WHY I'M VOTING "NO"

I am voting "NO" on proposed charter revisions because:

1.  The Board of Selectpersons denied Fairfield voters a choice on important issues. Rather than breaking out major changes to the Charter into separate questions, as other CT towns do for such revisions, the BOS is forcing residents to vote on a 110-word run-on question.

2.  Proposed revisions add two new high salary bureaucratic jobs to town gov’t funded by taxpayers. The question seeks to create the executive level positions, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief of Staff, not “codify” them.  They do not exist in the current Charter.

3.  Proposed revisions remove the CT engineering license requirement for the important position of Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW). 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.

4.  Proposed revisions restrict RTM power.  After attempts first to eliminate the RTM then reduce its size failed due to overwhelming public disapproval, the proposed revision now seeks to permanently cap its membership at 40.  This would prevent the body from managing its own size as it has done from its inception, i.e. restoring its number to the longstanding 50 members if circumstances warrant.

5.  Proposed revisions would congest, not streamline, the budget process or, worse, curtail vital debate. Most town officials agree that the Board of Finance has been one of the most effective guardians of our Town’s interests.  Why then have the First Selectperson preside over a joint meeting?  This would either blunt the voices of these effective stewards or needlessly prolong meetings with contentious back and forth.  Leave BOF alone to advocate for the best use of our tax dollars as it has been doing for decades.

6.  The process should be rebooted.  By state law, the time frame for the charter revision process is 3 years, but the BOS squeezed it into just under one year to get it on this year’s ballot.  These changes should be broken into 4-5 questions which is the state average for charter revisions and should be on the 2023 ballot which is more appropriately a municipal election. 

For more information or to become involved, go to Fairfield Charter Revision Community on Facebook.

Patrick Burhenne
Concerned Fairfield Resident

Fairfield Friends,

I’m voting NO on the town charter revision question on November 8th and I encourage you to do the same.

Before sharing my reasons why I’m voting NO, I want to acknowledge a few relevant facts:

• First, I agree that our town charter, which is the equivalent of our Constitution, is in need of revision.

• Second, I do think there are several things that are good in the current revision that should be considered.

• Third, there are also several things that are bad in the current revision that should not be considered.

• Fourth, if there were options to approve some, but not all, of the proposed charter revisions, there would be things that I would support.

However, despite objection, the charter revision question on the ballot was set up as a single yes or no vote on all or none of the proposed revisions.  I cannot support making bad revisions to our town charter simply because the current Administration chose not to provide multiple questions for Fairfield voters to consider.

Voting NO doesn’t leave Fairfield with a broken charter.  State law provides the town with three years to work through the charter revision process.  Fairfield rushed through this in one year.  I believe that this is too important to rush through.  The debate on potential revisions should continue and the Fairfield voters can decide in 2023 or 2024.  In its current form, this shouldn’t be on the ballot in 2022.

Here are five specific reasons for my NO vote:

1. Our Town Charter is our Constitution – It should be simple and void of excessive specificity:

The U.S. Constitution has roughly 4,500 words (four pages).  In comparison, the proposed Fairfield Charter will have roughly 37,000 words (~100 pages).  A document like a constitution or charter should act as a skeleton or a framework for which local laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies can be built upon. These details should not be in the charter itself as once something is memorialized in the town charter, it is obviously more difficult to change. 

2. The Maximum Size of the RTM will be Reduced from 56 to 40 Representatives:

The RTM currently already has 40 members.  About seven years ago, the RTM voted to right-size from 50 to 40 members, and should be allowed to continue to determine the right size for efficient governance.  By reducing the maximum size of the RTM to 40, this simply limits the flexibility the town has going forward – especially as our town continues to grow.  This type of specificity and limitation doesn’t belong in the charter.

3. Close to my heart are the Proposed Changes to the Budget Process: 

The intention is to streamline the budget process, which I generally support, because budget meetings often run past midnight.  However, I believe the proposed changes will result in the opposite and will further congest the budget process.  In addition, the charter revision calls for the First Selectperson (FSP) to preside over the budget meetings which would displace the Chairperson of the Board of Finance (BOF).  I view the BOF as a necessary check and balance to the town’s Administrative/Executive branch.  Effectively, the FSP has been presenting their budget request to the BOF for approval.  If these changes pass, the FSP would be presiding over the approval of their own budget request for the town.

