BAD CHANGES

The Changes - Big Picture

Revisions can only be made to the Town Charter by a referendum vote and generally occur every ten years. That means that changes to the document should be well thought out, vetted, and made with the utmost of care.

Additionally, the Charter should only contain the simplest and most basic laws for how our Town government operates. Details on process or procedures or things that might need to be changed should be included in the Town Code, not the Town Charter.

To that end, the original intention of several of the Charter Revision Commission members was to simplify the charter and move portions to the Town Code where revisions can be made by the Representative Town Meeting. And yet the Charter has grown from seventy-one pages to almost one hundred pages and includes significantly more descriptive text, along with many significant changes. A redline version of the charter shows just how much change has been made:

Current Charter -2006.pdf

2006 Charter (current)

71 pages

Redline Proposed Charter.pdf

2022 Redline Version

Showing the Proposed Changes

Proposed Charter.pdf

2022 Proposed Charter

97 pages

1997 Charter.pdf

1997 Charter

52 pages

1986 Charter.pdf

1986 Charter

58 pages

If:

You struggle with understanding what these changes are;
You are concerned that a compressed timeline did not afford the Commission or the voters the time to review all of changes;
You'd like more time to better understand what all the changes are;
Think the Commission should have simplified, not complicated, the Charter;

...we ask you to please "Vote NO in NOvember" .

Read on for more specific details on some of the concerning revisions being proposed.

The Changes - the Details

While the ballot question may simply and innocently list changes, there are some significant and troubling revisions being proposed in this revised charter. The details on some of the more protested changes are listed below.

Please also visit our "Why NO" web page to read thoughtful statements from some voters on these changes.

Codify the Current 40-member RTM Districts

These proposed revisions restrict the power of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), the Town's legislative branch.

As the legislative body, the RTM currently can determine its own size and the number of districts it represents up to 56 members.

After attempts to eliminate the RTM altogether, and then to reduce its size to thirty, failed due to overwhelming public disapproval, the proposed revision now seeks to permanently cap RTM membership at 40. This would prevent the body from managing its own size as it has done from its inception. And not allow it to change the size of its membership should it decide larger or more robust representation is best for Fairfield.

This proposed change is NOT Good Government.

Codify the Positions of Town Administrator and Chief of Staff

The question seeks to add the executive level positions, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief of Staff to the Charter. These positions would be solely appointed by the First Selectperson. These positions do not exist in the current Charter.

If you vote yes on this question the First Selectperson will have the ability to hire two highly paid staff persons with no oversight or approval of the hires by the Board of Selectpersons or any other Town body. The bodies that approve the budget will no longer be able to eliminate these positions for poor performance, political favoritism, or budgetary reasons.

Additionally, the proposed Charter provides limited job qualifications and no job description for the Chief Administrative Officer. And no qualifications and no job description for the Chief of Staff. This means the First Selectperson could potentially hire a family member or a highly political person with limited to no experience to fill either of these positions.

The salaries of these positions, in addition to that of the First Selectman, total close to a half million dollars, with oversight limited to an election every four years.

Also note that the ballot question does not accurately state the position proposed to be added: the ballot question mistakenly asks the voter whether to add a Town Administrator to the Charter, not a Chief Administrative Officer. Click here for more information on the ballot question issue.

This is NOT Good Government.

Modify Residency and Certain Qualification Standards for Department Heads

Among the proposed multiple revisions affected by this change is the removal of the CT engineering license requirement for the Director of Public Works.

Demands of climate change on our coastal community will make engineering experience more, not less, important for this position. Removing the engineering license requirement increases the risk of a less qualified, but better politically connected, candidate being appointed.

Please read Fairfield resident Guy Gleysteen's letter on the proposed dropping of the engineering requirement.

"Streamline" the Budget and Contract Approval Procedures

It is the opinion of many currently involved in the budget process that the proposed revisions would congest, not streamline, the budget process or, worse, curtail vital debate.

The Board of Finance has been one of the most effective guardians of our Town’s interests. And yet this change will insert the First Selectperson into the Board of Finance's proceedings, as its presiding officer. Why should the First Selectperson preside over the budget meetings? This would either blunt the voices of these effective stewards or needlessly prolong meetings with contentious back and forth. The Board of Finance should be left alone to advocate for the best use of the tax payers' dollars as it has been doing for decades.

In addition, the revised budget process reduces the time the RTM has to review the budget after receiving from the Board of Finance; from 30 days down to 14 days. During this 14-day period, the RTM must not only interrogate the budget and question department heads, but must also receive public input (which usually consists of hundreds of emails), consider any potential appeals made and debate with each other. Clearly, not enough time has been given to the RTM to do its important job of being the last line of budgetary review for the people. Language changes to the RTM's power over the final budget also calls into question whether the RTM will be able to make line item reductions, but instead be restricted to an up or down vote.

The new "cooperation" language also risks undermining our checks and balances--separate bodies like the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, and RTM are not meant to work together but are instead tasked to interrogate decisions by other boards. The separation of powers that our system embodies is built on checks that necessarily require pushback and review across the different branches. Required cooperation mutes the very necessary push and pull between these separate bodies that is presumed to produce the best (and most vetted) outcomes.

