THE OMNIBUS QUESTION

All or Nothing Question Takes Choice Away from the Voters

Rather than breaking out major changes into separate questions, the Board of Selectmen voted 2 to 1 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.

The types of “substantive changes” in red text below 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 to choose.

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.

To read extensive research conducted reviewing 62 charter revisions over the past 6 years, click here and here.

Below is a typical charter revision ballot with multiple questions compared to Fairfield's single question ballot.

Misleading Question

The omnibus ballot question starts out by saying "Shall the Town Charter be reorganized to:" and lists three items having to do with the reorganization of the text in the document.  And yet the fourth and final item under reorganization says "and (D) make substantive changes, including but not limited to." 

Making significant, substantive changes to the way our government functions should not be labeled a reorganization effort of a document. This language is misleading and concerning, and downplays the enormity of the changes being proposed, many of which are not even mentioned in the question.

For more details on the proposed changes visit our Proposed Changes web page.

Misleading Language

Ballot language is typically neutral and should be objective, not subjective, so as not to lead the voter to a particular conclusion.

And yet the language selected by the Board of Selectmen for this ballot includes terms such as "modernize", "update", "streamline", and "easier to use and understand."   These are subjective terms and do not belong in a ballot question.

Town Administrator or Chief Administrative Officer?

We aren't sure whether this was a clerical error or intentional, but the ballot question lists one of the two new chartered positions in the First Selectperson's Office as Town Administrator while the proposed charter lists the position as Chief Administrative Officer.  Which is it?  And is it legal to have voters vote on the wrong position?

These are two different positions. A Town Administrator typically exists in towns like ours (RTM/BOS/BOF), and these positions are appointed by either the full Board of Selectmen or the legislative body and owe duties to all town bodies.  Chief Administrative Officers, on the other hand, owe duties only to the chief executive and are appointed exclusively by the chief executive, making this position more likely to be a partial, party-line official.  This error is misleading for voters and may in itself invalidate the entire question.

There was discussion by both the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) and the Board of Selectmen as to what the title of this new position should be.  In fact, the CRC proposed Town Administrator in its draft report, and the Board then voted to ask the CRC to change it to Chief Administrative Officer in its final report and the Commission complied.

Since it was the Board of Selectmen that requested the title be changed to Chief Administrative Officer, why did the Board then approve a ballot question that uses Town Administrator?  Were they in such a rush that they didn't read the question they approved?   Or was the change in title from charter to ballot intentional?  This is very misleading and concerning if not illegal. 

And if the ballot question passes, what will the title be?

Demonstrably False Statements on the Ballot 

Two signficant errors have been made on the ballot:  

1. a position being added in the charter is a Chief Administrative Officer, not a Town Administrator

2. with less potential candidates in each election cycle, the proposed revisions decrease the number of possible BOE candidates and therefore would produce less competition and less choice for the voters

Are ballot questions with demonstrably false statements legal?  It certainly seems inappropriate and ultimately invalid to mislead the voters in such a way.