By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting on Wednesday made it clear that it would not allow any part of Jesup Green to be paved over to replace parking lost elsewhere.
In a debate rekindled from the embers of six-and-a-half hour meeting overnight Tuesday into Wednesday, RTM members rejected some proposed amendments to the resolution — including one floated by the first selectwoman — and passed one that made it clear a $630,000 appropriation using federal American Rescue Plan Act funds to redesign Jesup Green and the Imperial Avenue lot could not be used to design parking on the green.
In the earlier meeting, a lot of things happened, including passage of an amended resolution adding language saying parking at the police station would be considered and the possibility of a parking deck on either side of the Post Road should be explored.
But a couple things didn’t happen.
One of them — no language was added guaranteeing Jesup wouldn’t be paved over.
That caused confusion and differing opinions over whether the green was indeed protected. Some felt they’d had a solid commitment from First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker. Others thought whatever assurances were made were vague at best.
The other thing that didn’t happen was a final vote, something of a procedural hiccup.
The RTM uses Robert’s Rules of Order to guide its proceedings. Moderator Jeff Wieser apologetically told members Wednesday night that he should have called one final vote that early morning, to pass the amended resolution as the main resolution.
To the chagrin of some Wednesday night, that crack in the door kick-started the debate that had gone so late just hours before.
Longtime member Wendy Batteau, District 8, having attended the long meeting the night before, reviewed the town’s recording of it.
‘We weren’t given any of those assurances on the record … for that reason, I think it is a good idea to put in some language.’
wendy batteau
“I voted yes last night because I was given assurances that Jesup Green would not be developed and that the only use that would be explored of Jesup Green was to increase green space,” she said.
“Today I went back and I listened to the whole meeting … and we weren’t given any of those assurances on the record,” Batteau said. “… for that reason, I think it is a good idea to put in some language.”
Member Melissa Levy, District 2, made a motion to amend the resolution as it last stood, adding a parking study and language protecting the green.
It read:
“To take such action as the meeting may determine upon the recommendation of the Board of Finance and a request by the director of public works to approve an appropriation of $630,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act fund for design of the redevelopment of Taylor Parking Lot, the Imperial lot, police station land, the exploration of structured parking using an updated parking study. In addition we are unanimously eliminating the option for design or creation of parking on Jesup Green.”
Seth Braunstein, District 6, took the podium and called it “Déjà vu all over again.”
But there were differences from the night before, he said.
“We don’t have proper notice … there’s no one from the public here, because no one knew we were going to have this discussion tonight,” he said. “There’s no one from the town here, because they didn’t know we were going to have this discussion tonight apparently either until the last minute.”
He suggested the RTM honor the spirit of what members thought was adopted the night before.
“Any effort to amend what was agreed to last night, and again, barring the procedural error, is in bad faith,” Braunstein said.
Before a vote was taken on Levy’s amendment, Tooker called in and suggested her own amendment.
“The wording I’m suggesting is, ‘As part of the design phase, we will prioritize pursuing an alternative to the P&Z Coastal Plan approval, specifically the Jesup Green portion of the approval,’” Tooker said.
Prioritizing pursuing something struck some as suspiciously squishy.
“I’m not a land-use body, and the RTM is not a land-use body,” Tooker said, repeating what appeared the talking point du jour.
“I thought I was on record for that last night, I will be on record for it again tonight,” Tooker said. “I heard you loud and clear last night.”
Planning and Zoning Commission Vice Chairman Neil Cohn then said that changing what was approved by the P&Z would mean the matter would have to go back to that body.
“The problem with that amendment is saying you’re going to change the site plan of the P&Z,” he said. “That can’t be changed without going back in front of the P&Z.”
‘It still evades the nut — which is take Jesup off the table.’
toni simonetti
Toni Simonetti, a member of the public, questioned whether it was appropriate for the first selectwoman to propose amendments.
“Am I the only one who’s a little flabbergasted that the first selectwoman just dictated a motion for this body?” she asked.
“We are on such new ground here,” Wieser told her. “Nothing like this has ever happened.”
“She has heard us,” he said of Tooker, “and she is trying to be accommodating. I would just say she is being responsive to the RTM, which I think is what for months people have been asking for the RTM to demand.”
‘I would just say she is being responsive to the RTM, which I think is what for months people have been asking for the RTM to demand.’
jeff wieser, regarding the first selectwoman
“In that spirit, I believe you,” Simonetti said. “And I believe that she is really trying to accommodate getting this thing passed. But it still evades the nut — which is take Jesup off the table.”
