Letter To The Editor: Put Controversial Changes As Separate Questions

The following open letter to the Fairfield Board of Selectmen is by Patch reader Kathryn Braun:

To: Board of Selectmen
Re: Charter Revision

I’m writing to request that you drop certain changes proposed by the CRC, and if you do accept them, that you place them as separate questions on the ballot.

Please follow the advice of CRC counsel, who has pointed out repeatedly during this process that the more substantial or controversial changes should be put to the voters as separate questions.

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%, 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.

Thank you for your consideration and the time you are spending on this most important of our Town's governing documents.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Braun
Fairfield Resident