Loving Westport

Show you care about what happens here

A couple of things need your urgent attention if you love Westport and care about the direction of our town.

JESUP GREEN

First, this week the Representative Town Meeting will convene to not only adopt the town and school budgets, but also to vote on a matters that may precipitate the near-destruction of your town common, Jesup Green.

There is no practical or emotional reason to pave over at least a third of Jesup Green, whacking four mature trees in the process. It’s all part of a highly complicated and obtuse plan to ameliorate Parking Harding Plaza.

We are not 100 percent sure when this agenda item will be considered but the town Moderator has said to expect it at the Tuesday May 7 meeting. The RTM has posted for three days of meeting, May 6-8. Click here for the RTM AGENDA MAY 6, 7, 8 )

ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR PARKING RELIEF

Second, a citizen petition is also on the agenda for this week’s RTM, to consider directing an initiative for alternatives to achieving parking relief downtown. The RTM held a Rules Committee meeting on this matter last week and most on that committee voted to recommend against this. This “recommendation” was not required and in fact unprecedented. Please write or show up to support alternatives to the Jesup plan.

LONG SHORE INN

Also on Monday May 6, the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on plans to overhaul Longshore Inn. The new design is drastically different from the iconic building we have come to know and love. It surely needs updating, but this goes well beyond to create something altogether different. If you care, you can “ZOOM” into the PZC at 7 p.m. Monday May 6: PZC MAY 6 MEETING LINK

VALERIE’S LETTER

Finally, I am attaching a letter written by town resident Valerie Seiling Jacob. It raises many questions about the conduct of our Representative style of government. I can say that I, too, have felt the bluster of RTM members who disagree with me about saving Community Garden from obliteration.

They may say I’m critical of elected officials, and they would be correct in some cases. But that’s my right as a citizen; as public elected figures, they signed up for fair comment. However, it is conduct unbecoming for elected officials to make personal attacks against each other or private citizens. I have been appalled at the behavior of some toward Sal Liccione especially, which I have witnessed first-hand. Please give Valerie’s essay a read:

VALERIE SEILING JACOBS

May 5, 2024

All Members of the Westport RTM

Re: Systemic Problems with the RTM Dear RTM Members:

Last year, when Jeff Wieser, the RTM Moderator, sanctioned Sal Liccione, another RTM Member, for an alleged violation of the RTM’s “Code of Conduct,” I considered reporting the incident to the ACLU. Why? Because Mr. Wieser’s actions were clearly unconstitutional. The First Amendment expressly protected Mr. Liccione’s right to criticize the administration’s choice of a new Operations Director. Mr. Liccione’s passion, no doubt borne of exasperation, may have been upsetting to some, but it was Constitutionally protected speech. That Mr. Wieser didn’t understand this is shocking. That Mr. Wieser copied the Town Clerk on his email, a move that can only be interpreted as threatening, makes his actions even more egregious.

Mr. Wieser’s subsequent attempts to excuse his conduct were equally troubling. The problem was not, as Mr. Wieser wanted everyone to believe, the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism in the Code of Conduct. The problem was that Mr. Wieser’s actions were, in and of themselves, a violation of Mr. Liccione’s First Amendment rights. Even if the Code had contained a detailed enforcement mechanism and even if Mr. Weiser had followed those procedures, he still would have run afoul of the Constitution.

Mr. Wieser’s conduct was also problematic in that it represented the worst kind of selective enforcement, where “insiders” are protected and outsiders are penalized for the same conduct. Make no mistake: I do not believe that Mr. Liccione’s conduct was improper. My point is that, over the years, other RTM members have exhibited far worse behavior than Mr. Liccione, and yet, they have not been reprimanded. During a meeting about a proposed ordinance, for example, one RTM member was so rude and patronizing that he made another RTM member cry. During other meetings, RTM members yelled at residents (me included) when they didn’t like what we had to say. Recently, another RTM member was spotted screaming at a resident in Town Hall. And let’s not forget how Clarence Hayes, a newly elected RTM member, was chastised, denigrated, and verbally assaulted by other RTM members for simply asking that the RTM bring a resolution to the floor. And yet, to my knowledge, the only RTM member ever to have been publicly admonished was Mr. Liccione.

What’s behind this different treatment? The most likely explanation is that Mr. Liccione is one of the few RTM members willing to ask tough questions and speak truth to power, a willingness

that has made him unpopular at Town Hall and which has prompted some RTM members to criticize him for causing meetings to run overlong. (Never mind that Mr. Liccione’s questions are frequently spot on or that his constituents love him—as evidenced by the number of votes he garnered in the last election.) Moreover, compared to many others on the RTM, Mr. Liccione is an outsider. He doesn’t play golf or lunch with the gang—his picture rarely graces Facebook in those smiling group photos.

Interestingly, Mr. Wieser basically confirmed the existence of this double standard in his comments about the incident. After the fact, Mr. Wieser admitted that he should have conducted his own investigation—that he shouldn’t have been so quick to act on the word of the four RTM members who were apparently complaining about Mr. Liccione. Mr. Wieser indicated that he should have called Mr. Liccione to hear his side of the story before he fired off the email.

But Mr. Wieser didn’t do that. In fact, Mr. Wieser was so anxious to back up his friends that he didn’t even pause to read the Code of Conduct. Had he done so, he would have realized that it didn’t even contain the language that Mr. Wieser relied on (and “quoted”) in his email. That language had specifically been removed during RTM deliberations due to (drum roll, please) concerns about the First Amendment. To make matters worse, Mr. Wieser insisted on protecting the identity of the four members who reported Mr. Liccione—granting them the respect and privacy that he denied Mr. Liccione.