“I’m also flabbergasted that the first selectwoman came to make an amendment because last time I checked, she was not a member of the RTM,” said former member Harris Falk, before an exchange with Wieser and Deputy Moderator Lauren Karpf, who he appears to have thought was laughing at him.
“It’s repugnant, it’s repulsive that this happens,” Falk said of Tooker’s involvement. “The town deserves better than this.”
“We shouldn’t be governing based upon blogs,” Lou Mall, District 2, observed. “And what people say and react to the bloggers.”
Tooker’s suggested amendment went down to defeat in a 6-29 vote.
Levy’s amendment also was voted down, 10-25.
That left the previous meeting’s amended resolution the last on the dance floor.
‘We shouldn’t be governing based upon blogs. And what people say and react to the bloggers.’
lou mall
Batteau suggested adding the wording, “provided however that no portion of the funds shall be used to design or construct parking on any portion of Jesup Green.”
A simple hands-off-Jesup clause that was lacking in the early-morning version.
Wieser whittled out the word “construct” because construction is not yet requested.
Batteau’s revamped motion read:
“Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the Board of Finance and the request by the director of public works that the sum of $630,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act fund for the design of Jesup Green, the Imperial lot, the police station land and the exploration of a green parking structure north and south of the Post Road is hereby appropriated, however, that no portion of the funds shall be used to design parking on any portion of Jesup Green.”
It appeared to pass 17-13, with 5 abstentions.
Wieser said another vote was needed, despite some murmurs from the attendees, to then pass that amended motion as the main motion.
Few are intimately familiar with Robert’s Rules, so proceedings following them can be like watching a shell game in the subway.
“This is the mistake we made last night,” Wieser said, adding that if the vote failed, then they’d have to vote on the original main motion.
So, Batteau’s amended motion, built upon that proposed by the night before by Kristin Mott Purcell, District 1, faced one last vote. It passed 23-10.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
Ok, so the Westport Journal’s reporting yesterday on the previous RTM meeting was indeed accurate. Good to know.
Correction – I did not abstain. I was not in attendance, a rare occurrence. I did happen call in at the last minute to listen, which was basically impossible by phone (you have to watch and listen remotely by stream and then vote by voice over the phone). The record, and I confirmed, shows no vote on my part.
Updated, thank you.
EXCELLENT!
Glad they took Jesus Green off the table. Wish they had taken the Community Garden off the table, when they had the chance.
RTM needs someone who knows Roberts Rules. Where’s Alice Shelton when we need her?!
Chris Grimm,
It is their world we just happen to live in it.
Congratulations to the RTM for using the unexpected opportunity to codify the mandate to Save Jesup. Previously acknowledged but evaded, the final action seals the deal. Thank you, especially to Wendy Batteau, Ari Benmosche, Melissa Levy and Ellen Lautenberg for finding the silver lining.
I am curious. Who did the First Selectwoman’s bidding for her by proposing (and seconding) her amendment? It’s completely inappropriate, so I’m curious why it was even up for a vote. She obviously wanted a toothless amendment so she could ignore it if she chose.
And why is the Moderator such a toady for the First Selectwoman? Constantly. This should be a proverbial separation of powers. Instead, it’s “how can we keep the general public out of the way so the administration can do what it wants without interference.” It completely misses the point of why we have a REPRESENTATIVE Town Meeting.
My response to Lou Mall’s comments – ‘We shouldn’t be governing based upon blogs. And what people say and react to the bloggers.’ The Westport Journal and Dan Woogs 06880 blog are the ONLY way residents get any information about what is going on in town. They are the modern version of the newspaper. The ‘people’ reacting are voting residents of this town. You were voted in to represent us, not to act like kings.
There has been a huge ‘voting resident’ outcry against paving Jesup green and cutting trees down. Stop ignoring us.
I should say that the language added to the amendment passed last night was actually written by Peter Gold, RTM 5 and experienced member of the Ordinance Committee.
Thanks to him and all RTM members for working so hard in the public interest.
Wendy I am going to correct you right there.
You were not working “so hard” to protect the interests of the public.
You were all desperately looking for a “squishy” reason to justify voting for and making the selectman’s office happy. And justifying that to your constituents.
I notice Peter Gold whom you credit with “writing the language” VOTED NO !!!! I wonder why !
You still have zero assurances on jesup green, and I will remind you that if Parker Harding’s redo design remains and it loses any parking, it has GOT to be made up in NEW parking elsewhere and in proximity of the downtown shopping area, in particular and preferably close to Parker Harding. That does not include any existing parking behind the police station. That parking is existing , albeit for police to park there.
So either Parker Harding gets no green space added and simply maintained with new ada spots added, which makes the jesup green issue go away !
