Opinion: Fairfield, We Deserve Better

The following opinion essay is by Fairfield resident Kathryn L. Braun:

We Deserve Better – BOS Should Delay Charter Revision Until Next Year

Fairfield’s citizens will not be allowed to vote separately on several important changes to our Town Charter, despite repeated promises that they would be, because on August 11th, in a party-line (2-1) vote, the Board of Selectpersons (BOS) chose to ignore ongoing public concerns about several of them.

Having severely compressed the charter-revision schedule, the BOS majority also compressed all the proposed changes into one very long, multipart, omnibus ballot question that does not even clearly state the changes being proposed and uses opinion language that arguably violates State law by promoting their approval.

I will be voting “NO in NOvember” and I urge everyone else who cares about our rights as citizens to vote “NO” also.

Why No Choice?

Why did the BOS majority reject voter choice after the charter revision attorney repeatedly advised that any controversial or significant changes should be assigned separate questions?

The reasons they cited at the August 11th meeting are not convincing.

· The first was that there isn’t enough space on the ballot, but a review of ballots statewide over the past five years shows that questions can be creatively located all over the front and back. In fact, in a sampling of 64 municipalities over the past five years, when other Connecticut towns have revised their charters, their citizens have considered, on average, 4.5 ballot different questions upon which to vote separately.

· The second was that voters would be confused if they were asked to vote on more than one question. Aside from the implicit insult to our intelligence, it is in fact less clear to combine everything into a single 110-word narrative than it would be to provide 4-5 short questions that describe each of the more significant changes being proposed.

· The third was that the changes are not significant or controversial. While it is true that the most draconian changes the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) considered (i.e., cutting the size of the RTM from 40 to 30 members and requiring minority representation), were dropped, that does not mean that some of the proposed other changes are not significant.

What Is Being Proposed?

The proposed revisions represent a global reorganization of the entire Charter, and at least 4-5 changes upon which public comments focused, including: reducing the maximum size of the RTM from 56 to 40 and stripping the RTM of its authority to determine its own size; reducing the professional standards for the Director of DPW; adding two new costly staff positions reporting solely to the First Selectperson; holding joint BOS and Board of Finance (BOF) budget meetings; reducing the number of constables from seven to four and converting them from elected to appointed positions; and adding new rules of cooperation and civility that some feel could be used to chill robust debate.

What’s Wrong with the Omnibus Question?

Aside from not splitting out the major changes, the omnibus question that was hurriedly approved by the BOS majority without scant opportunity for public comment is simply not well drafted, and would have benefited from more time and discussion about its wording, which includes unnecessary language that takes up space that could and should be used to describe better the changes that are being proposed.

For example, the ballot question starts with this clause: “Shall the Town of Fairfield Charter be reorganized to: (A) make it easier to use and understand.” This is not a description of a change that requires voter approval. Instead, it is an opinion that is close to a statement of advocacy, which is prohibited under State law which bans any advocacy by a town’s government in support of Charter revision questions.

What’s the Rush?

Unfortunately, the BOS majority refused to allow the public an adequate chance to weigh in before it approved the final Charter revisions or on how the ballot questions should be presented by forcing a vote on both matters on August 11th because, apparently, they had heard enough from the public. There was absolutely no need to rush this critical final phase.

The BOS had eight more days until August 19th to approve or reject the CRC’s proposed changes, and it still has until September 9th to submit the ballot question(s) to the Town Clerk for the 2022 election.

Instead of taking advantage of the legally allowed time, the BOS crammed both decisions into its August 11th meeting, forcing a vote on pre-drafted resolutions that approved the final CRC recommendations, and then another vote on a pre-drafted single, 110-word ballot question that was not even available until just before the meeting.

Moreover, the BOS could actually have an entire year to craft the ballot question(s) if it would simply allow them to go on the 2023 ballot, which is more appropriate because that is a municipal election year.

Haste Makes Waste

Unfortunately, an unexplained rush to get Charter revision on the November 2022 ballot undermined the integrity of the process from the start, and has tainted its outcome.

The BOS was not informed when it was asked to approve the process back in August 2021 that under State law it had three years to complete it, which would have placed any proposed changes on the 2023 ballot. The BOS was told only that a tight schedule had been created to allow the work to be completed in time for the 2022 ballot.

CRC members were then told they had only nine months (until May-June 2022), to complete their work, even though the law would have allowed 16 months (until January 2023).

