume and complexity to promote ease of use and consistency of interpretation. There should be no doubt in any case as to what is required of an applicant and the regulations should be capable of being read and understood by a layman without specialized expertise.
I propose, therefore, that the first selectwoman convene a Charter Revision Commission to update that document and perhaps to consider such things as the advisability of a town manager, and that she should appoint a working group supervised by and reporting to the P&Z, to undertake a comprehensive editorial revision of the zoning regulations consistent with existing P&Z policies and decisions.
I think these two steps will go a long way toward facilitating effective governance in the foreseeable future.
Yes! When I was on the Board of Finance, I suggested a charter revision and an update of our zoning laws. Numerous peer communities have done so in recent years. It is time.
Thank you,
I couldn’t agree more.
Also an opportunity to clean up language that can result in unintended consequences.
The two items Mr. Weisman uses to point to problems with the charter were with interpretation, not the charter itself.
The Charter is clear IMHO that the moderator must place an item on the agenda when certain criteria are met. The RTM voted 29-6 that this was not the case. That’s not a charter issue. And while I was one of the 6, I’ll back the majority moving forward because that’s democracy.
As for Long Lotts, here too the charter the was clear and the RTM acted to create the building committee, as it had done prior without issue. That people didn’t like this outcome is not a charter issue, it is once again interpretation.
I for one am very wary of opening up a basis document and letting people, who may have agendas, in to manipulate how our town works.
Those problems weren’t interpretation problems, they were Jeff Weiser and the Town Attorney ignoring the Charter and urging the sheeple on RTM to follow their lead. For the life of me, I don’t understand why someone doesn’t simply sue RTM for violating the Charter (and State Law).
If Weiser and the Town Attorney think the standard for placing something on the RTM agenda is too low, they should support a charter change. (And the people will decide yes or no.) Not invent a means to get to their preferred end.
I think Matt misses the point. Well written documents such as a Charter should not rely upon interpretations to be understood. They should be clear, unequivocal and their meaning and intent apparent to any careful reader.
“Tortured interpretations that ensure a predetermined conclusion” by contracted attorneys will always be in play regardless of best efforts to prevent them.
The current charter is clear to everyone save for those with an agenda to thwart it.
Mr. Mandell acknowledging that the RTM majority voted 29-6 to violate the Charter is not a “Democracy in action” rationale to now support that vote. Instead it is a wake-up call for him and others to have sufficient conviction to right a wrong. THAT is the required “Democracy in action” which has historically resulted in so many “majority wrongdoings” getting corrected in the face of “majority” transgression.
Giving up so readily on supporting fundamental citizen rights, simply because those who hold power are determined to infringe upon them, becomes complicity.
A new Charter is not the solution. Having the conviction and determination to protect civil liberty is.
I have resided in a number of communities with varying forms of governance. The Westport Town Charter seems to be among the archaic. I have long believed our town has outgrown its charter.
No single form of government is perfect as they all rely on people to uphold democratic ideals. But a shift to a more modern model of representation and governance is in order, imho.
The best mind in governance, Ira Millstein, passed away this week. He was a role model for me over the course of two decades when he was of counsel to General Motors. I had the opportunity to work closely with him on governance matters. I often thought Westport could use his counsel… RIP Ira.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/nyregion/ira-millstein-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Jay, come on… I voted for what both you and I know was clearly stated in the charter and that also ends Larry’s argument cold.
But to not accept a majority decision is to toss democracy. What I have been doing since is to create a policy of how to deal with a similar situation in the future. That of a review of the moderator’s decision. That is democracy, checks and balances and prevents autocracy.
That is the most MAGAty logic imaginable. A majority of RTM members voting to ignore the Town Charter isn’t democracy at work, It is the members of RTM saying that the Charter doesn’t matter. If you are defending them, you are saying the Charter doesn’t matter. Your tortured logic is embarrassing.
Good intentions aside, the reality becomes this: When you empower foxes to redesign the henhouse the chickens are never better off.
The FS in conjuction with her hired attorney and RTM sycophants is proof that the preservation of civil liberties and resident empowerment is not on their agenda.
In 1949, not withstanding the newly created divisions of authority, New England Town Charters were still based upon the premise that residents had sufficient standing to shephard the direction of their Towns. Unfettered petitions and community referendums were proactive – and did not require the inefficient reactive ballot box changes in leadership that come “after the fact” and too late.
Respect for resident rights, and the protection of civil liberties against authoritarianism, was freshly invigorated after the terrible sacrifices and lessons of WWII that did not spare Westport.
