Letter To The Editor: Faulty And/Or Unsubstantiated Rationales

The following open letter to the Fairfield Charter Revision Commission and the Board of Selectpersons is by resident Patrick C. Burhenne:

To the CRC (and the BOS):

I am alarmed by the document released by the CRC to justify its recommendation “Move the RTM to 30 Members” (7/28/22) in the face of overwhelming public opposition, as evidenced by residents’ comments at public hearings. Worse yet, I find the rationales given to be faulty and/or unsubstantiated.

IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY
The CRC has given no data or argument to assert “less RTM members will result in more focus on individual views and … votes, … ownership and accountability” except to cite increased attendance during the first 6 years of a 40 member RTM compared to the last 6 years of a 50 member RTM. I can just as easily posit that dereliction by and the behavior of the executive BOS (the fill pile fiasco and the shameful manner of Annette Jacobson’s removal) in the past 6 years compelled members to be more involved. One explanation is as valid or unfair as the other, given the very limited analysis.

IMPROVED RELATIONSHIPS AND BETTER OUTCOMES
The CRC has made no case whatsoever that a reduction of a group correlates to increased cooperation. Two obstinate people of opposing views alone in a room will never agree. Add two more and perhaps cooler heads can mediate. No data or reason has been given to support 30 members as a more optimal number than 40. The reduction could actually exacerbate partisanship. What cannot be argued is that this reduction would decrease the body’s ability to reflect the diverse makeup and opinions of the Fairfield community.

IMPROVED QUALITY OF MEMBERS
The CRC acknowledges the need to attract more citizens to run for the RTM but its solution is to decrease membership, thus increasing the workload of each representative by 1/3, this for people who are unpaid. How can the CRC possibly argue this will increase participation?

A STEPPING STONE TO A MORE EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT MODEL
I am troubled by this section’s opening line that “It was evident the CRC could not convince the TOF that a more effective government should be considered.” The statement suggests the commission was biased toward a change before it ever solicited public comment and it seems that bias is impervious to the will of the people it serves. The CRC proposed a change, it explored the options and the vast majority of Fairfielders who commented rejected the proposal. That should be the end of this particular issue. Why this “tinkering” with the legislative body after the public has said not to? When the CRC states, “So to move in this direction (by reducing the RTM) will help future commissions see the benefits of smaller legislative bodies”, it is hard not to read that as, “We know best and will show you that you are wrong.”

By the way, the citations might be more persuasive if the CRC provided the page numbers for the data that underpins its assertions.

NO DIMINUTION OF LEGISLATIVE RESULTS.
The previous reduction of the RTM from 50 to 40 is no justification for the proposed move to 30 for the fact that the earlier change was made by the body itself, this after polling its member and drawing upon its own experience of what was necessary and best to serve the community. The CRC has presented no such polling of the public officials most suited to advise it, and is ignoring the majority of past and present members who spoke in opposition to this.

IN TODAY’S WORLD WE DON’T NEED 40 MEMBERS
For the same reason as above, this is a claim without substantiation. What does the RTM say about this,the people best qualified to voice an opinion. Furthermore, I think it foolish to compare RTM members, unpaid volunteers, to state and federal legislators, full-time salaried officials with much greater institutional support.

INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF CIVIC MINDED INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON OTHER BOARDS
As stated in “Improved Quality of Members”, increasing the workload of unpaid RTM positions is a poor plan to increase participation in public affairs.

FOLLOWING LEADING PRACTICES
Any comparison to municipalities with a town council/mayor structure became meaningless once opposition convinced the CRC to not suggest a change from Fairfield’s RTM system. Much more pertinent are the examples of Greenwich, Darien and Westport, coastal communities that more closely resemble our own in makeup and concerns. All three are flourishing under the RTM system. And in comparison with these bodies, our 40-member RTM is already “a smaller legislative body”.

CONS
Since this section is not the more traditional discussion of the drawbacks of the CRC’s proposal but rather a list of the obstacles which it sees to the proposal’s implementation, I will only speak to the problematic and potential illegal statement, “it would be incumbent on the BOS to provide significant, effective education and explanation of this improvement to alleviate fears.”

1) The CRC took every opportunity to “educate” the public and the majority of the public said “No.”

2) The BOS, the executive branch of town government, has no business trying to change the makeup of the coequal legislative branch meant to counterbalance its influence.

3) An “education” campaign before an election is an angel hair’s width from a persuasion campaign. As a governmental entity, the BOS is, I believe, legally prohibited and certainly ethically discouraged in our democracy from advocating for a specific end in an election. Government is the servant of the people, not an instructor nudging the public to the “right” decision.

For all these reasons, I believe the CRC has presented no compelling data or reasoning to justify its recommendation.

Patrick C. Burhenne
Fairfield, CT