Mr. Mandell – who called us pompous muchachos last month – could not stand a little self-inflicted humor on April Fool’s Day, when the Water Rat Parents’ blog Mahackeno Now teased him. It seems that Mr. Mandell demanded the Water Rats not use “posa,” a word in Italian and Spanish, which is also the acronym for the Partrick Open Space Alliance. The April Fool’s Day post was taken down, but we managed to make a copy before it disappeared (Matthew Mandell’s April Fool’s Fish).

Thin-skinned politicians are not new in town (look at Amy Ancel’s recent threat to sue a couple of YMCA members), so Mr. Mandell’s reaction was not surprising. But it is interesting to note that Mr. Mandell – who abstained from voting on the RTM postponement of the Taser debate last month – seems more passionate about policing local blogs than policing local streets.

All of you must know by now there was an incident at Town Hall at a hearing last week. One resident did not like a decision and went off at the commissioners. The Town is very jumpy about citizen unrest, so to speak, and are [sic] worried about the Y hearings. Let’s all keep our cools [sic].

The lawn signs going up created a stir this week. A couple of loose cannons who support the Y’s proposal went out of their way to create problems, make accusations and tried to turn a free speech issue into something unseemly. Let’s not allow a couple of “Pompous Muchachos” to fan the flames of incivility. We are all neighbors, we can leave lawn signs up for a couple of months and be tolerant. And let’s hope we can respect our senior citizens who don’t need to be insulted in blogs when they write what they think.

“Pompous Muchachos” obviously fits the initialism of this blog. “Initialism” is a big word. Perhaps we are becoming prolix. No wait, perhaps it‘s pompous to use “prolix.”

We’re confused, we admit. Does Mr. Mandell want us to lower the level of our language? If it’s pompous to use a word like prolix then we at PM are guilty. But we certainly are not muchachos. At least not like the kind in the video below.

Police Chief Al Fiore seemed surprised and disappointed that the debate was postponed – and well he should be. When the RTM postpones a debate, it usually means a majority of the members are looking for a way to vote no, but haven’t formulated their argument.

We at Politicus Machamux agree that it is disappointing that the Taser vote was postponed. The RTM should have debated on Tuesday and reached a final decision on this contentious issue.

We have opposed arming the police with Tasers, but – like many members of the RTM – we were willing to change our minds if Mr. Fiore could make a valid argument for Tasers. He didn’t.

Mr. Fiore suggested that his officers would use Tasers instead of guns when appropriate. But how often do they use guns? If only a few times a year, then maybe they don’t need Tasers.

Why didn’t somebody ask the police chief to provide some solid numbers? How often do Westport police officers unholster their firearms? How often do they fire them? How many times a year do Westport policemen get caught in a lethal firefight? If it happens frequently, then the police need every tool we can buy for them.

Mr. Fiore seemed to advance a second argument for Tasers: The Westport Police need them because they chase assailants who sometimes are bigger and stronger. That too is a valid argument, but it begs the question of procedure and accountability. As the video below shows, police can be tempted to use Tasers on a suspect who is passively resisting arrest.

Mr. Fiore said the Police Department would develop strict rules for using Tasers. He should have come to the RTM meeting with an outline of what those rules will be. Our police want to arm themselves with 50,000 volts of electricity. Before we give them that power, we have a right to know why they need it and how they will use it.

We at Politicus Machamux have had our disputes with Chris Grimm (RTM District 5) and he has taken us to task in the past. But today we cheered out loud for him.

We were very happy to read in the Westport News that Mr. Grimm has taken the lead in opposing the use of tasers in Westport. In a letter to the editor, Mr. Grimm questioned why the Town would want to arm the Westport Police Department with tasers.

But why summarize Mr. Grimm? He said it all in his letter and he said it very well, so we quote his letter in its entirety:

Next Tuesday, March 4, RTM is scheduled to deliberate over a proposed appropriation of $24,000 (from the asset forfeiture fund) for the purpose of purchasing 15 Tasers for the Westport Police Department.

“We have been researching Tasers for quite some time now, and I do not see any downside to making them available to our officers,” said Chief Al Fiore in making the request. “I believe that this is a necessary tool for our officers.”

Amnesty International, which opposes the use of Tasers, cites more than 200 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. after victims have been Tased. Even if this number is over-stated, that certainly would constitute “downside.” And what exactly is the “necessity?”

