Letter To The Editor: Charter Revision Timeframe 'Compressed'

The following is an open letter by resident Kathryn Braun to the Fairfield Board of Selectpersons:

To: Board of Selectpersons
Re: Fairfield Town Charter Revision - Meeting on 8/11/22 at 4pm

Please supplement my 8/3/22 comments with this update:

I. TIMEFRAME

The compressed timeframe has been a major issue throughout the Charter revision process. I would like to highlight the 2 remaining timeframe issues:

A. the BOS need not vote today- You have until Friday 8/19/22 to vote on accepting or rejecting any individual changes proposed by the CRC.

After my last email, the official CRC final report was transmitted to the BOS, on 8/5/22, which means you have 15 days by law, until Friday 8/19/22 to actually vote on those changes you accept or reject. I only see today's meeting scheduled and I request that today NOT be your final vote as you still have a whole week to enable the vacationing public to return and become engaged and weigh in on proposed changes.

This process has already been needlessly compressed by over 50 percent of the timeframe the statute allows. Please put the time and effort into this last step to fully review the proposed changes in detail, and enable more public comment after today's meeting, so you can make well informed and thoughtful decisions on what the ballot questions should be.

B. The questions can be put on either the Nov 2022 or Nov 2023 ballot- you can and should put this on the local election in 2023.

The law anticipates a 3-year timeframe for the entire process, which unfortunately was not utilized resulting in much controversy and lack of support for changes to the form of government which the CRC didn't have time to fully evaluate.

The entire process was rushed and compressed to squeeze it into the State/Federal election in 2022, but you still have the ability to put this on the 2023 local election.

I have re-watched your 8/30/21 meeting and re-reviewed the presentation materials about the charter revision process, which is spelled out in State law. Apparently the BOS itself was not informed of the applicable timeframes when it met on 8/30/21 to establish the CRC- it was not informed, nor was it put into the presentation, that the CRC could have had 16 months to do its major work (extending to Jan 2023 rather than May-June 2022) and that the BOS would have 15 months to put final changes on the ballot (which now extends to the 11/7/2023 election date).

Please do not continue this compression of the statutory timeframe: you can still put these local Town Charter questions on the local ballot in November 2023, where they belong. Our candidates running for state and federal office deserve our full attention and our Voters should have that time that could have been, but wasn't provided in the process thus far.

II. SEPARATE QUESTIONS

I repeat and supplement comments from my 8/3/22 email below - proposed changes that are either significant changes from the existing Charter or are controversial, should be put on as separate ballot questions for our Voters to be able to consider separately, as per the advise of special counsel, and in respect for the voters. This will also minimize the possibility of voters rejecting the entire charter revision if certain changes are not desired, if there is only one question.

The State law is very specific and full of expansive timeframes and review phases for good reason- to ensure transparency, public engagement and accountability- these are also the goals stated by the CRC in this process.

I ask that the BOS take extra care to make up for the previously compressed timeframe to correct the perception of rushing and lack of outreach, and take all the time possible at this last, critically important phase. As your counsel says, our Town Charter is our Constitution. It, and all our Town residents deserve thoughtful consideration of both substantive changes and a following a rational, open and fair process.

1.Cutting the RTM cap from 56 to 40 - the proposed reduction in the RTM's maximum size should simply be dropped because the case has not been made to shrink the legislative branch of our Town government at all.

While it is a relief that the CRC abandoned its more draconian cut to only 30 representatives, there is also no valid justification to cut the RTM's cap to 40. Reducing the cap by over 28 percent from 56 to 40 is not supported.

There has been no allegation or evidence that the RTM is not effective with the 56-representative cap remaining as it has been for decades. This is especially true since the RTM has already shown it can manage its own size as it has in the past, first to 50 and then to 40. The CRC has not made any allegation that the RTM's ability to manage its own size to a maximum of 56 is a problem.

The BOS can appoint an ad hoc committee to study changes in the form of government and the charter will undergo another revision (assuming the new change is approved by the voters) in 10 years. Those efforts could potentially lead to justification to change the form of government.