Among other things, this tight schedule meant that the critical final phases in the process would take place when many Fairfield citizens were away on summer vacations.

And, when the CRC presented its initial recommendations to the BOS in June, several members said they had run out of time to explore and justify some of the changes they wanted to consider and that some of their proposals (e.g., cutting the size of the RTM to 30) were consequently not based on deliberate and thoughtful analysis, but instead on “compromises.”

Several proposed changes remain both controversial and significant and call out for individual questions. Instead, voters are left with a single, multi-part, 110-word question that in some cases fails to state the exact changes being proposed and minimizes them.

For example, the omnibus question uses the word “codified” when it really means “added” or “changed” from the current Charter. This obscures the crux of the change and voters aren’t told exactly what they’re voting on.

The RTM Debacle

The compression of the schedule affected the CRC’s ability to properly consider substantive changes and it resulted in hasty compromises that made no logical sense.

For example, the CRC initially considered changing our current BOS-RTM form of government to a Mayor-Council-Manager form, but without enough time to analyze all the ramifications and to generate support, they dropped the idea.

Then, as a compromise, but without any rational argument to support the reduction, they decided to cut the RTM from 40 to 30 members, an idea they also had to drop in response to massive public outcry.

And then, having failed to justify a reduction in its current size, the CRC decided to reduce its maximum size under the Charter from 56 to 40, thus stripping the RTM of its authority to determine its own size with no analysis whatsoever to support the need to do so.

Some see this change as an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion by the executive branch upon the legislative branch, which has historically managed its own size. After keeping its size at 50 for decades, several years ago the RTM used its discretion under the current Charter to reduce its size to 40, but it is possible that it could decide to increase its size in the future.

Accordingly, this proposed change is both significant and controversial.

Worse still, the single ballot question is misleading, stating only that the change would “codify the current forty-member RTM with ten districts” without mentioning that the change would also reduce the RTM’s maximum size by 28 percent from 56 to 40 and strip the RTM of its power to regulate its own size.

Another part of the RTM debacle is that, in their haste to push Charter revision onto the 2022 ballot, the BOS majority did not leave enough time for the RTM to use its statutory authority in the charter revision process to form a committee by ordinance, with people of diverse viewpoints, to develop an official explanation of pros and cons for each significant charter change.

The New Person Who May be Running Our Town

Two new executive-level positions are being added to the Charter, a “Chief Administrative Officer” (CAO) and a “Chief of Staff.” The CAO is an important change because this person could potentially be in charge of the day-to-day operations of municipal services in the same way the that the Superintendent of Schools (reporting to the Board of Education) is in charge of Fairfield’s public schools.

The approved ballot question says only that the new Charter will “codify the positions of Town Administrator and Chief of Staff,” which does not really describe the change.

In fairness to voters the question should say: “Add two (2) new positions, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief of Staff, which shall be hired by and report only to the First Selectperson.” This would properly inform voters that these two positions are new to our Charter and that they report only to the First Selectperson, rather than to the BOS.

If approved, these two positions would become expensive, mandated political appointees, with no direct oversight by other town bodies, positions which in the past the First Selectperson would have to get approved in the normal “give and take” of staffing and budget deliberations each year.

DPW Director No Longer a Professional Engineer?

The requisite professional qualifications of the Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW) are being degraded by removing the longstanding requirement that this person possess a State professional engineering license.

This important change is hidden in one clause of the approved 110-word ballot question: “modify residency and qualification standards for certain department heads.”

Diligent voters won’t find this change by carefully reading the new proposed Charter because it simply deletes this requirement. Many have objected to this change because this is a critically important department that is being relied upon to guide us through the challenges of our climate changing future, and thus the person accountable should possess both technical expertise and managerial skills.

Conclusions

As things stand now, thousands of voters have been left with one lengthy, poorly written question containing several significant and controversial changes to our Town Charter, and will unfortunately be forced to vote “NO” in November, thereby rejecting all the proposed changes, some of which they may otherwise support.

However, the BOS can still fix this problem by reverting to the 3-year process that is allowed by State law and simply defer the revisions from this year to next year’s ballot, where arguably they belong along with other municipal issues.

Doing so would also allow plenty of time for the BOS to properly redraft the questions, which wouldn’t need to be submitted until September 2023 for the 2023 election. Significant proposed changes could then be presented in separate questions, and the RTM would have time to use its statutory power to provide a clear explanation of the pros and cons on each question for the voters.

hat would be the best way to show respect for our citizens and to act in the best interests of our Town.