Letter To The Editor: Omit The Controversial RTM Size Reduction

The following is an open letter to the Fairfield Charter Revision Commission and the Board of Selectpersons from resident Kathryn L. Braun:

To the Charter Revision Commission
Cc: Board of Selectmen

I reiterate and expand on a few points from my prior emails and letters:

1. Timeframe/RTM size issue- The timeframe need not be further compressed. Despite the compression so far of over 8 months from the legally allowed timeframe, the BOS can still keep its options open to pick which election the questions should go to voters on- November 7, 2023 or November 8, 2022.

All it has to do is not vote on the final changes until after August 7, 2022 (15 months before the 2023 election) but before September 8, 2022 (60 days before the 2022 election). The BOS can decide in late August which election to choose.

Or as an option, the CRC and/or the BOS can simply drop the RTM size as a proposed charter change- the RTM size is the change most linked to the 7-months shortened timeframe the CRC was told it had.

The law allows a period of almost 3 years, encompassing 2 elections, for good reason, but the BOS was not informed of that when it set up the CRC at the BOS August 30, 2021 meeting. That possibly lead to failing to put the CRC timeframe into a resolution as required by law.

I do not believe the BOS' 'ratifying resolution' inserted into the 24 questions resolution on July 12, 2022 fixes that problem. Without the BOS being fully informed of the applicable timeframes, the options available or having any discussion or vote, I don't believe the 'intent' of the BOS can be implied 10 months later to fix the original flawed CRC charging resolution.

This is not a trivial matter. CRC members told the BOS they ran out of time to fully explore or have enough public outreach to recommend changing government structure from the BOS-BOF-RTM form to a Mayor-Manager-Council model.

That lack of time led to the CRC’s rejection of the change in form of government and to a non-unanimous ‘compromise’ to cut the RTM size as an "incremental" approach to the rejected model.

Why not keep our options open and allow the vacationing public to return and engage, and give yourselves more time to ensure the document is internally consistent? Or better yet- omit the controversial RTM size reduction as a proposed change completely. The issue of government structure obviously needed more time than was allotted here.

2. RTM size- the RTM is a separate branch of government. It is not analogous to boards and commissions which have 5-9 members. The RTM is a geographic district based body, with its members representing neighborhoods. There are 5 standing committees along with other committees along with drafting and passing ordinances, the budget, capital spending and other matters.

Attendance at RTM meetings alone is not a measure of effectiveness. We have been in a pandemic for much of the past 2 years. Saying it ‘won’t hurt’ to shrink the RTM is not justification. It’s too late now to come up with added justification.

Stating that only a small percent of the nation uses RTMs any more is irrelevant-the CRC rejected that change and so our Town Charter will retain our RTM. Once that decision was made, the comparisons to city-mayor-manager-town council models don't apply.

It appears that the number ‘30’ was arrived at by a compromise when the CRC ran out of time to fully justify the mayor-manager-council model. But it is apples and oranges- we don’t just pick a smaller RTM to make it look like a Town Council but not actually be a Town Council, which has different powers and is part of a different model.

Once the Town Council model was rejected and we keep the RTM then the larger RTM size is appropriate and necessary- our RTM is the smallest in the State per capita. Shrinking it further, especially without providing any budget or legal support, is likely to cause it to become less effective and more partisan.

The RTM should be allowed to continue to manage its own size up to its current cap of 56. It has done so very rarely in the past without any harm to our town.

3. Mediation & resolution clause- Carve out the RTM and all independent boards and commissions.

The proposed new charter provision in section 4.3 states that the First Selectperson “shall be responsible for the mediation and resolution of differences between Boards, Commissions, Departments and other public bodies within the Town government relating to an interpretation and/or coordination of Town policies and procedures.”

I understand that the word “resolution” will likely be removed from this added section. But the remaining word “mediation” is not acceptable either as it injects political influence and pressure into boards and commissions that are independent of the First Selectperson.

To the extent any portion of this is recommended, it should be the BOS, not just the First Selectperson, that would convene mediation sessions, but really the proper venue is the Court system.

The RTM itself must be carved out of this section- it is a separate branch of government completely. Similarly, commissions that carry out state law, whether elected or appointed- such as TPZ, ZBA, Conservation, and Board of Assessment Appeals- are completely independent bodies not subject to any public official’s power to convene mediation sessions.

The only ‘bodies’ that arguably might be subject to the First Selectperson’s power to convene mediation sessions might be task forces appointed solely by the First Selectperson or town departments reporting solely to the First Selectperson. That for example would leave out those Town departments that have dual reporting authority such as Zoning and Conservation which report also to their respective commissions.

4. Department of Public Works director must retain its current charter required professional credentials of having a state professional engineering license.

With the challenges we face at this point in history, we require professional expertise as well as management ability in the one person who is accountable for our infrastructure planning, climate change planning and public works projects. We will continue to have increasing development pressure to add density to our aging infrastructure.

The director must have the knowledge his or herself, not reliant on underlings to supply it, to be able to integrate multiple resources in both the planning and implementing of massive public works projects.

There has been no documented support for why the possession or expertise is a deficiency for our Town, or how the lack of that state license will improve the functioning of the DPW.

The claim that its hard to find someone qualified under our present charter is not justification we have not recruited a director in the past 3 years since the prior director left due t the fill pile scandal.

The fact that we have an engineering department does not answer the question either- what harm is there in requiring expertise in the director, who is the ultimate person accountable for our town's infrastructure?

It has been almost 3 years with our largest town department being headed by various interim management not qualified under the existing Charter. Instead of reducing our standards we should retain a recruiting company as we do for other directors, and find a candidate qualified under our current charter.

5. Questions for the voters-

a. only fully supported changes should go to the voters- the law requires a Charter Revision Commission be established and a very detailed and specific process with very long timeframes to enable proposed changes to be fully vetted out and not rushed, and to take input from all stakeholders, and so that voters can rely on the process when they go to vote.

Any changes that were not supported by a demonstrated need for change, with objective evidence that the proposed change will improve the deficiency, should NOT be put to the voters. The voters are supposed to rely on your collective decisions based on the evidence.

b. separate ballot questions for any controversial provisions, so that the voters can consider them separately from the more routine clarifying changes. If any of the following changes do get put to the voters, they should have their own separate ballot questions - RTM size, giving the First Selectperson power to mediate differences between town bodies, reducing qualifications for DPW director.

I do thank you for the time and attention you have collectively put into this process and believe if the above changes are made the revision will receive more positive support.

Sincerely,

Kathryn L. Braun
Fairfield Resident