Opinion: Still No Serious Analysis

The following open letter to the Fairfield Board of Selectmen is from resident Bud Morten:

To: Board of Selectmen July 8, 2022
Fr: Bud Morten
Re: Charter Revision

“One size fits all” and “Trust the experts,” says the Charter Revision Commission; So let’s cut the size of our RTM!

A week after the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) presented its conclusions to the Board of
Selectmen (BOS) with no clear (let alone, “compelling”) rationale for one its most important
recommendations, two of its members have tried to explain why we should reduce by 25 percent (from 40 to 30) the number of people who represent us on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).

For those who don’t want to read all of this long paper (much of which provides a summary of those two explanations) the bottom line is this: The CRC has still not provided any serious analysis that explains why it thinks the real benefits (if any) of cutting the size of our RTM outweigh any related costs and risks.

The CRC’s rationale for any major changes it recommends should be presented in the following nine steps: (1) SPECIFIC PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY BEING ADDRESSED — WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE? (2) PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE CHARTER. (3) EXPECTED BENEFITS. (4) ASSOCIATED COSTS AND/OR RISKS (INCLUDING POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE RISKS WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES). (5) OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS (INCLUDING THE STATUS QUO). (6) TRADE-OFFS. (7) RECOMMENDATION. (8) ANY KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND/OR KEY SUCCESS FACTORS UPON WHICH THE EXPECTED OUTCOME
DEPENDS. (9) DISSENTING OPINION(S).

Summaries of the Iacono and Wynne Memos

Most of a six-page memo 1 from Commissioner Iacono is dedicated to advocacy for a different form of government (Council-Manager) that the CRC considered and rejected. Most of a four-page memo from Commissioner Wynne is dedicated to describing his earlier experience with the Strategic Plan Committee (SPC). Here are the reasons they offered for reducing the size of the RTM:

The Iacono Memo

1. The CRC “settled on a smaller RTM as a compromise solution” when it failed to agree to change our entire governance structure from ‘BOS-RTM’ to ‘Council-Manager’ as recommended by the National Civic League, an organization which for many years has produced a guide to municipal governance called the “Model City Charter.” 2 Reducing the size of the RTM is therefore beneficial because it lays “a foundation for future consideration” of the Council form of government, and because “this small change is the start to getting there.” “The Model City Charter is worth paying attention to, and it’s important for the Town to deliver governance that is accountable, responsive, practical, and efficient. A smaller RTM is a step in that direction.”

1 For copies of the Iacono and Wynne memos, see pages 297 and 310 at this link:
07-11-22_Backup_for_BOS_Special_Mtg.pdf (fairfieldct.org)
2 Model City Charter - 9th Edition | icma.org

2. The Model City Charter says nothing about the ideal size for an RTM or even for a city council, but it does express a preference for smaller versus larger “councils,” and based on this the CRC believes that “lowering the number of representatives on [Fairfield’s] RTM will . . . allow the membership to discharge their responsibilities more promptly and effectively and help avoid parochialism and ‘log-rolling’.”3 Also, although “the Charter does not call for the [Town] Administrator to report to the legislative body, it’s not a leap of faith to draw the conclusion that a smaller RTM affords the opportunity to have a more meaningful relationships [sic] collectively with management.”

3. “Most residents do not know who their RTM representatives are, they don’t know they have four of them, they don’t tend to know their district number, let alone that we have 10 of them, and they therefore don’t necessarily know we have a 40 member RTM or why. Most don’t even know what ‘RTM’ means. What they do tend to know is the one RTM Rep in their district that is the most vocal, the one that answered a phone call for a constituent, the one who is a leader, the one who is most engaged in the community overall. That’s not 40 members, it’s about a dozen or less. That small group is the one ‘getting the job done’ which supports the Model City Charter finding that smaller legislative bodies are more ‘effective instruments for the development of programs and conduct of municipal business.’ During the June RTM committee meeting there were 14 items on the agenda, 8 representatives spoke to the items, eight. Eight out of forty. That’s typical.” In addition, three representatives per district are now enough because better technology makes it easier to resolve constituent issues, and having more representatives is bad because it “spreads out” and “dilutes” their accountability.