The town saves money, our tax money, and someday when someone comes up with viable parking alternatives, ( which have been 4 decades in the making)
Then maybe green space can be added on the land beside the river, the merchants paid for 7 decades ago, and not cause bankruptcy of the very merchants who pay ALL the property tax in the downtown, making them amongst the largest stakeholders in the downtown, and the same business owners who make the downtown what it is.
So do not sugar coat for the public the crappy judgement of all of you who voted for what appears an illegal ammendment with zero assurance that now has to go back before both BOF AND P&Z.
You all knew it last night and you know it this morning.
Green space in Parker Harding at the expense of killing trees on Jesup Green , paving paradise to put up a parking lot. Does the inconsistency in this approach to solving a parking problem strike you as irrational?
Just this week, at 3pm Lux,Bond & Green was robbed in broad daylight by masked thieves in black hooded jumpsuits carrying sledgehammers who managed somehow to escape unnoticed by shoppers on Main .Absolutely surreal occurence which begs the question, is additional parking actually necessary if Main St. was a ghost town at 3pm when this heist took place?
Bravo Peter Gold! Meant to include him in my note of thanks.
Thanks to the RTM members who codified—in actual words—slippery, offhanded assurances about preserving Jesup Green. Thanks to the members who refused to scold voters from the pulpit, who refused to use Gallagher-level prop comedy to make inane points, who refused to act as henchmen and handmaids in an administration that uses “strategic” to mean “clueless” and “transparent” to mean “backroom.” I wish there were more of you.
In response to Mr Mandell’s post clarifying he did not vote, this seems way too convenient. … once again Mr. Mandell sneaks away from a tough vote because of the self important “hats” he constantly claims he wears.
This time he has found a way to avoid a long publicized important meeting that directly impacts 4 of his “hats” ( that he constantly switches depending on his narrative)
As a member of DPIC, head of chamber of commerce, RTM district 1 and a the chair of RTM P&Z sub committee, you’d think he would show up, or at the very least dial in for the discussion so he could vote.
Short of a family emergency there is NO excuse for his non-action last night.
“The record and I confirmed, shows no vote on my part.”
SMH
Rep. Mall advises that his colleagues should ignore the public comments of their constituents? That’s nice. He’s another one of these simmering, RTM fossils that doesn’t know he’s stayed too long.
Morley Boyd! Enough. Your personal attacks are petty and destructive. You should be thanking Lou for serving as a volunteer for this Town. If you have a problem with what he says, criticize. But calling him names – a simmering RTM fossil? Who’s the grown up here and who is the bully? This along with so many other posts is disgusting. Keep on attacking me. That is the cause – as a reporter might mockingly say – “du jour.”. Leave our honorable public servants alone. And give my best to Charlie. I might not see him again in your place of employ, but HE is a good man.
Save the histrionics. You aren’t being attacked when your actions as a member and Moderator of the RTM are questioned.
Morley has more reason than most to criticize Lou, but you know that. You know that the only reason the RTM has a “code of conduct” is because of the abysmal way RTM members were treating their constituents and town staff, there are videos and emails, a phrase very similar to “you should be thanking Lou for serving as a volunteer for this Town” came up at least once, and rather than reprimanding them (that’s saved for baseless accusations against Sal, not for the cool kids) the RTM decided to make a Code of Conduct.
Who is the bully? Really? As far as I know, Morley never mocked Lou outside his house while marching in the Memorial Day Parade.
(BTW The RTM didn’t follow procedure on the petition to form a DPIC oversight committee. No motion was made nor seconded, so the RTM had nothing presented to it to vote on. Will that be coming back to the RTM again?)
This is good. However, we need to codify Jesup Green as deeded open space, historically significant location, never to be used for anything other than our town green, for eternity and into perpetuity.
Is that too much to ask?
Todd – good idea in theory. In practice – doesn’t seem to matter in this town. Case in point, the deed restrictions for the Glennding property by Ford Road. The town approved developers building homes in the sensitive wetland zone next to the Saugatuck River. In return they said they will add 2 units for special needs folks. We’ll see. So many better places (near bus routes and trains for units for special needs but I digress)
Jeff, I always enjoy our conversations – and nothing has changed in that regard on my end. So I trust you will believe me when I say that it isn’t anything personal. Public servants are not above fair comment and I stand behind mine completely.
“RTM fossil” is not personal? Of course it is. Fair? Of course it is not. Stand behind comments, but don’t say what they are not. You are better than that.
I’m interested in what Morley Boyd has to say, and I don’t care how he says it. Stop using “civility” as a cudgel against free speech.