But simply slashing the legislative branch as a compromise because the mayor-manager-council model was rejected, is not logical. The RTM is not a town council and once that model was rejected, and the BOS-BOF-RTM model retained, then there was no reason to change the cap.

The CRC did not allege or provide evidence that the current cap of 56 or the former size of 50 or even that the current size of 40 was ineffective and unable to carry out its legislative role. Even if such a claim or evidence did exist, there was no evidence that the drastic measure of reducing the cap is the only solution- rather than say, improving recruitment of candidates, supplying a budget, support staff, research capability or its own counsel.

Further, by slashing the RTM’s maximum size it would prevent the RTM from restoring its size as it deems necessary or having the ability to use the extra 6 seats for at-large representatives. Many Town residents and former and current RTM representatives pointed out that size does matter, and larger size enables the RTM to perform its role better and provide better representation to the population in each district.

Finally, it would be an overreach of the executive branch of government for the BOS to put forth unwarranted changes disempowering the legislative branch of government. The legislative branch is a mandatory part of our Town government and provides a critical check and balance on the executive branch. The BOS should leave the RTM alone.

It is the BOS that must ensure that the recommended reduction was fully vetted out as being appropriate, and if not, then the question should not be put to the voters. Where, as here, there was no objective evidence of a problem with the cap being left at 56, then this cannot be put to the voters as the solution to a problem that does not exist.

Should the BOS decide to accept the CRC’s unsupported recommendation to shrink the cap on the RTM size by over 28 percent, then that should be put on the ballot as a separate ballot question.

2. Constables- the CRC has recommended that the number of constables be reduced from 7 to 4, and that these important public officials be appointed rather than elected. Both these changes make the position more politically influenced and jeopardize the independence of these valued officials. Please reject this recommended change.

This has not been a need demonstrated or proof that the reduction and conversion will solve any alleged problems. Certainly, if guidance or training is needed that can be provided. Demand for constables may have been affected by the pandemic and that is no reason to reduce the number of constables.

This is a significant change in this position and a controversial one. Voters should be able to separate this issue when they vote.

3. DPW Director- Please reject the CRC's recommended change to remove the requirement that this critically important official possess a professional engineering license. The technical and managerial expertise must reside within that same person who is ultimately accountable for the long-term infrastructure planning for our town. In this time of climate change, planning for both sustainability and resiliency, combined with increasing development pressure and our aging infrastructure, now is not the time to eliminate the expertise of the head of our largest town department.

Instead of lowering the standards of our current Charter, we should focus on recruiting a director who satisfies the current charter requirement to be a State-licensed engineer, which we have not had in about the past 3 years.

This is a significant change to a critically important position which will impact the future of our Town as it faces many challenges. This recommended change was opposed by many, and it should be put as a separate question to the voters.

4. Chief Administrative Officer- this position was created in January 2020 to assist the First Selectperson. It never never existed before that, and was never in our Town Charter. And it doesn't need to be added now, and should not be added in the way described.

If this position is to be added as a charter required position with the resulting permanent expense item, to help Town management, then it (a) should NOT be solely appointed by the First Selectperson, but by the BOS, (b) should NOT report solely to the First Selectperson, but to the BOS, (c) should be required to report regularly to the BOS and BOF.

Unfortunately these requirements were not put into this new position proposed as a new change to our Town Charter by the CRC, so all the BOS can do is accept or reject the change. I request that it be rejected as it is not needed- if this position is basically an assistant to the First Selectperson, then it can continue to exist as it started - through that office's normal hiring and budgeting process, without any Charter mandate.

Why burden the taxpayers with a new required position that never existed until 2020, is not needed as a Charter mandated job, and is not accountable to anyone but the First Selectperson?

If the BOS does accept this proposed change, then it should be put to the voters as a separate question.

Again, thanking you for the time you have spent and anticipating you will take due care and thoughtful consideration of the proposed changes and will employ a responsible and publicly engaging process going forward.

Sincerely,

Kathryn L. Braun
Fairfield Resident