RTM Engages in Heated Non-Discussion

If democracy is a discussion, then the regular meeting of the Representative Town Meeting Monday evening was undemocratic. An “Informational Update” on the long-contested Option to Lease at 35 Leroy Avenue ensued, as per the agenda; but discussion was stifled, and what followed instead was considered by some public officials as a heated game of political hardball.

Controversy has become characteristic of discussion over the Option to Lease, a document tied to a hot-button issue with a long history.

Back in 2007, Representative Town Meeting approved the purchase of the $4.2 million former library property, and Board of Selectmen decided to use the land for affordable housing. Since then officials and residents have debated the issue at length, and a number of legislative and executive actions have been made to move the project forward—albeit slowly.

In April of this year, the Board of Selectmen and the Town Counsel drafted an Option to Lease 35 Leroy Avenue with prospective developer, Mutual Housing Association (MHA). The Option is a roughly two-year agreement that will allow MHA to approve land use and secure financing for the proposed affordable housing development; both are necessary but not sufficient steps to drafting a Ground Lease. MHA’s obligation to execute the Option remains contingent upon the RTM’s approval of the Ground Lease. The concept and details of the Option were presented to the RTM on April 27, and on Aug. 3, a final draft of the Option was approved by the Board of Selectmen. Four months later, just weeks before the Municipal Election, it’s causing a stir.

Apprehension over the Option began to bubble up in newspaper op-eds late summer, but at the Sept. 14 RTM Rules Committee meeting it boiled over. The language of the document came under scrutiny. The committee raised questions and expressed concerns and as a result, voted unanimously to include an “Informational Update” on the general RTM’s agenda for last night’s meeting. The committee also voted unanimously for lawyer and RTM Town Government Structure and Administration Committee member Samuel Schoonmaker (District IV), who was sitting in the audience that night, to lead the presentation.

RTM Rules Committee Chair and Moderator Karen Armour began the “Informational Update” with a brief recap of the RTM Rules Committee meeting, and Schoonmaker’s comment followed.

Schoonmaker briefly explained the status of the Option to date, and suggested that the RTM rally together to conduct a best-use study of the property, a resolution they voted on in Oct. 2008.

“End of the day, what do we do? Let the Board of Selectmen go ahead with their Option to Lease; it doesn’t hurt you. In the meantime, let’s do our survey. Why not do it? You get the best of both worlds,” concluded Schoonmaker.

And then the “games” began.

In a Sept. 16 interview following that “famous” RTM Rules Committee meeting, Armour said, “I don’t think you can ever over-communicate. I want to let people talk.”

It seems Armour had a change of heart.

When Selectman David Bayne asked to comment on Schoomaker’s “update,” he was denied the opportunity.

“This is an 'informational update,' not a conversation. I am perfectly happy to have Mr. Fox answer questions of fact, but we cannot continue to pursue this. We all agreed the Option to Lease is signed, sealed and delivered, and we are going on that course. It’s a done deal,” said Armour, gavel in hand.

Selectwoman Linda Santaraella who was sitting in the back rows of the auditorium made her way down the aisle to address Town Counsel Wayne Fox with a question:

“Is it appropriate that the Rules Committee voted that only Mr. Schoonmaker can address the body?” Santarella asked. “Never before have I ever heard a moderator say, ‘We’re not going to entertain anyone else to talk.’ This is a Representative Town Meeting of the people.”

Fox took the stand.

“Nothing like a question for which there is no good answer,” he said. “The rulings within a legislative body are controlled by the chair; there is a process to challenge that, if one deems that appropriate—I’m not suggesting that—but I think it is appropriate for the moderator to run the meeting, to make rulings and determine who makes a presentation.”

Dennis Maroney (District III) took Fox up on his non-suggestion; he challenged Armour’s “ban” on discussion.

“I would like to propose an amendment to the agenda to allow discussion of this meeting,” said Maroney.

Fox said Maroney would first have to propose to “suspend the rules,” and receive a two-thirds approval of that motion before amending the agenda. Maroney motioned, but only a handful of RTM members voted in favor.

Jim Cameron (District IV) voted in favor of the rules suspension, step one of two to allow discussion.

“I was surprised that the body as a whole did not vote to suspend the rules. I think people are burned out on the issue,” he said.

Joanne Hennessy (District V) opposed the motion.

“I didn’t know why Mr. Schoonmaker was speaking; he didn’t tell me anything new. I didn’t want to suspend the rules and get into a shouting match, because there was nothing we were trying to resolve. It was getting late. I mean, what are we doing here?” Hennessy said, after the meeting.

First Selectwoman Evonne Klein took the podium for the final question of the evening, a query prompted by Schoonmaker’s earlier suggestion that the RTM should carry out their best-use study of the 35 Leroy property.

“In 2007, this body voted to purchase the property. At that point in time, could it have been the responsibility, or within the purview of the RTM Planning, Zoning & Housing Committee to then start a study of the potential uses of that site?”  

Fox said yes, if the committee deemed the study appropriate.

“I vote we adjourn,” said Lloyd Plehaty (District VI), who was met with a resounding “Second” from the audience.

Bayne was never given the opportunity to comment, and he didn't ask a question at Monday’s meeting.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen the RTM refuse to listen to a sitting selectman,” he said. “It frustrates the purpose of democracy when you cannot have debate. You can’t selectively pick and choose what information you give your jury, the RTM, the TV audience. There’s something deeply troubling about that.”

Armour was not troubled; she said that although she knew that “not everyone was going to like it,” the meeting “went well.”

“I understand it’s America and people are used to being able to say whatever they want whenever they want. They have for a long time, and everyone’s heard them, so the Rules Committee’s objective was that we can't keep arguing,” said Armour, who added that it is important that as Moderator, she sticks to the agenda.

Klein said that Armour’s quashing of conversation was ironic, given her prior push for communication.

“It’s hurtful to the system and disrespectful to the executive branch of government. If the President or Vice President wanted to address Congress, would they ever be told ‘no’?” said Klein.

“It begs the question: is the RTM upset about the study, or are they upset that we’re moving forward on affordable housing?”