MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

The Unfortunate Result of a Rushed Process

A bad process imposed on Fairfield a substantial “opportunity cost” by denying us the potential benefits of what could and should have been accomplished in a far more open, bi-partisan, impartial, thoughtful, rigorous and unhurried review of possible changes to our Charter. By its own admission, the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) was not able to do its job, stating in its final report that it did not have “sufficient time to carefully study whether there are disadvantages in the current structure, decide on what changes would improve the town, and then gain the support for the changes from the Town political leadership and citizens.”

What Else the Commission Didn't Have Time For

Starting with Selectman Flynn at one of the first CRC meetings, elected and appointment officials, including those serving on the CRC, provided testimony as to what problems or issues they wanted the Commission to consider and address.   Members of the public testified as well. 

And yet many of these requests went unanswered or unaddressed, or had language thrown in at the last minute in an attempt to put a band-aid on the concern.  Several town bodies, like the Flood and Erosion Commission and the Fire Commission, had to beg for their suggested changes to be included in the CRC's recommendations at the June 2022 public comment session.  It is unclear why these suggested changes were ignored and had to be repeatedly requested; and were ultimately thrown into the recommendations at the last minute.

Some of the unaddressed issues include:

• Adding apolitical professional management that would remain across administrations 

• Providing the RTM, our legislative body, with impartial legal assistance and resources it needs to properly do its job - legislate (several RTM members)

• Providing clarification of the Board of Selectmen's role on salary increases for department heads and in the reorganization of government/departments (Selectman Tom Flynn)

• Considering a five-member Board of Selectmen

• Moving language out of the Charter and into the Town Code (via a sunset clause) to make it easier to change certain things and minimize the size of the Charter (Jay Gross, Commission member)

• Addressing diversity, equity and inclusion in a meaningful way (Selectwoman Nancy Lefkowitz)

• Addressing the filling of vacancies on the Board of Selectmen

• Reviewing whether the last change from a two year to a four year term for the Board of Selectmen was a good decision

• Put in checks and balances to minimize the chance that issues like the Fill Pile could happen again

Instead, hours were spent debating a change in the Town's form of government from a Representative Town Meeting to a Mayor-Council, a topic which was recommended for years-long study just months before by the Town's Strategic Plan Committee.

Penfield and the Fill Pile are two of the most significant failures the town has suffered from in recent memory.  These costly debacles stem largely from excessive executive authority, lack of sufficient oversight, and a breakdown of checks and balances that should have existed to prevent these disasters.  Charter review would have been the ideal time to craft stronger oversight and stronger checks and balances to prevent these failures from occurring again. 

Penfield Pavilion will soon be rebuilt for the third time.  Nothing has changed about the building process; the same rules are in place that enabled serious engineering flaws and regulatory mistakes.  The suggested charter revision to remove the DPW Director’s engineering credentials is especially ironic in the context of these multiple engineering failures, costing the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars.  One would think the Town would require more engineering credentials, not less.

Another missed opportunity was the CRC’s failure to address the legislative branch’s (RTM’s) clear lack of resources and legal staff that disables the RTM from fulfilling its role as a check on executive power.  There seemed to be consensus at the board level that the RTM needed more help to do its important job, and yet, the CRC did not ensure resources or impartial legal counsel for the RTM.