Process Matters: Why the Town Attorney Decision Should Concern Enfield Residents

This discussion is not about sour grapes over a town attorney losing his job. It is about process—and whether the Enfield Town Council remembers that it is a body of 11 elected members, not a ruling bloc where a simple majority can act unilaterally without regard for established procedure or respect for minority members.

Even when a majority has the votes, the process still matters. Consensus matters. Transparency matters. And following the rules—especially when taxpayer dollars and long-term legal representation are involved—is not optional.

An RFP (Request for Proposals) is not required to hire a town attorney. However, once the decision is made to use an RFP, there are rules that must be followed. The full council should have consensus before issuing it. In addition, the town charter requires that any RFP be reviewed and approved by the town attorney’s office before it is released. The RFP, once issued, must then be followed as written. If its terms are changed in any material way, the RFP must be re-issued so all respondents are treated fairly and equally.

That did not happen here.

The Timeline Raises Serious Questions

• November 4 – Municipal election
• November 10 – New Town Council sworn in
• November 17 – First regular and special Town Council meetings held
  • No mention on either agenda of issuing an RFP for Town Attorney
• November 19 – RFP for Town Attorney issued without prior public council discussion or council-wide consensus
• Following weeks – Responses received and interviews conducted
• February 2 – New town attorney hired
  • At the same meeting, the terms of payment were changed on the floor

That last point is critical. The compensation structure approved on February 2 was not the same as what appeared in the RFP. Once those terms were altered, the correct and ethical step would have been to issue an adjusted RFP reflecting the new conditions. That did not occur.

Why Institutional Knowledge Matters

This is not theoretical. Enfield has followed this process correctly before—twice in recent history.

• 2019 (Republican supermajority 8–3)
  • Town attorney stepped down
  • Full council discussion at a special meeting on November 18, 2019
  • RFP issued December 12, 2019
  • Entire council interviewed candidates
  • Entire council voted
• 2023 (Republican supermajority 7–4)
  • Town attorney stepped down
  • Interim town attorney appointed November 13, 2023
  • RFP discussed at special meeting December 4, 2023
  • RFP issued December 5, 2023

In both cases, the entire council was involved from start to finish. The process was deliberate, transparent, and respectful of all members—regardless of party.

This Is Bigger Than One Hire

The real concern is not who was hired. It is how the decision was made.

When a majority bypasses consensus, ignores charter requirements, changes material terms on the floor, and disregards established procedure, it undermines public trust and sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is the town attorney. Tomorrow it could be any major contract, appointment, or expenditure.

The Enfield Town Council exists to govern on behalf of all residents—not just those represented by the majority party. Process exists to protect fairness, accountability, and confidence in local government.

Respecting that process is not partisan.
It is the foundation of good governance.