In the end, however, I decided not to contact the ACLU. Yes, I was still worried that Mr. Wieser did not understand the legal limits of his or the RTM’s power. But Mr. Liccione seemed satisfied with Mr. Wieser’s apology, and I believed that Mr. Weiser had learned his lesson.

I was wrong. Not long after the incident involving Mr. Liccione, Mr. Wieser refused to put a resident-led petition on the RTM agenda—even though the Town Charter states that the Moderator “shall” do so if the petition is signed by the requisite number of electors. It’s true that Mr. Wieser managed to get the Town Attorney to write an opinion supporting the denial, but that’s hardly surprising given that (i) the petition challenged a specific proposal by the First Selectwoman and (ii) under the Town Charter, the Town Attorney serves at the First Selectwoman’s pleasure. Did anyone really expect the Town Attorney to bite the hand that feeds her? (The wisdom of having the Town Attorney beholden to the Selectperson in this way is a whole other topic.)

Moreover, that opinion letter does not stand up under scrutiny. The attorney’s logic was basically that, despite the “shall” language, the RTM Moderator is only required to put something on the agenda if it involves a matter over which the RTM has authority. There are, however, at least two problems with that logic. First, the petition did involve a matter over which the RTM had jurisdiction—namely, the limits of the mandate granted by the RTM to the Long Lots School Building Committee (which by law required RTM approval). Had the RTM put the petition on the agenda and investigated the matter, it could well have concluded that the Committee had exceeded its authority since the Board of Ed specs did not call for the addition of new Babe Ruth athletic fields. In other words, had the RTM accepted the petition, it could have revoked or

amended its approval of the Committee. Of course, that might have delayed the project, which the First Selectwoman was desperate to avoid.

Second, the opinion letter completely ignored the fact that the RTM frequently puts items on its agenda over which it has absolutely no authority to act. Consider, for example, the RTM’s recent resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Are we really expected to draw the line in a way that permits the RTM to discuss international events—but not consider local matters that directly impact residents? To do so ignores the very purpose of a “representative town meeting” form of government, which is to allow for open debate about matters affecting the community.

I write today because this assault on our rights continues. Just last week, Mr. Weiser refused to specify which night the RTM would consider the latest resident-led petition regarding the administration’s proposal for Jesup’s Green. Yes, Mr. Wieser did agree to add this petition to the RTM agenda. But because this month’s RTM meeting is scheduled to span three evenings, Mr. Wieser’s refusal leaves residents in the unfortunate position of having to trek to Town Hall on all three nights if they want to be sure that they have a chance to speak. Of course, this is a serious impediment to attendance for lots of people, especially those who need to rearrange work schedules or arrange for childcare or transportation.

I note that, after being confronted with this issue, Mr. Wieser posted an online comment (to a newspaper article) wherein he indicated that the petition would be heard on May 7. But a comment on the internet is not something residents can rely on—especially since the Town’s website still has the petition on the agenda for all three evenings. This leaves residents in an untenable position: rely on Mr. Wieser’s online comment (and risk missing the hearing) or rely on the Town’s website (and risk wasting one—or possibly even two—evenings). Either way, this hardly qualifies as adequate public notice. More important, it has a clear and chilling effect on public participation.

Mr. Weiser’s decision to send the petition to the Rules Committee in advance of the full RTM meeting was similarly problematic. As others have pointed out it, this was an unauthorized and unprecedented diversion likely designed to sink the petition by poisoning the well—while at the same creating a veneer of propriety. (Mr. Wieser essentially confirmed this motive by abstaining from the vote.) To make matters worse, the item was only added to the Committee agenda at the very last minute, leaving many residents unaware of the importance of the meeting.

Had these latest incidents been isolated events, it might make sense to let them slide. But this appalling treatment of residents—where important meetings are scheduled on the shortest possible notice, where items are added to agendas at the absolute last minute, where the Moderator and others are permitted to circumvent the Town Charter and Robert’s Rules of Order, where RTM members protect their friends but punish outsiders, where residents’ concerns are summarily dismissed, where residents are given insufficient time to review critical documents, where residents are treated rudely, and where residents are given little, if any, time to speak at meetings—has become all too common in Westport. Indeed, such scenarios have pretty much become standard operating procedure under Mr. Wieser’s leadership.

This state of affairs reveals a disgraceful lack of respect for voters and is symptomatic of a pervasive attitude that seems to have infected the entire RTM—where RTM members feel free to ignore their constituents, where questioning any decision by another RTM member is viewed as disloyal, and where rubberstamping your friend’s actions has become the norm. Rather than operating as a body of independent members representing their constituents, the RTM now appears to function as a school of fish, moving in concert and not as the individuals they are and were elected to be.

It’s time for the RTM to stop acting like a private club and start acting like an elected body. The Town is facing a number of critical and potentially costly decisions that will affect residents for generations. We need our RTM members to start asking hard questions—even if it means offending their colleagues or their friends in Town Hall. Good governance demands healthy debate and even disagreement. It’s time for the RTM to stop insisting on collegiality at the expense of democracy.

In closing, I note that I fully expect a barrage of emails from people defending Mr. Wieser, telling me what a nice guy he is, how hard he works, and how much time he dedicates to volunteer activities. But being a nice guy, a hard worker, or extremely philanthropic does not excuse unconstitutional behavior. Nor can it justify Mr. Wieser’s conduct of late. Mr. Weiser— indeed, all RTM members—are elected officials who have a duty to follow the law and represent their constituents fairly.

Valerie Seiling Jacobs

cc:

Westport Town Clerk

Editor, Westport Journal

Dan Woog, 06880