Opinion: Speed Cameras Were Supposed to Come with a Public Hearing. What Happened to It?

Fairfield, CT - Since Fairfield's new speed cameras went live on May 1st, the Board of Selectpersons has received a lot of feedback.

Residents are emailing about tickets issued for driving at 32 miles an hour at 11 p.m. on weekends, holidays, and days when school wasn't in session. And with every comment, the same question comes up: When did residents have an opportunity to comment on the plan that was sent to the State Department of Transportation?

Subscribe

The answer, as best I can piece together, is they didn't.

To be clear: I'm not writing about whether Fairfield should have speed cameras. I agree they can be a legitimate safety tool near schools. My concern is about the gap between what residents were promised and what they received, and whether a process that skipped important steps should proceed without review.

Here's what the public was promised.

In January 2025, Representative Michele McCabe, a co-sponsor of the speed camera ordinance, addressed the RTM and explained how the process would work. After the RTM passed its ordinance, she said the Fairfield Traffic Authority would develop a specific implementation plan, which would include a public hearing. Representative McCabe went on to discuss the Traffic Authority not having carte blanche.

That's a specific promise: a hearing, a plan, a genuine chance for residents to weigh in on the details before anything was sent to the state for approval.

That's not what happened.

The Traffic Authority meeting at which the ATESD plan was presented on August 21, 2025, was characterized by the Chairman as a "non-voting courtesy item." There was no public hearing. The materials provided to Traffic Authority members and the public that day omitted the provision stating that enforcement would occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, language that was in the version submitted to the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

Additionally, no RTM agenda item in the ordinance adoption process used the words "speed camera" or "ATESD." Instead, the item was listed as, “To hear and consider amendments to the Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance.” A resident checking the RTM agendas to determine whether they wanted to share public comment would have had no way of knowing these meetings were relevant.

At a March 2025 Board of Selectpersons meeting, I asked then-First Selectman Bill Gerber directly whether the cameras would run only during school hours. He said enforcement would occur "during a band around school hours." No one suggested that around-the-clock enforcement was under consideration. The item on the agenda was listed under First Selectman Reports, a category that doesn't allow public comment. The meeting minutes reflect Mr. Gerber stating the signs would have flashing lights, which did not turn out to be the case in the final plan either.

I also want to acknowledge what was happening in town during this period, because context matters.

First Selectman Gerber, who had been the steadying hand on this process, was diagnosed with a brain tumor in July 2025 and passed away. An interim First Selectperson stepped in. The Police Chief retired, and a new Chief was sworn in. The application submitted to the state is dated August 8, 2025, in the middle of it all.

I don't believe anyone acted in bad faith. But in the press of those events, important procedural steps were missed, steps that exist precisely to protect the public's right to understand and comment on significant decisions.

Our town charter is clear on this. Section 5.3 requires that, “Any Town officer, board, or commission empowered to enact regulations under the provisions of the General Statutes or of the Charter shall hold at least one public hearing before the enactment of such regulations. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the time and place of such hearing, together with a copy of the proposed regulations, shall be published at least once, not more than 10 nor less than five days before the date set for such hearing.

When was that meeting held, and where were the full proposed regulations for the ATESD plan, including 24/7/365 enforcement, published? That's a legal question worth answering, especially because the version shown to the public in the Traffic Authority's backup materials omitted its most consequential operational detail. For me, this also raises concerns that the legal advice the police department, RTM, and the Traffic Authority received when preparing the application may not have aligned with state law requirements.

I've written to the Town Attorney and the Connecticut DOT to raise these concerns. CT DOT confirmed that the approved plan states continuous enforcement and noted that evaluating the adequacy of the local process falls outside their role. That responsibility lies with elected officials, so I've requested a formal legal review of whether the Town satisfied its notice and public hearing obligations and asked that the Town Attorney attend our next Board of Selectpersons meeting on June 23rd to discuss this.

We should also consider that the Town of Greenwich faced a similar situation. Greenwich paused its program after it was determined that the vendor's DOT application claimed the town had held two public hearings, which it hadn't. Subsequently, the First Selectman held a public hearing, and the Greenwich RTM has now scheduled a new meeting to consider the full plan, including all enforcement-hour details.

Fairfield residents deserve the same. In my experience, the best plans are those developed with public input, which builds trust and makes implementation smoother. It is not too late to make this right.

---
Brenda L. Kupchick is a Fairfield Selectwoman, former First Selectwoman, and former State Representative.