A FLAWED PROCESS

Rather than breaking out major changes into separate questions as most other Connecticut towns do, the Board of Selectmen voted to have a single, omnibus question, forcing residents to vote Yes” or “No” on  one very lengthy (110-word), confusing and misleading question.  The state average for charter revision is four to five separate questions. 

There was significant public attention to four or five issues. This question makes it virtually impossible for Fairfield voters to know or understand the changes to the Charter that would be imposed if it passes in November.  And "bundling" these various changes together into one question runs counter to best practices in corporate and other areas of the law.  "Bundling" disenfranchises voters.

We reviewed all instances of charter revisions voted on by towns as part of general elections from 2016 to 2021. Altogether we found 62 charter revisions on ballots over this 6 year period (source: https://electionhistory.ct.gov/), covering 274 total ballot questions, for an average of 4.4 questions per charter revision ballot.

Charter revision proposals were broken into separate, multiple questions on 46 of the 62 ballots. Only 16 ballots proposed charter revision as single question. However, these 16 cannot be lumped together.

We differentiated charter revision proposals into 3 general categories: (1) Administrative changes; (2) Structural changes, and (3) Mixed changes (more substantive than administrative, but less so than structural). Of the 16 single question ballots:

• Five were Administrative changes. For example, moving the timing of the annual budget process by a week, or adding a public hearing for the budget, or altering/clarifying how an opening from a resignation is filled.

• Four included Structural changes, 3 of which failed to pass. These include (1) West Haven moving to a Town Council/Town Manager form of government (failed), Groton eliminating its RTM (failed), Lebanon (2016) increasing BOS membership from 3 to 5 (failed), and Andover moving the town’s administrative duties from the First Selectperson & Board of Selectpersons to a professional town administrator (passed).

• The remaining 7 appear to be Mixed (less transformative than structural change but more than administrative changes). These are along the lines of what Fairfield is putting on the ballot. Of these 7, two (Shelton and Cromwell) failed at the polls and 5 (Lebanon 2019, Ledyard, New Milford, Haddam, and Wallingford) passed.

Of the 46 charter revisions with multiple questions on a ballot, 61% had split election results– 1 or more questions passed and 1 or more failed. Of the remainder, 33% had all questions pass and 6% had all questions fail. In other words, when given the choice, the residents of the various towns were informed and able to determine which questions they liked and which ones they didn’t and they voted accordingly.

In summary, the types/volume of “substantive changes” in red text below (which we have classified as “Mixed”) can be found in other charter revision proposals in Connecticut, but they are rarely combined into a single ballot question, as Fairfield has done. When broken out as multiple substantive questions, voters in other towns have proven their ability to choose the ones they wanted and the ones they did not. For some inexplicable reason, Fairfield is not giving its voters the freedom of choice.

The Ballot Question: Shall the Town of Fairfield Charter be reorganized to: (A) make it easier to use and understand; (B) modernize language and references throughout; (C) update and expand definitions; and (D) make substantive changes, including but not limited to the following: (1) uniform standards of conduct, civility and operations; (2) streamlined budget and contract approval procedures; (3) allow for greater competition in Board of Education elections; (4) modify Board of Selectperson vacancy process; (5) codify the current forty-member RTM with ten districts; (6) appointment of Constables; (7) codify the positions of Town Administrator and Chief of Staff; (8) modify residency and qualification standards for certain department heads; (9) update the Board of Library Trustees responsibilities; and (10) amend the process for updating the Town Seal.

 The Board of Selectmen wasn’t informed that the Charter Revision Commission could have been as large as 15 members, rather than the seven members used, and only 20% of which could be sitting on other public bodies, to ensure a diversity of opinion not comprised primarily of political insiders.

The law only allowed the Charter Revision Commission to include two members of the seven, to be drawn from other public bodies.  But in reality five of the seven members were sitting on other bodies (three on the Strategic Planning Committee, one on the RTM and one on the Board of Finance).

1. The Board of Selectmen failed to set the timeline by resolution, as required by CT Gen Stats § 7-190(b) ("The appointing authority shall specify by resolution when the commission shall submit its draft report, which shall be not later than sixteen months from the date of its appointment.").

2. Too many people were appointed as commissioners (5) who were already serving on town bodies.  State statute limits such members to 1/3 of the total body, which should have been only 2, in violation of CT Gen Stats § 7-190(a).

3. On August 11, 2022, the Board of Selectmen acted without power to grant the Town Clerk the authority to write the explanatory text.  The RTM was the sole body with this authority, and that authority was not effectuated until the RTM itself demanded to act on this authorization.  The BOS resolution regarding the explanatory text violated CT Gen Stats § 9-369b(a)(1).

4. The explanatory text cannot advocate for or against the revisions.  That required neutrality was not and could not be met, because the question itself is not neutral.  The explanatory text is also required to specify the intent and purpose of each proposed change, which it failed to do.  CT Gen Stats § 9-369b(a)(1) ("such explanatory text . . . shall specify the intent and purpose of each such proposal or question.  Such text shall not advocate either the approval or disapproval of the proposal or question.")

5. The First Selectperson is expressly forbidden from using state or municipal funds to influence any person to vote for approval or disapproval of any referenda question.  Use of the town newsletter and other automatic electronic means violates this restriction on advocacy.  CT Gen Stats § 9-369b(a)(3)-(4) ("For purposes of this subdivision, “community notification system” means a communication system maintained by a municipality that is available to all residents of such municipality and permits any resident to opt to receive notifications of community events or news from such municipality via electronic mail, text, telephone or other electronic or automated means.  At the direction of the chief elected official of a municipality or, with respect to a referendum called for by a regional school district, the request of the chairperson of the regional school board of education having jurisdiction over such municipality included in such regional school district, a municipality that maintains a community notification system may use such system to send or publish a notice informing all residents enrolled in such system of an upcoming referendum. Such notice shall be limited to (i) the time and location of such referendum, (ii) a statement of the question as it is to appear on the ballot at the referendum, and (iii) if applicable, the explanatory text or other material approved in accordance with subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection. Any such notice shall not advocate the approval or disapproval of the proposal or question or attempt to influence or aid the success or defeat of the referendum.") (emphasis added)

To read the state law guiding charter revisions and referenda, see Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 99 at https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_099.htm  and Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 152 at https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_152.htm 

Town Attorney Jim Baldwin recently wrote an article bemoaning the Democrats' apparent failure to follow through with a backroom deal that he made with them concerning charter revisions.  Such actions would run afoul of basic transparency rules and necessarily run counter to the public's best interests.  And such actions are further evidence of BAD PROCESS.

Please read these responses to "Town" Attorney Baldwin's claims:

• LTE by Bud Morten for Fairfielders for Good Government, "Fairfielders for Good Government Says No"

• LTE by Jill Vergara, "Slip-Shod Work"

• LTE by Nancy Lefkowitz, "A Disservice to the Town"

In addition, it has become clear that consulting Attorney Mednick began working on charter revision before the Charter Revision Commission was formed by the Board of Selectmen, and that he set the timeline for review to be under a year based on conversations he had with Mr. Baldwin and the First Selectperson well in advance of the CRC's formation.  To read the retainer letter entered into in June 2021 and clearly setting the timeline in that letter (rather than having it be discussed openly and decided on and voted on by our elected Board of Selectmen), click here.