standing letters

The first week the new Westerly Town Council met, the Council Rules of Procedure permitted two 15-minute citizens’ comment periods, the first for agenda items and the second for both agenda and non-agenda items. Councilors would respond to agenda items but advised not to respond to non-agenda items. I had knowingly taken full advantage of the council’s first meeting but was admonished by Councilor Giorno for citing three non-agenda items in the first citizens’ comments period. One councilor was paying rapt attention!

Being unable to attend the council’s second meeting, I took advantage of Councilor Ahern’s suggestion of citizens’ comments being submitted in written form then read aloud, a less time-consuming idea considering Councilor Giorno’s opinion that citizens, when taking the podium, should be proficient in public speaking. (Shouldn’t councilors then be held to the same standard?) When Council President Duhamel began reading my clearly titled comments, he was told to stop by Councilor Cioffi. Accompanied by a stifled “phew,” he said, “Thank you.” My unread citizens’ comments passed to the equivalent of the council dust bin.

By the third council meeting, the Council Rules of Procedure had been amended to one 10-minute citizens’ comments period to include both agenda and non-agenda items with councilor response limited to agenda items only. Since the council had imposed the 10-minute limit per citizen, Councilor Ahern suggested councilors should likewise limit their responses to 10 minutes.

Did she mean a 10-minute response per agenda item per councilor times seven, a 10-minute-total, seven-councilor response per agenda item or a 10- minute-total, seven-councilor response to all citizen-submitted agenda items?

If this Council is that obsessed with accounting for every precious minute of its time, it must likewise account for and respect the precious minutes scheduled speakers, honorees, reporters and citizens are forced to fidget and cool their heels waiting for scheduled meetings to begin. Monday’s scheduled 5:30 to 6 p.m. special meeting ran until 6:45 p.m., 45 unacceptable minutes beyond the time the 6 p.m. regular meeting was scheduled to start.

When I took the podium, I also distributed my written citizen comments to every councilor. The first regarded a letter submitted to the council about the removal of one of many supposedly permanent trees with plaques honoring or in memory of loved ones planted in downtown Westerly. No one responsible for having the trees planted ever received notice or reason for their removal. For years, the writer was thwarted at every turn to get the tree replanted. It went from no response to the town could only afford to replace one tree a year, to yes, her tree was on the list to be replanted, to the family’s devastation when they discovered that the grate where the tree had stood was removed and paved over. Most recently, after a call to Town Hall, she was informed that the town manager had decided to “yank all the grates.”

Devastated, she called the town manager’s office directly, but has never received a response. Councilor Ahern’s response, sounding off-the-cuff, referred to berries dropping on cars, leaves on the sidewalk, sidewalks being redone, and talk of the Westerly Land Trust relocating the plaques somewhere, while the real purpose for the trees in the first place was summarily ignored. Friends, family and residents would no longer be able to pause, enjoy the tree and remember the name on a plaque when they walked by. For the thousands of trees lining the streets in other cities and towns, how come those in Westerly pose such a nuisance? But, just walk several paces over the Pawcatuck Bridge and one finds the very same trees, initially chosen for their size, beauty and hardiness, lining West Broad Street. This issue demands a council workshop with the many who were given short shrift and the flip remark to “yank all the grates.” If I didn’t find the response sensitive and satisfactory, I wonder if others felt the same way?

My non-agenda item regarded clarification on how the council expects to deal with non-agenda items and how citizens’ comments submitted to the council in writing will be handled? Responding to my non-agenda item, despite the new procedures, Acting President Giorno jumped in to say, “Your ‘letter’ was made part of the minutes.” With all due respect, my clearly marked citizens’ comments were not a “letter” and because my comments were not read they would not have been made part of the minutes.

At this point, the council dust bin is where non-agenda items end up. Clearly, this council needs to revisit its policy on citizens’ comments. Thus far, councilors have picked and chosen items to respond to regardless of their being on the agenda or complicit with their council rules. In fact, it’s not about which citizens’ comments are or are not on the agenda or responded to, it’s about addressing and resolving every single citizen comment in a timely and satisfactory manner.

Hatsy H. Moore


Recommended for you

(1) comment


Good Morning Ms. Moore and everyone else. First, my suggestion that Councilors limit their comments to 10 minutes was and is intended to impose some self discipline and focus upon Council Members, just as we have asked of the public. After all, the Council is there largely to listen and learn about the matters before them prior to rendering a decision or voting. This applies not only to citizens comments but presentations, public hearings, etc. It is not a complicated concept. The idea is not to speak for more than 10 minutes in a row. Please put all these “comment periods” into context: Most R.I. Communities severely limit time periods, many to as little as 3 minutes and at least one to a total citizens’ comments period of 15 minutes. As to responding to comments, note that the School Committee doesn’t respond at all and I think there are other R.I. Towns with the same approach. Moreover, my urging citizens or other interested members of the public to submit their concerns to the Council and/or the Manager for their reports under the Agenda is not to “dustbin” those comments. The Council can choose to respond to these written comments or not — the same process as when a citizen is at the podium. Second, the suggestion as to Ms. Griscom’s concern with the Memorial Plagues/Trees was and is a sincere effort to find a resolution. If you look at her recent Letter To The Editor you will see that the list of potential Plaques/Trees is long. It may be impractical to insist that they be placed downtown. On the sidewalks in perpetuity (i.e. forever). I, too, purchased a Memorial, in my case a bench in Wilcox Park from the Library. At some point it was apparently deemed irreparable, taken away without my knowledge and not replaced. So, yes, I understand it hurts when this happens. As Liason to the Westerly Municipal Land Trust my suggestion at the meeting was and is to work with that group to see if we can find an acceptable relocation. If not, then not, but it remains an effort to move forward rather than keep letters flying with no progress on a heartfelt matter. Finally, it is relatively early days for this Council. Please provide room for the possibility that this group is going to try to find resolutions to issues and not to bury them. Sharon E. Ahern, Westerly Town Council

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.