Fairfield Taxpayer: Is More Concentrated Political Power Better?

The Board of Selectmen has created a “Charter Review Commission” that is likely to recommend a major change in Fairfield’s governance structure that would concentrate the power of the town’s government in fewer hands by replacing the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance and the Representative Town Meeting with a mayor, a town council and perhaps a town manager.

A referendum on this proposal seems likely since three of the seven members of the new CRC are former leaders of the “Strategic Plan Committee,” which last year issued a 109-page report asserting that Fairfield needs “a streamlined government structure” in order “to manage increasing complexities and risks,” and that we should “transition the town governance structure from the current selectmen/Representative Town Meeting style of governance to an alternative form such as a town council/mayor or town council/manager form.” The report claims this new structure would produce: a more effective and efficient form of government; better cross-department and commission operations; simplified and consolidated control structures; simplified and clarified escalation and risk management; better access for town citizens to their government (one-stop shopping); and improved overall citizen satisfaction.

The overarching rationale for these claims was that: “Fairfield has a dated form of government with highly distributed responsibility for decision-making that exists in very few places, other than New England, and is on the decline even there” and “it’s very rare to see such highly distributed decision-making processes in towns of its size.”

Sounds great, right? But, let’s look more closely at these claims: (a) the SPC provided no analysis or empirical evidence to support any of these claimed benefits; (b) it gave no consideration to the potential costs and risks of concentrating political power; and (c) it failed to demonstrate that any of the means by which we might be able to improve the performance of our government is dependent upon changing our basic governance structure. For example, we do not have to eliminate the Board of Finance and the RTM in order to hire a highly qualified and professional town manager or to consolidate some of our many committees and commissions.

There is no question that having a three-person BOS, plus a nine-person BOF, plus a nine-person BOE, plus a 40-person RTM — 61 citizens in total — all jointly responsible for our spending and taxes — can make life difficult for any elected officials who are convinced they definitely know what is best for our town and should therefore not have to deal with “obstructionists.” But for many reasons, including the critical importance attached by our nation’s founders to the need for “checks and balances,” Fairfield Taxpayer urges everyone to remember that efficient government is always a good thing, but it should never be confused with efficient governance, which can be a very bad thing.

If and when you are asked to vote on eliminating our BOS, BOF and RTM in favor of entrusting power to a much smaller group of people, Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to demand good answers to these questions:

1. When in the past did Fairfield end up with a bad outcome (i.e., demonstrably and materially not in the best interests of the town) that was directly attributable to our governance structure?

2. What future conditions and circumstances would cause our current governance structure to produce a bad outcome?

3. What benefits would a change in our governance structure provide that cannot be obtained within our present structure?

4. Why would fewer elected leaders be able to “manage increasing complexities and risks” better than our present system does?

5. Isn’t it likely that having more rather than fewer elected officials looking over budgets, proposals and plans reduces the probability of serious mistakes?

6. Is there any compelling evidence from the experience of other towns that more-concentrated power works better than less-concentrated power?

7. What are the potential costs and risks of changing our governance structure and concentrating power in the hands of fewer people, including:

• Culture — Doesn’t the fact that many elected officials are responsible for Fairfield’s spending and taxes mean that there are many more citizens, both currently in office and previously in office, who are empowered and enfranchised by their knowledge of how our town’s government works to engage in and contribute to public debate on important issues than there would be otherwise?
• Access — Doesn’t having more elected officials provide greater access by all citizens to their government, and wouldn’t having fewer elected officials result in greater general disengagement from issues important to the town’s future?
• Transparency — Isn’t it easier to restrict public knowledge when there are fewer elected officials rather than when there are more, and isn’t this particularly true at a time when the quality and quantity of local news coverage have been so greatly diminished?
• Corruption — Isn’t it easier when there are fewer elected officials for bad things to happen, including backroom deals and compromises that are not in the best interests of the town?
• Domination — Isn’t it more likely that one political party or one section of town could dominate local government and stifle debate if we reduced the number of elected officials per capita?
• Tribalism and Partisanship — What effect would reducing the number of elected officials have on the tendency of some citizens to become overly partisan?
• Home Rule — Would we lose certain valuable rights and local autonomy under state law (e.g., how successors are chosen following resignations) if we abandoned our longstanding governance structure?

Perhaps representative democracy is inherently adversarial and inefficient for good reason?

Bud Morten

Fairfield Taxpayer

Fairfield Taxpayer is a non-partisan volunteer organization focused on public policy issues in Fairfield and Connecticut.