4. Since there are “literally hundreds of citizens serving on other elected and appointed boards and commissions . . . we have a representative government in Fairfield in so many shapes and forms . . . [and thus] “the claim that a smaller RTM is undemocratic simply has no merit,” and moreover, “that philosophy conflicts with the Model City Charter, the desire for professional management [and] the anecdotal experience.”

5. Finally, “what we are looking to achieve at the legislative level is better accountability which will lead to better governance as we look to be as the Model City Charter says, ‘practical and efficient,’” and “a reduction in the size of the RTM is forward thinking and meets the best needs of a municipality of our size.”

The Wynne Memo

1. When the Strategic Plan Committee was gathering information, “some town leaders (in confidential interviews) indicated that our governance structure and execution may not be best serving the Town. In particular, of all government bodies, the RTM was highlighted as bloated, inefficient and not effectively representing the people in each district.” Also, “the majority and minority leaders of the RTM, in their Subject Matter Expert workshop on Governance, both agreed that the RTM was not working effectively and a change was needed.”

2. The CRC concluded that “our current government, particularly the RTM is not working well,” and one “suggestion was to lower the RTM to 20 members,” but in order to gain unanimous support we had to compromise on a lesser reduction to 30.

3 Logrolling is the trading of favors, or quid pro quo, such as vote trading by legislative members to obtain passage of actions of interest to each legislative member. [en.wikipedia.org]

3. “The accountability of this important legislative function” will improve, and improved accountability will “foster trust and therefore relationships, leading to better outcomes,” and it will also encourage “ownership of decisions in order to avoid costly mistakes.”

4. “It moves the legislative body of the Town closer to one that works best with a form of government which has been recommended as the preferred and most populous [sic] form of U.S. municipal government today.”

5. “It lessens the proclivity of some to avoid active participation and simply vote with their party and ‘hide in the crowd,’ rather than encouraging involved impassioned people to serve.”

6. Finally, some people have said “that moving from 40 to 30 will cause us significant hardship in our ability to lead and represent our constituents.” However, “the same argument was made when the RTM moved from 50 to 40 . . . but after the change was made “we did not hear word one about how the fears came to be” and “the same will be true of this change.”

Critical Summary of the Iacono and Wynne Memos

In critical summary, the CRC seems to be saying that a smaller RTM will be better for us because:
 We Commissioners say so, or at least some of us say so, maybe even most of us say so.
 Some anonymous town leaders told the SPC a few years ago that the RTM is bloated and inefficient.
 National experts say so, or at least we interpret them as saying so if we pretend their comments
about Town Councils also apply to RTMs, which admittedly they don’t actually talk about.
 We should adopt the Council-Manager form of government like most other towns (“one size fits all,” right?) and reducing the size of the RTM is a step towards this objective, even though we couldn’t all agree that a Council-Manager form would actually be good for Fairfield.
 For some reason, more residents will now know who their reps are, how many reps they have in
their district, how many RTM districts there are, how many total reps there are, and what “RTM”
means, and all this is really important for some reason.
 Less than a dozen of the 40 RTM reps does all the work, so ten deadbeats won’t be missed.
 Although we can’t explain exactly how, and although we can’t offer any specific examples of bad outcomes in the past or in the future that could be directly attributed to having 40 instead of 30 RTM members, we are sure that Fairfield’s governance will be more accountable, responsive,
practical, and efficient, and as everyone knows, legislative efficiency (“able to discharge its responsibilities promptly”) is always a good thing, right?
 Cutting the RTM’s size from 50 to 40 didn’t hurt, so another cut won’t hurt.
 Concentrating legislative power in fewer hands is also always a good thing, right?
 Our governance system is already democratic enough, so no worries about the size of the RTM.
 There are no related costs or risks that anyone should worry about. Everything will be better,
modernized, streamlined, more efficient, more transparent, more accountable, more accessible. No more parochialism and logrolling (who knew?). Nothing will go wrong. We know best. Trust us.