Unfortunately, Westport is (once again) addressing a decision with emotion, rather than logic. The chief has cited an incident in which one officer was injured during a physical altercation. I fear that we are heading down the path toward greater consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen, in response to a justification with a single worst-case scenario. (In addition to the obvious potential consequences of injury and/or death of a citizen, law enforcement officers in a handful of states have filed lawsuits because of injuries that they have suffered.)

The purpose of the device, according to the manufacturer, is not to create a new level of violence with which an officer can deal with a citizen, but rather as “a more humane and safer alternative” to deadly force (firearms).

With that in mind, the people of Westport should consider the estimated number of firearms discharges that this proposed acquisition would prevent. Unfortunately, our approach reflects the national trend of using Tasers as a way to increase violence against citizens rather than as a way to reduce the use of firearms or other deadly force. Even the briefest consideration will tell one that the purchase is arming the police, not about protecting citizens.

We are not living in a high-crime environment in which our local officers are routinely drawn into violent confrontations with citizens. If that were the case, I would probably be more supportive of the proposal. Instead we are blessed with too much money and not enough to spend it on. That is no reason to put the health and wellbeing of our citizens at risk.

Chris Grimm, RTM District 5, Westport

We at PM - like Mr. Grimm – were shocked (pun intended) that the Westport Police were considering the use of tasers. Do we really want our officers to be armed with 50,000 volts of electricity? What would they do with this additional power? Would the police be willing to use tasers on a Westport teenager if he tried to flee the scene of a drug bust? This is not as far fetched as it sounds. Police in the United Kingdom are now free to taser kids.

We shouldn’t follow London’s electric lead. There is no need for tasers in Westport. That’s why we are very happy that Mr. Grimm wrote a letter questioning the Police Department. Way to go! Thank you Mr. Grimm for reminding us that sometimes we should just say no, even to the police.

Recently, however, there seems to be less willingness to save the Town from the awkward and embarrassing. Amy Ancel (RTM District 3) recently made headlines for authoring an anti-YMCA flyer, which was stuffed into mailboxes in the Old Hill neighborhood. (See the Slippery Slope below.) Matthew Mandell (RTM District 1) e-mails his constituents and proudly proclaims that he is a director of the Partrick Open Space Alliance (POSA), an environmental political action committee, which recently expanded the focus of its lobbying.

POSA also endorses candidates for local office. In 2003, for example, POSA Chairman Mandell backed fellow POSA members James Cochrane, Sean Timmins and Helen Martin Block in their bids for the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first two lost, but Ms. Block won the 2003 election and she continues to serve after being reelected last year. (Mr. Timmins is now a member of the RTM, where he has represented District 2 since 2005.)

There is nothing wrong with a local interest group putting forth a slate of candidates, or supporting politicians. But it worries us at Politicus Machamux when elected members of one town body want to influence members of another – as was the case with Ms. Ancel’s flyer. It also concerns us that P&Z Commissioner Block is publicly allied with a group that is trying to thwart the Westport Weston Family Y from building on its Mahackeno campsite.

From the beginning, we have watched the approval process for the Mahackeno project with both interest and concern, and not because PM supports the Family Y. We support transparency and fairness. We want to maintain the integrity of the approval process.

In the old days – in the 20th century – most Westport commissioners wanted to avoid the accusation of partiality at all costs, so they refused to participate in hearings involving their neighborhoods. We at PM think today’s P&Z commissioners should remember that tradition as the Westport Weston Family Y presents its application to build at Mahackeno. We feel that anyone who lives near the Mahackeno campsite, or has been publicly associated with the Family Y, or its opponents, should recuse himself, or herself, from the decision process. Step aside and allow the P&Z to focus on the facts. You’ll save the Town from what could be an embarrassing and awkward situation.

Three weeks after Amy Ancel (RTM District 3) created a flap in the blogosphere with anti-Mahackeno flyers (see below), Matthew Mandell (RTM District 1) accused Mahackeno supporters of dispersing aspersions. (At least we think that’s what Mr. Mandell said. Well, OK, he didn’t say “aspersions,” but we think Mr. Mandell meant “aspersions.”)

In an e-mail – sent to fans and constituents on February 15, 2008 – Mr. Mandell wrote:

NOW THE Y.

