Opinion: RTM Traffic Camera Ordinance Passes with Bipartisan Support

The following opinion essay was written by RTM member Michelle McCabe (D-District 4):

When approached by Chief Kalamaras to consider the new opportunity provided by State statute to join the CT Department of Transportation’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Device program, I volunteered to be among the RTM members to spearhead the effort. Typically, when an ordinance is introduced by the Democratic caucus, leadership reaches out to the Republican caucus to see if any of their members are interested in joining us. I was thrilled that two Republican RTM members joined us as cosponsors and participated in the many conversations with the Administration and the Fairfield Police Department, reviewed the draft ordinance, and considered all of the information made available by the state and the data that exists on the efficacy of these cameras, all of which is online in the RTM back up documents.

The Opinion piece offered by fellow RTM member, Collin Colburn, is an egregious misrepresentation of the process by which this ordinance eventually passed. While I appreciate his dissatisfaction with the outcome, to chalk it up to some cabal of a supermajority without any care or interest in divergent opinions is completely belied by the discussion over these many months and by all of the votes last night.

The statement that “The Democratic supermajority pushed through an ordinance” is false – this ordinance was cosponsored by Republicans, and was vetted and considered over the course of four meetings as per our Rules to Regulate.

In December 2024, it was voted unanimously out of the Legislation and Administration Committee meeting with Republican Ken Astarita making the motion to move it to the floor. Republican Jeff Steele was absent.

In January 2025, it was presented and questions answered at the Committee meeting (Republicans Longo and Sparacino were absent) and the Regular meeting (Republicans Longo, Steele, Colburn and Sparacino were absent).

And again at both the Committee meeting and the Regular meeting this February.

Amendments were not proposed ahead of the final, Regular meeting with the exception of one that was withdrawn because it was prohibited by State Statute. They were not introduced for the purpose of discussion at the Committee meeting. Some of them were not even written at the time of the Regular meeting. Despite the fact that proposed amendments were not shared with the body ahead of time, some Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for the amendment to restrict cameras to school zones. Two Democrats voted against the ordinance and four out of eight Republicans present voted in favor of it.

The statement that this ordinance “effectively allows traffic cameras to eventually be placed throughout town" is categorically false. As explained over and over again at every meeting during which we considered this ordinance, there are strict limits as to where the cameras can go as determined by the State Department of Transportation (which has the final say) and requires an enormous amount of back up information to justify their usage. It is the responsibility of the Fairfield Traffic Authority to create the plan as to where to place the cameras AND HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS before the plan goes to the state for possible approval.

The statement that “the will of the majority was imposed without serious consideration for alternative perspectives” is false – people not agreeing with your amendments does not equate to a lack of serious consideration nor an imposition of will. Sometimes people simply don’t agree. In the case of the proposed amendments, the prevailing belief was to allow the experts on the Traffic Authority – the engineers, the Fairfield Police, the town planners, and appointed members of the public – to do their job and offer an informed plan based on evidence that they are required to collect and let the public weigh in during the hearing process. To repeat, some Democrats voted in favor of the amendments and against the ordinance; Republican Reps. Britton, Sparacino, McCloat, and Ludwiczak voted in favor of the ordinance.

Painting the picture of an ordinance pushed forward strictly by a super majority is a disservice not only to me and the other cosponsors of this ordinance who endeavored to bring thoughtful research and discussion to the floor for every meeting in the spirit of collaboration but also to your Republican colleagues who voted in favor.

Michelle McCabe, Fairfield RTM Representative, District 4