The proposed changes to the budget process are NOT Good Government.

If you would like to read more about this issue, see Kathryn Braun's article on the negative impacts these changes will have on the appeals process, particularly for educational funding appeals.

Click here for Kathryn Braun's article, "BOE budget appeal restriction"

Click here for a detailed comparison of the current budget schedule to the proposed revised schedule.

Modify the Board of Selectperson Vacancy Process

This is a revision that was added in the last week of meetings of the Charter Revision Commission with language written by the Town Attorney. The public was never provided the opportunity to weigh in on these significant changes nor was the Commission provided the time to vet them properly.

In short, the proposed revision takes away the voters' right to vote on a replacement for the First Selectperson (or any Selectperson) should one of them resign in between municipal elections. The other two Selectpersons, or in some cases the Party, will have the sole authority to decide on the replacement and the voters will have to 'live with that choice' until the next municipal election.

For example, if the First Selectperson falls ill and resigns two weeks into their term, the other Selectpersons can appoint anyone they want to fill the vacancy so long as the person being appointed is registered with the same party as the resigning Selectperson. That new person would then be First Selectperson for almost two years. (Party registration is accomplished by filling out a simple form.)

State Statute allows for the voters to petition for a special election as does the current charter. The proposed new language takes that right away.

This is NOT Good Government.

Update and Expand Definitions

The current charter has four (4) simple definitions.

The proposed charter has twenty-seven (27) expanded definitions, some that are in direct conflict with each other and whose addition creates inconsistency, redundancy and confusion throughout the proposed charter. These revisions were supposed to simplify and make the charter easier to use and understand.

For example, do we need all five of these definitions?

(1) “Appointed Town Officer” means an employee who heads any Department in the Town, whether established by Charter or the Town Code; has the authority and qualifications set forth in §6.1 through §6.2; and, is directly accountable to the First Selectperson, unless otherwise set forth in this Charter.

(8) “Elected Town Officials” means an individual who holds an elected municipal office as set forth in §2.3.A, and as further set forth in this Charter.

(24) "Town Office" means any position in Town government which is described by this Charter or the Town Code except membership on the Representative Town Meeting.

(25) "Town Officer" means an individual elected or appointed to a Town Office, including any Appointed Town Officer whether established by this Charter or the Town Code, other than as a member of a Board or Commission.

(26) "Town Official" means any Town Officer and any member of a Board or Commission established by this Charter or the Town Code.

Shouldn't an Appointed Town Officer simply be a Town Officer whose appointed? Or an Elected Town Official be a Town Official that's elected?

Allow for Greater Competition in Board of Education Elections

This is a complicated issue. The intention of the CRC was to make for more competition in Board of Education elections when there are an even number of candidates on the ballot. The ballot question states that the proposed changes address that issue. The math and logic prove otherwise. Read on for more details on this challenging situation.

The Fairfield Board of Education (BOE) consists of nine members who serve for 4-year terms. There is a 5-seat cycle, followed two years later with a 4-seat cycle. In 2023, the town will have 5 seats up for election.

When Five Seats are Up

Current language: each major political party may nominate up to five individuals. So out of 10 possible candidates, five will be elected, with no more than three from one party. This approach ensures the greatest amount of competition and the most choice for Fairfield voters.

Charter revision: each major political party may nominate up to three individuals. So out of 6 possible candidates, five will be elected. This approach is far less competition and less choice for Fairfield voters.

Therefore, in 2023, when there will be 5 seats open, the charter revision would make the BOE elections less competitive. The redistricting narrative circulated to scare parents is completely false.

When Four Seats are Up

Current language: each major political party may nominate up to four individuals. So out of 8 possible candidates, two candidates from each party will be elected. The competition is within members of the same political party, vying for the two seats. But there IS competition, as was seen in the recent 2017 municipal election, when four Democrats competed for two spots.

Charter revision language: each major political party may nominate up to three individuals, for a total of 6 possible candidates from whom to choose. Assuming no third party candidate is on the ballot and is in the top four vote getters, the top four vote getters from the two major parties will be elected, although the majority-minority balance on the board may only be 6-3 at most (not 7-2 or 8-1). In theory, this creates incentive for a party looking to keep/take the majority on the board to nominate a full field of interested candidates. However, in looking back at the last municipal elections when majority-minority status was at stake (2009, 2011, 2015, 2019), NOT ONE ELECTION involved a full slate of candidates for both parties. For various reasons, having "majority status" factually did not incentivize the parties to field a full slate of candidates to provide maximum choice to Fairfield voters.

The revision would mean a reduction in this cycle from 8 possible candidates down to 6 possible candidates, meaning less choice for Fairfield voters.

The fact that the ballot question ITSELF - "Shall the Town of Fairfield Charter . . . (3) allow for greater competition in Board of Education elections . . .?" - is demonstrably FALSE calls into question whether the ballot question is legal.

The following chart shows the current and proposed.

Page updated

Report abuse