The societal unrest of the 1960s & 1970s (civil rights, vietnam, women’s rights, etc) proved that residents had sufficient interest to make it clear that THEY were empowered over the “elected” elite.
Those sentiments have eroded over the past two generations by community indolence. Given the current climate of power abuse, any Charter rewrite will more likely than not take full advantage of this proven resident negligence and the unchecked oligarchy we have degraded into.
That is not worth the risk.
Matthew,
I appreciate your impassioned initial stance on this issue. However, accepting the RTM 29’s subversion of resident rights is not appropriate no matter how many colleagues desire it or how you try to parse it.
ANY attempt by the RTM to inscribe a procedure that sanctions the stifling of resident ability to discuss circumstances of consequence to them – by the RTM moderator or otherwise – is unconstitutional and violates the Town Charter. Your desire to modulate that sabotage makes you complicit by accepting the premise that: “Gag rules ARE acceptable as long as it’s simultaneously declared that a group of officials might be kind enough to grant certain residents permission to speak under certain constraints”. Town Officials will decide what’s permissible and what’s not.
THAT is not DEMOCRATIC checks and balances. THAT is an acquiescence to civil rights violations, Town Attorney manipulation, FS agenda, argument, and selection bias.
I understand that you do not see it that way and instead expect Westport’s constituents to be grateful. However we are not so obsequious as to idly watch as our fundamental rights become regulated by those entrusted to represent OUR DESIRES rather than their own.
As you’ve noted, the Town Charter is clear. ALL certified petitions SHALL be placed on the RTM agenda by the moderator. The MATTER being petitioned is not restricted anywhere in or by Westport’s Town Charter, or in our State and Federal Constitutions in any manner. There is no qualification as to which matters are or aren’t appropriate to be heard. NONE.
The current Charter procedure is clear:
I. ANY AND ALL certified petitions get placed onto the RTM agenda by the moderator.
II. The RTM listens to the petitioners for the prescribed amount of time.
III. Then the RTM has three options:
A. Vote to dismiss the petitioned matter.
B. Vote to discuss the petitioned matter (then or at a later time).
C. Vote to refer the petition matter to committee.
The above procedure IS THE EXISTING “Checks and balances” against any fictitious frivolity that so consumes the RTM.
Fighting for the unfettered right for residents to petition their representatives is the ONLY proper course of action. Reversing this injustice, rather than trying to modulate an unconstitutional action, is the conscientious course of action. Civil disobedience is the appropriate “democracy in action” that has proven essential when faced with violations of fundamental rights and immorality. (To be clear, so that I’m not misconstrued, I’m not calling anyone immoral; rather immorality = wrongful behavior such as stealing, braking promises, having a duty to refrain from so doing). RTM representatives are NOT elected to subvert their constituent’s rights – their sworn duty is to PROTECT them.
Granting ANYONE – be it a First Select-person, a Town Attorney, or especially our RTM representatives who are sworn to put the desires of their constituents above their own – authority to instruct their constituents what they will and will not permit them to discuss at the RTM meeting, is a travesty that must be vigorously opposed. Period.
I firmly hope that you will concentrate your efforts towards getting this egregious RTM transgression repealed.
Dr J
Jay, and this is my last on this one, I agree with you and my vote was clear backing resident access, period. The vote was overwhelming in the other direction.
You want to fight it? Go grab a sword and find a windmill. Instead, back my policy change to have a review of such a decision. This could be accomplished and is backed by the moderator.
An apt uncomplimentary description- that our RTM has become a windmill.
Fantastic reality for Westport’s residents to understand.
Dr J
Totally agree, Dr. J. And the term “windmill” works on more than one level (no, I’m not saying that it sounds like a Dutch house of ill repute, so don’t even go there). Thus, the organization formerly known as the Westport Representative Town Meeting, shall now be referred to as The Windmill.
Matt – you contribute to the erosion of the Town Charter when you encourage people to support a process of review when Jeff Weiser or the Town’s shadow government under Ira Bloom decides they want to ignore the Charter.
Matt, lets be honest: every single one of your colleagues knows perfectly well what the charter says about our right to petition. It’s not very difficult to read words on a page. Thus, this was NOT a matter of “interpretation”.
It was something else.
Generally speaking, the problem with today’s RTM is that it has no self respect. So you do us no favors by now offering cover to those who have chosen to walk in darkness. To your credit, you voted on principle. Don’t go wobbly on us now. Stick to your guns.