4. Codifying Two Administrative Positions:

The current administration chose to expand the Chief of Staff (CoS) position from part time to full time, and created a new position for a Chief Administration Officer (CAO).  Because the CAO position is relatively new, the jury is still out as to whether this position is needed or not.  To be clear however, I do generally support these positions, but I don’t believe they should be dictated in the charter.  The charter revision memorializes these positions which may or may not be needed in the future, and I don’t think that’s appropriate. 

5. Concentrating Executive Power with the First Selectperson:

There are numerous changes that concentrate and increase the power of the FSP.  After coming off arguably the worst scandal in town history, there has never been a more important time to re-establish checks and balances.  We need to have more oversight, not less.

So Fairfield friends, please be sure to vote NO on the charter revision question on November 8th.

Craig Curley

Fairfield Board of Finance Member

I believe voters should be allowed choices on important individual changes proposed in the Charter, but Fairfield voters are faced with a single question, that contains unneeded promotional language, on an important, multifaceted group of changes. I cannot say I disagree with all, or even most of the changes proposed. I would love to vote to approve those, but there are other important changes that I do not agree with and therefore must Vote No on Charter Revisions.   

I believe the Charter should be a scaffold for which daily, operational work can be used as a guide. I do not think that mandating two executive level positions that were added with this administration, but hadn’t been in others, belongs in the Charter. Let the current administration decide on that detail of staffing, as we have in the past.

I feel strongly that the Director of DPW should remain a licensed engineer. As a Long Island Sound coastal town which has many rivers and wetlands, Fairfield citizens must be wary of the impending sea level rise that will dramatically affect our town. With the extreme weather events causing the drought we had this summer, as well as sunny-day flooding in some areas and erosion issues causing serious flooding in others, we need to have the leader of the Public Works Department capable of understanding and managing these vital issues as well as the staff that work in the department. Understanding the technicalities of these important decisions is vital to leading this important department.

I also am concerned that the Charter limits the ability for the RTM to manage itself. This governmental body in our Town is the most similar in make-up to citizens – they represent us. Let them continue to decide how large or small they should be, at least allow them to maintain the current maximum of 56 members. They recently wisely determined that they could decrease their size by one member per district. This reduction in size may not be appropriate as we grow in population. As a group, messy as democracy can be, they are able to determine such matters and such detail in the Charter is unnecessary. Leave the flexibility of deciding the size of the RTM to the RTM. They get plenty of input from voters to help make these decisions.

Along the same lines, limiting the amount of time on the most important decision the RTM makes every year – our annual budget – in my perspective limits the ability for public participation as well. As noted earlier, our Representative Town Meeting body, most closely resembles the citizens. Limiting their time limits all citizen’s time to be involved and aware. If the time is not needed the RTM can vote more quickly but let them determine this. Their constituents, we voters, will surely let them know. Our budget process is far clearer and quicker than many towns in CT that do not have an RTM and pass budgets on referendum.

Related to the budget, it seems like a conflict of interest that the First Selectperson would lead budget discussions that have been so skillfully led by the Board of Finance. For those who want to get into the nitty gritty of the financial management of the town, these BOF meetings are crucial and should left to that finance-focused board. Having another part of our governmental structure run those meetings seems inappropriate, considering the First Selectperson proposes the budget that is being reviewed. How could they remain neutral? 

I wish I had the choice to say no just to those important items that I think are vital to continue provide the citizens the best chance to become aware and engaged in the decision process of how our town is run. Taking those away is unfair and unnecessary.

It would surely be a shame to let all this hard and good work on changes to the Charter to go to waste. We do not have to make this an all or nothing vote. By voting No on the Charter changes I am asking for more time for all of us to be included and continue this important, good work. I sincerely hope that the ability to build on great work of the Charter Revision Committee and provide the citizens of Fairfield their due in weighing in with enough time and information will be allowed if the Charter revisions do not pass on November 8.

