Opinion: So Why The Rush?

The following is an open letter to the Fairfield Board of Selectmen from Laurene O'Brien:

To: Board of Selectman
Regarding: Shorten the time for Fairfield charter review and potential revision
From: Laurene J. O’Brien, 22-year resident and former RTM member

Dear Board of Selectman,

Happy 4th of July! This is the time we celebrate the birth of this country, born because we
demanded fair representation in government. Refusing to accept the word of British politicians,
who insisted representation was adequate. Fairfield’s charter review and revision including
representation needs to be done thoroughly, completely and if necessary, using all the time
allotted. So why the rush?

I thank the Charter Revision Committee (CRC) for their many hours of work to review and reshape
our town charter. Unfortunately, the committee has inaccurately stated they have run out of time to fully explore all issues. Specifically, because an additional 8 months remain to complete the work correctly and on time. It its completely understandable if committee members are personally out of time to complete the task as charged. But they need to not shortchange the process and town, but rather professionally step down. Nowhere is it stated that the CRC review needs to be conducted only until the committee no longer can, or wants, to do the job. Nor are there requirements for recommendations to be complete to facilitate inclusion on the next election ballot this November.

I thank the CRC for their honest answers to the public’s inquiries. The CRC makes multiple
recommendations to change Fairfield’s Town Charter, including a 46 percent reduction in the maximum size of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). When asked why, the CRC’s perplexing answer was “... it would allow for more intimate discussions and streamlining of the RTM...”? While honest, that answer is extremely concerning and an ineffective attempt to legitimize pernicious changes recommended by the CRC. Most significantly because ‘intimate & streamline’ are in direct contrast to the basic design of Representative town meetings functioning largely the same as open town meetings.

How do the citizens of Fairfield specifically benefit from the following recommendations?

• Why would we ever want to have a less qualified DPW director?
• How does the town benefit from the recommendation to make it the sole responsibility of
the First Selectperson to have complete authority over the Chief Administrative Officer or
be given the deciding voice for all mediation and dispute resolution among all town bodies?
• Why recommend a 46 percent reduction in RTM maximum size, per the charter? When RTM size
reduction has not been requested by any individual or group not in town government.
• Why further usurp a fundamental function of the RTM, by giving fiscal oversight of Board of
Education contracts of $100,000 to the Board of Selectman? It is simply not necessary and
erodes the very form of government our town is based on.

While the RTM and First Selectperson roles do not specify any minimal education requirements.
Why as a town would we ever want to hire a less qualified DPW director, by removing the
state licensed engineer requirement? The DPW director is a highly specialized position that
oversees the ‘engineering’ of our continually growing town. A temporary DPW Director, who is not a state licensed engineer has lingered in that role for 18+ months, because a qualified replacement cannot be found? So, why haven’t we used a recruiter, as Fairfield has repeatedly and very successfully done for previous Board of Education Director searches? Surely with proper executive search assistance, Fairfield can find a qualified state licensed engineer who would find the career opportunity and living in Fairfield incredibly attractive.

Keeping town departments independent provides checks and balances required for good
government. Fairfield’s charter has worked well to facilitate a long-established and balanced town government, based on the time tested ‘Representative Town Meeting’, a New England form of town government dating back to colonial era representation needs. The design of Representative Town Meeting is to be inclusionary, not exclusionary. The CRC is recommending concerning changes and unwarranted oversight. The suggestion of merging town departments and their respective roles, shows a complete disregard for the distinct missions and procedures of each separate department. It appears the only purpose of some proposed charter changes are to
reshape the role and powers of the First Selectperson. Exactly how does the town benefit from
such consolidations?

Where is the town benefit in a 70 percent reduction in RTM maximum size? People want more
accessible government representation. Given that the RTM Rep positions are unpaid and that our
town is constantly growing, more citizens require more representation, not less. Especially given
that RTM Reps are a benefit to the taxpayers, at no cost. Why would Fairfield want to offer 75 to
87 percent LESS per capita representation than the surrounding towns of Darien, Greenwich, or
Westport?

• Greenwich population 64,000, 12 districts, 230 RTM Reps, 276 constituents/ Rep
• Fairfield population 62,000, 10 districts, 30 RTM Reps, 2,065 constituents/ Rep*
(* if the 70 percent deduction in RTM max size, per the town charter, is adopted)

Lack of government representation led to this country’s revolutionary war, ending monarchic rule
and feudalism. In 1765 an assessment of the British government was that "taxation without
representation is tyranny". Ridiculously and unsuccessfully the British parliament countered,
stating colonists had representation even though they could not vote. To justify that rationale and
the Stamp Act, Parliament created the doctrine of ‘virtual representation’. That doctrine was just as deceptive and thinly veiled, as the CRC’s justification that RTM size reduction by 46 percent, “... will streamline the RTM and allow for smaller more intimate discussions”. Both justifications are poor and insidious. Again, the basic design of Representative Town Meetings is to function largely as open town meetings, not to be small, selective, or intimate.

Smaller equals less representation for the needs of our ever-growing town population. If the less
educated and less politically aware people in 1765, did not buy the visual representation doctrine,
why would the CRC think whitewashing a 46 percent cut to the RTM with extremely broad strokes would
work today?

CRC members have self admittedly identified that they have not reviewed everything,
because they have personally run out of time. As such they should professionally step down, not
shortchange the process and in turn our town. Fairfield is a town of 62,000, comprised of a richly
diverse and eclectic population of professional, bright, educated, smart citizens, and many very
capable volunteers. I’m confident transitioning to new, fresh committee members will finish the job thoroughly, using all the allotted time available, to do so correctly, while allowing those CRC
members that are out of time to return to their busy lives. I cannot imagine anyone in Fairfield
wants the timeline for this committee’s work to be shortened or for the work to be done in anyway
less than completely or in the best interest of our town. Nor would it be acceptable for the
committee’s work to end prematurely, or for the work to not be thoroughly completed because
project focus improperly shifted, specifically to ensure this referendum gets on the ballot this
November. Those are not the charges of the CRC.

The charter revision review needs to be done correctly, completely and in the best interest of the
town of Fairfield. I implore those with the ability to vote on our charter revision to do the right thing for the town and its citizens. Please only vote to approve recommendations that have been completely reviewed and that result in direct benefits for the town of Fairfield and not only to benefit a single individual or group.

Respectfully submitted by,

Laurene O’Brien
20+ year Fairfield resident & former RTM member