First off P&Z hearings have been set for March 13, 18, 25 and then later in April with work sessions in May. If this is a subject you want to weigh in on, then you need to come out listen [sic] and then tell them what you think. Maybe you might [sic] write some letters to the papers to get the juices flowing.

If you want to read up on the application and issues the YDowntown [sic] group has scanned the Y’s application and posted it on their website www.ydowntown.com. They have other information as well. So if you can’t get down to P&Z before the hearing check out what’s on-line [sic].

On [sic] thing to read is the Town hired [sic] Traffic Consultant’s first blush [sic] and issue with the Y’s traffic information. He said it was not sufficient. More interesting is the response by the Y’s consultant. He’s not happy and his note to Larry Bradley is not kind. What’s really funny is he blames the opposition for the problem, not once, but twice. I’m sorry, but this is America and people are allowed to disagree and actively oppose something, especially if there is a valid reason. But this is all part of a not even thinly veiled campaign to discredit any questioning of the Y and their proposal.

There have also been a bunch of letters in the paper and things posted on-line [sic] that have been quite disturbing both in tone and basis. I have discussed this before, but need to again.

Again the women who lead YD have been singled out. Questioning how one of them can be a Y member and have her kids swim on the team and still oppose the proposal. I’m sorry, but this is not something to cast dispersions at [sic]. On the contrary this shows tremendous integrity and fortitude. It is not easy to oppose from within. Throwing rocks from afar is safe, it’s easy, but standing face to face and not backing down takes guts. It’s a trait to admire. I want to personally thank Debbie McGinley and Indy Goldberg for putting their ideals on the line and not flinching at signs of adversity and letting personal attacks roll off their backs. We all should take pride in how these women have handled themselves and never once compromising [sic] their ethics during this process. (Read their latest position, published in both paper [sic] and available on YD website.)

One issue that is arising and has been tossed out by Mahackeno supporters is that Northwestern [sic] Westport deserves this proposal and its impact. Old Hill, Redcoat, Partrick and other folks [sic] are you hearing this? They are saying the rest of town has traffic, the rest of town has schools and churches so why shouldn’t you. [sic] This is a repugnant position, the idea that if one has ills (traffic) everyone should. This shows a sincere lack of empathy for fellow citizens and a selfish desire to succeed at any cost.

The funny thing is at the same time the argument is being made that Sunny Lane is not residential because the cell tower, Exit 41 and the Red Barn are there. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the cell tower bringing a thousand plus extra car trips to the area. And just because there is one non conforming [sic] use does not mean commercial encroachment should expand like a cancer.

This brings me to the last concept, commercialization. A recent letter to the editor which got an undue amount of play bemoaned the labeling the Y as commercial, going so far as to say it was not an [sic] like an office building. Actually it’s worse, running longer hours and 7 days a week. Let’s not be deluded here, what the YMCA is building is a huge fitness and events center that will bring hundreds of paying individuals to their facility each and every day. That is commercialization, non profit [sic] or not, of what is now a residential road and neighborhood.

But here is the kicker, the letter went on to say that even if true why should any of that matter, the Y is a wonderful organization. I’m sorry, but this such [sic] posturing does not outweigh the land use and planning issues at hand. Whenever confronted with the obvious, that this is a bad proposal, the PR campaign kicks in and they say, but we are the Y and we have no place else to do [sic]. Yes, a fine organization, but the facility should be built where it is accessible to all and the infrastructure already exists. Maybe if the YMCA directors were willing to modify their plans to suit the needs of the greater community this could be accomplished. Exactly what the ladies of Y Downtown said in their letter.

Those of you going on vacation enjoy yourselves. Those of you staying put please guard the fort and also enjoy yourselves.

Matthew
PWPF / POSA

Mr. Mandell seems to be complaining about an open letter, which the directors of the Water Rat Parent Club sent to Indy Goldberg and Debbie McGinley. He also seems to think that Steven Halstead, former Chairman of the Board of Education, got too much publicity when he wrote to local newspapers, complaining about Ms. Ancel’s disinformation campaign.

There is a lot in Mr. Mandell’s e-mail that needs to be corrected. And we are not talking just about the grammar. (That can be cleaned up easily by hitting the spell-check button.) We take issue with Mr. Mandell’s word choice.

