There are some members ... who are I think interested in litigating their point of view that offshore wind should just not exist in general. And the way they go about this is ... turning this effort into something that is not serious. Personally I just don’t want to lend my name to something that isn’t a serious discussion — this is a circus.”

John Bullard, Westport Planning Board

The planning board is mistaken in its very narrow interpretation ... Although we are very relieved to have been told by the Vineyard Offshore representatives that they intend to land cabling in New London as opposed to Westport, there are many other aspects of (offshore wind’s) massive and rapid industrialization of the ocean in close proximity to Westport that are of grave concern.”

Constance Gee, of the Westport Offshore Wind Advisory Committee, and founder of POWW, Protect Our Westport Waters

Just because there is not a project in front of us doesn’t mean there won’t be one in the future. We can still further the works of the committee (if we) meet on an as needed basis.”

Jake McGuigan, chairman of the Westport Offshore Wind Advisory Committee

A town board formed five months ago to monitor the potential impacts of offshore wind on Westport could soon go on an extended hiatus, or meet much less frequesntly. The reason? Changes in the industry and federal landscapes and concerns from some that some board members have strayed too far from the committee’s charge, turning the group’s discussions into what one called a “clown car.”

Late last month, planning board members voted unanimously to recommend to the select board that the newly-formed offshore wind advisory committee go into an extended or indefinite recess. In a letter after the vote, board members wrote that since there is no current plan to bring offshore wind power ashore in Westport, there is no need for the committee to continue to meet monthly, as it has done since December.

“With no current or near-future offshore wind projects in motion, it is recommended that ... the committee enter an indefinite hiatus.”

No plans?

The advisory committee was formed late last year after residents raised concerns that Vineyard Offshore had listed Westport as one of two possible landing sites for offshore cables from a wind farm it is proposing south of Nantucket. But in late February, company representatives appeared before the advisory committee and said there are no plans to route any cables through Westport, and they are instead focusing on New London, Ct. as a potential landing zone.

Even further, they said at that meeting, there is no guarantee that the project and other similar projects will continue in the short term, as federal policy changes may have an adverse impact on numerous wind projects across the country.

At the March planning board meeting, John Bullard, who represents the planning board on the advisory committee, said it’s clear to him that that there is no need for regular meetings, at least at the moment. He also called out members of the committee who he said have strayed from their charge by bringing up matters that do not directly impact Westport.

“It seems that in terms of ‘Will there be a project that impacts Westport in the foreseeable future?,’ the answer to that question is a pretty clear ‘No,’” he said.

Meanwhile, “there are some members ... who are I think interested in litigating their point of view that offshore wind should just not exist in general. And the way they go about this is ... turning this effort into something that is not serious.”

“Personally I just don’t want to lend my name to something that isn’t a serious discussion — this is a circus.”

Bullard said he considered resigning from the advisory committee, but later came to the conclusion that if the committee continues, “I’m not sure the planning board should participate anymore.”

“This person who continues to bring up opposition to offshore wind has said ‘I don’t trust the planning board, I don’t trust the committee, I don’t trust NOAA.’ She is only going to trust someone who agrees with her already-formed opinions on things. That’s not the way you do science. That’s a clown car.”

“I agree,” board member Robert Daylor added. “To have the committee to continue on these rants about offshore wind as a general idea, is totally opposite to what my thought of the original purpose of the committee was.”

Though they didn’t name her specifically, Bullard and Daylor were likely referring to Constance Gee, an at large advisory committee member who is the founder of Protect Our Westport Waters, an organization opposed to offshore wind development here.

In an email Monday encouraging POWW supporters to attend this week’s advisory committee meeting on Thursday, she wrote that “the planning board is mistaken in its very narrow interpretation” of the committee’s charter.

“Although we are very relieved to have been told by the Vineyard Offshore representatives that they intend to land cabling in New London as opposed to Westport, there are many other aspects of (offshore wind’s) massive and rapid industrialization of the ocean in close proximity to Westport that are of grave concern.”

In asking for POWW’s to advocate on behalf of the continuation of the advisory committee, “it was to the select board’s great credit that it formed” it, she wrote. “Surely we should not abandon this effort only a few months in.”

McGuigan speaks

For his part, Jake McGuigan, the chairman of the advisory committee, said Monday that while he doesn’t favor completely disbanding the committee, he sees the value in it and is not opposed to meeting on a less regular basis; perhaps quarterly or as needed.

“Just because there is not a project in front of us doesn’t mean there won’t be one in the future. We can still further the works of the committee (if we) meet on an as needed basis.”