Jeff, with respect, in your position, I feel you haven’t any business leaning on commenters. And threatening my employer is most certainly beneath you. You are a kind person who has had a tough week. Happy to talk it through offline any time. Coffee is on me.
I did not threaten your employer. I asked you to say hello to Charlie
And I can’t comment? What happened to free speech?
Are you kidding me? Jeffrey, just suck it up and take it instead of further embarrassing yourself by arguing with voters. I guess personal attacks on RTM members are only okay when it is you attacking Sal Liccione.
Did you spend five minutes studying Roberts Rules of Order before you became Moderator? I have NO idea why you are Moderator, why you wanted to be reelected Moderator, or why anyone on RTM would support you as Moderator, given that you have NO understanding of the role of RTM, NO understanding of proper procedure, and seem to just want to be the FS’s enabler.
Now you are getting in on-line shouting matches with citizens who are calling you out – not just the incompetence but the seeming desire to serve the desires of the Administration rather than the concerns of the voters.
That you bitched on this website about who might be suing Town… are you kidding me? You are calling out citizens protecting their rights? And now you want to pipe in about *your* free speech? Get a clue, dude. And, yeah, I hope someone sues Town and you, as moderator, for ignoring the principle of petitioning as specifically identified in the Town Charter and supported by the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
You attacked this website and, seriously, is there anything weaker than blaming the press? And then 24 hours later in the RTM meeting, despite all of your efforts to protect the FS by supporting an absolutely toothless amendment, a vote of the RTM showed that your combination of bias and incompetence, as called out by this local news website, could not have been more accurate.
I don’t get it. Obviously this role creates headaches for you. And obviously you aren’t good at it. So what’s in it for you that you carry on with it? Maybe you need a hobby that won’t interfere in the lives of others? Thanks for volunteering your time, but do you think that there is any demonstrable way that Westport is better off for your efforts? Because if you were running for townwide office you would get buried as much as the crazily unpopular First Selectwoman will if she thinks that she should run for reelection.
Your employers are great, BTW.
The concept of an RTMer being tens of millions of years old and still occupying a place in our environment doesn’t seem like such an insult to me! And that the fossil feels free to ignore those they represent and to rail against a popular channel of communication is, perhaps, admirable… maybe astonishing!
Jeff, I think you know I didn’t suggest that you ought not comment. To many, the prospect of a high ranking town official coming after them publicly for their words could be interpreted as intimidation aimed at suppression. Luckily, I’m indifferent to that sort of thing. Anyway, I’ll pass along your kind words for my employer and, as before, my door is open.
This from Morley Boyd is absolutely how the public feels….
Morley – this is EXACTLY what you said about people commenting. Your words – ‘We shouldn’t be governing based upon blogs. And what people say and react to the bloggers.’
The people responding to the Westport Journal article are Westport residents. We have written here, met with members of the RTM and 1st Selectwoman at Jesup green. We have showed up to meetings best we could when the agenda wasn’t so big that midnight wasn’t even the end of the night. How exactly are the voters of this town supposed to be heard if we can’t comment on these articles when other avenues to be heard have fallen on deaf ears?
Margaret, I think you may have confused me with Rep. Mall. I believe he is the person to whom the quote you cite is attributed.
My apologies, Morley. My passion took over my ‘double-checking’ skills. Just saw this on Monday morning.
To Rep. Mall – my response is definitely to you, from one of the voting residents of this town.
I apologize if my sarcastic comment got anyone confused. Some RTM’s comments are so bizarre and so unconscionable that it seems as if they are emanating from a fossilized brain, a brain whose organic matter has died and become ichthyoic. This is perhaps laughable, perhaps sad, and worthy of derision if you, a taxpayer and constituent of the representative have been so scorned by someone who is supposed to represent you.
Yes Jeff you did !!!!!
Just more proof that you continue to ignore public opinion…
Lou mall should start parking at imperial ( not yet a parking lot- refer back to Gloria gouveia… but please do .. imperial is NOT a parking lot…..
many Hurdles to climb there…
Meanwhile I suggest alll proponents of parking in imperial start leading by example…
Randy
Max
Waldman.
Leifer
Please start parking at imperial ! All of you with assured parking !
All of you with your private parking !
Open it up to others !
Quit preaching like a clueless vigilante group !
The staff of downtown are not the great unwashed !!!!
I’m not certain about effect of the RTM’s amendment other than sending the plan/project back to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
The properties/sites that are the subject of the P&ZC”s 8-24 Report and CAM Site Plan approval are not the same as those now identified in the RTM’s resolution.
I think that may be a problem.
Lou Mall thinks what he is doing is governing? Ho ho h o, all the governing happens at the blog level. Get with the program man, its called free speech. We are represented not governed.