Mr. Mandell is encouraging Y Downtown’s disinformation campaign by insisting that building a new Family Y facility will “commercialize” Sunny Lane. The Compact Oxford Dictionary defines “commercial” as:

• adjective 1 concerned with or engaged in commerce. 2 making or intended to make a profit. 3 (of television or radio) funded by the revenue from broadcast advertisements.

• noun a television or radio advertisement.

The Westport Weston Family Y does not engage in commerce. It is not a profit-making business. It is a nonprofit institution and has been since 1923.

We at Politicus Machamux wonder if the Family Y supporters really are the ones “casting dispersions”? It seems Mr. Mandell has been dispersing a few aspersions himself.

Amy Ancel (RTM District 3) was back in the blogosphere last week. She was seen stuffing flyers into mailboxes in the Old Hill neighborhood, according to Mahackeno Now, which posted a copy on its Web site.

At first we were surprised that a member of the Westport RTM would knowingly violate USPS regulations (it is illegal for anybody other than the United States Postal Service to use your mailbox), but then we realized that Ms. Ancel also violated the Internal Revenue Code.

The leaflet, which Ms. Ancel distributed, asked for contributions to Y Downtown, the anti-Mahackeno organization, which was founded by two residents of Rices Lane. Y Downtown is a nonprofit political entity and it enjoys a special tax-exempt status. It is a 401(c)4 company, meaning contributors cannot deduct donations from their taxes.

The IRS requires all 401(c)4 companies to clearly state that fact on fundraising documents:

Solicitation Notice

Section 6113 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that certain tax-exempt organizations that are not eligible to receive tax deductible charitable contributions must disclose, in any fundraising solicitation (see below), in “an express statement (in a conspicuous and easily recognizable format)” that contributions to the organization are not deductible for federal income tax purposes as charitable contributions. This provision applies to organizations that are not eligible to receive deductible charitable contributions and are described in either section 501(c), section 501(d), or section 527. The Service issued Notice 88-120 to provide safe harbors for meeting the requirements of section 6113.

A fundraising solicitation means any solicitation of contributions or gifts made in written or printed form or by television, radio, or telephone. It does not include any letter or telephone call that is not part of a coordinated campaign soliciting more than 10 persons during a calendar year.

Ms. Ancel’s flyer was in clear violation of the IRS Code. But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, Y Downtown has violated the Code for years. Their Web site fails to warn potential donors that contributions are not tax deductible.

We at Politicus Machamux think that Ms. Ancel is on a slippery legal slope over on Old Hill. Perhaps the founders of Y Downtown can plead ignorance of the law, but we expect – and demand – more of our local officials.

Now that the Partrick Wetlands have been saved, the Partrick Wetland Preservation Fund is moving on. The group announced on January 8, 2008 that it is enlarging its focus. Because the Fund is now working to save open space throughout Westport, it is changing its name to the Partrick Open Space Alliance, or POSA. Unfortunately the new name sounds a lot like “poseur” when pronounced with a Boston accent. We at PM are even more amused by this New England homonym given that POSA Director Matthew Mandell is a graduate of Boston University.

Westport Now reported that Mathew Mandell and Sean Timmins will continue to lead the new group and this announcement surprised us. Both Mr. Mandell and Mr. Timmins are members of the Westport Representative Town Meeting. How can members of our local government run an environmental lobbying organization? Isn’t there a conflict of interest?

We’re confused. POSA is a lobbying group, right? At least that is what Mr. Mandell seems to say in his press release:

“For almost 7 years Sean and I have worked with the greater Westport community to not only save the Wetlands, but to forge new alliances and educate those looking to learn about the prevention of sprawl, the promotion of environmental advocacy and how grass roots groups can make a positive change,” said Mandell. “Our plan is to continue this effort.”

If POSA, or its predessor the Partrick Wetlands Preservation Fund, is a lobbying group, how can it be a 501(c)3 tax-deductible nonprofit organization (as it says at the bottom of the press release)? After all, the IRS does not allow political organizations to be nonprofit tax-deductible companies. A lobbying group must be incorporated as a 501(c)4 nonprofit company, which means that contributors cannot deduct donations from their taxes.

Oops. We hope this doesn’t cause problems for any hedge fund managers who may have donated to the PWPF over the years.