Opinion: Serious Analysis Needed Before Changes To Fairfield's Charter

The following is an open letter to the Fairfield Charter Revision Commission from resident Bud Morten:

My responses to your request for public comment on the revisions you have proposed to the Town
Charter are as follows:

1. If you are seriously interested in public engagement and comment, it is not sufficient: (a) to
schedule a Public Hearing and assume people will somehow hear about it and, if they do, will have
time, on very short notice, to study the extensive changes you are proposing in a dense, 100-page
document; (b) to post the proposed new Charter on the Town’s website where all but the most
persistent residents will be not be able to find it; and then (c) to have the First Selectwoman’s Office send out, one day before the Public Hearing, a superficial summary of the proposed changes that minimizes some of the most important ones.

2. If you want the residents of Fairfield to take your work and recommendations seriously, you must provide serious analyses of the major changes you are proposing (e.g., shrinking the RTM from 40 to 30 members, mandating minority representation on the RTM, mandating joint budget hearings by the BOS and the BOF at which the First Selectperson will preside) within the following framework:

• SPECIFIC PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY BEING ADDRESSED — WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE?
• PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE CHARTER
• EXPECTED BENEFITS
• ASSOCIATED COSTS AND/OR RISKS (INCLUDING POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE RISKS WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES)
• OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS CONSIDERED (INCLUDING THE STATUS QUO)
• TRADE-OFFS
• RECOMMENDATION
• ANY KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND/OR KEY SUCCESS FACTORS UPON WHICH THE EXPECTED OUTCOME DEPENDS
• DISSENTING OPINION(S)

3. If you seriously want to inform and engage the public, one of the best ways to do so is by conducting a series of on-line surveys (now very easy to do using services like SurveyMonkey) that pose questions based on the background and analysis you provide of the pro’s and con’s associated with any possible major Charter revisions. Constructing such surveys would also help the CRC move beyond what to date has been primarily an exchange of personal opinions that has failed to address a number of legitimate public concerns about potential benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs.

4. Ultimately, the CRC must explain clearly to the public why any major revisions it recommends in our Charter would, on balance, be in the best interests of our unique, successful town based on
thoughtful analyses of all the related benefits, costs and risks — direct and indirect, tangible and
intangible.

Hopefully, the BOS will also expect no less from the CRC.