What Questions Should the BOS Ask the CRC?
Any proposal to alter a governance system that has served Fairfield well for so many years should be subject to a very high standard of analysis and conviction that the expected benefits are real and will significantly outweigh any costs and risks, both direct and indirect, tangible and intangible.

Here are some general questions that deserve serious and thoughtful answers in writing from the CRC.
 How exactly should we evaluate the performance of our governance system – in what ways is it
working well and/or poorly, and how should we decide whether any major changes are warranted?
 How confident can we be that the opinions of governance “experts” and of publications like the
Model City Charter apply to Fairfield, which like every other town is unique, including for us a 383-year history?
 Irrespective of any similarities in size or location, how confident can we be that the experience of other towns with different governance structures would apply to Fairfield? And, how do we know if some if not many of the towns that have adopted the Council-Manager structure would do no worse and might do much better if they could adopt our BOS-RTM structure?
 Since you state in your transmittal letter that “the issue of the form of government should be looked at by a multi-partisan group, outside the context of the time-frame of a Charter Revision” that has “sufficient time to carefully study whether there are disadvantages in the current structure [and] decide on what changes would improve the town,” why would we go ahead and reduce the size of the RTM before that group does its analysis?

Here are some questions specifically about the proposed reduction in the size of the RTM:
 When in the past did Fairfield end up with a bad outcome (i.e., a “costly mistake” that is
demonstrably and materially not in the best interests of the Town) that was directly attributable to the fact that we had 40 RTM representatives instead of 30, and under what future conditions and circumstances might we have a bad outcome for the Town if we have 40 instead of 30 members?
 What benefits would a reduction in the size of the RTM provide that cannot be obtained without
that reduction? For example, are any perceived problems with the RTM’s performance more likely
attributable to a lack of adequate staff and legal support?
 Why would ten fewer representatives be able to “manage increasing complexities and risks” better than 40 representatives?
 Why isn’t it likely that having only 30 instead of 40 representatives looking over budgets, proposals and plans will increase the probability of serious mistakes?
 What compelling evidence from other towns demonstrates that more-concentrated power works better than less-concentrated power?
 What are the potential costs and risks and unintended consequences of concentrating legislative
power in the hands of fewer people, including:
 Civic Culture – Doesn’t the fact that more rather than fewer elected officials are responsible for
Fairfield’s legislative decisions mean that there are many more citizens, both currently in office
and previously in office, who are empowered and enfranchised by their knowledge of how our
Town’s government works to engage in and contribute to public debate on important issues
than there would be otherwise?
 Public Access – Doesn’t having more elected officials provide greater access by all citizens to
their government, and wouldn’t having fewer elected officials result in greater general
disengagement from issues important to the Town’s future?

 Transparency – Isn’t it easier to restrict public knowledge when there are fewer elected officials
rather than when there are more, and isn’t this particularly true at a time when the quality and
quantity of local news coverage have been so greatly diminished?
 Corruption – Isn’t it easier for bad things to happen when there are fewer elected officials,
including backroom deals and compromises that are not in the best interests of the Town?
 Domination – Isn’t it more likely that one political party or one section of Town could dominate
local government and stifle debate if we reduce the number of elected officials?
 Tribalism and Partisanship – What effect would reducing the number of elected officials have on the tendency of some citizens to become overly partisan?

As I have stated previously:
The most important flaw in the CRC’s proceedings has been their presumption that if the six of them agree and if they think they can get public approval, there is no need for any analysis of all the expected benefits, costs, risks and tradeoffs associated with their recommendations. However, the purpose of the CRC was not to get these six people to agree on what should be changed; the purpose was to have them analyze whether any changes in our governance system would be beneficial and if so, to explain clearly to us the rationale for any recommendations.

The CRC has still not provided any serious analysis that explains why it thinks the real benefits (if any) of cutting the size of our RTM outweigh any related costs and risks.

Bud Morten
July 8, 2022