Sincerely,

Mary Hogue

Fairfield’s Town Charter revision exercise turned into an unfortunate drain on volunteer time and legal and consulting fees, without commensurate results.  Theoretically a once-per-decade opportunity to address gaps in our town’s legal framework, none of the significant control and oversight issues – such as those that led to the toxic fill pile- were addressed.

Overreach marred the process from the start.  The issue was not a lack of commitment- by my count the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) met a whopping 23 times over the 8.7 month-period leading up to its submission of a draft to the Board of Selectpersons.  However, over 80% of those meetings were notched in the books before any material revisions were fleshed out by the CRC that ultimately survived the vetting and public feedback process. 

Why did it take so long to start being productive?  Seven residents were given 8.7 months to: (1) become familiar with the different forms of government in Connecticut; (2) understand all material aspects of Fairfield’s regulatory framework and operations, including the current Charter; (3) debate and choose an appropriate form of government for Fairfield; and (4) draft a revised charter that fits the CRC’s choices.  It was too big an “ask” and wasn’t going to happen (as admitted by in the CRC transmittal letter to the BOS).  How many people wanted to vest that much power in seven residents hand-picked by a First Selectperson anyway?  Changes to our municipal government that grand in scope should be preceded by a multi-year, very public, participatory, analytical and thorough assessment.  

It wasn’t until meeting number 16 that the CRC surrendered the idea that Fairfield is really a city, and should be run by a mayor-Town Council-type of government.   The subsequent five meetings were overshadowed by debate about reducing the size of the RTM by 25% and a scheme to guarantee seats to minority parties in each of the ten RTM districts.  Neither proposal was supported by the public; neither made it into the proposed Charter.  Ultimately, the decisions that were accepted were squeezed into the final two meetings.  Many changes drafted by the consultant were never vetted adequately by the CRC and the draft submitted to the Board of Selectpersons was riddled with errors.  They ran out of time.

Since Fairfield should not have to undergo this Charter review exercise frequently, let’s vote this one down, use the work done in 2021-2022 as a base, and reconstitute a CRC next year.  Let’s get the job done right next time, for our actual form of government.

Bill Gerber
RTM Member, District 2

Dear friends,

You may have read about the Charter and the proposed revisions to be voted on Nov 8th in the First Selectwoman's Town newsletter.  Alas, I'm writing to share my own perspective; one that is in opposition to views expressed in these updates.

I approached the Charter Revision Process with an open mind and a sense of hope.  Unfortunately,  investing significant personal time and energy to deciphering and decoding the draft revision ---- initially submitted rife with errata -- and evaluating the value-add of each of the changes proposed, I voted against the revision at the Board of Selectmen table and plan to do so on the November 8th ballot.

On November 8th, voters will be asked to cast a single up or down vote for the entirety of the charter revision.  That is to say, there aren't multiple questions for the more discussed issues, rather there is just one: 'yes I support all of the changes' or 'no, I don't.' 

This single up or down vote takes away power and agency from each voter to decide on some key and much debated issues, like the budget process, make up of the RTM, codifying politically appointed positions, etc.

A “NO” vote would signal to the Administration that you - the voter - desire a reinvigorated, bi-partisan process that is wholly transparent and takes the time afforded by law to evaluate the proposed changes by a set of clearly defined metrics.

In my summation, the proposed draft does not address governance and operations (through a system of checks and balances) that may have helped avoid some of the fill-related issues; it does not make the process of governing  less politically polarizing;  nor does this revision address racial equity or climate in any meaningful way.  If the changes are adopted as presented, I believe we will have squandered a once-in-a-decade opportunity.

In a straight reading of the ballot initiative, the proposed changes have been characterized on the ballot question (written without approval from the BOS or RTM) as being more modern, more helpful, more user-friendly than the current iteration.  I don't think this is a fair representation of the revision or what it achieves.

Don't just take my word on it, read the words on line and in the press of Republicans Kathy Braun and Bud Morten and Independent Jim Bowen,  My objection to the revisions are not partisan; they are grounded in a desire for better governance.

I urge voters to educate themselves on the process, the product and the implication of a yes or no vote.  Please do the work and perhaps you'll agree that a NO vote is the right vote on charter revision.

And please pass this along to your friends so they, too, can make an informed choice.

Sincerely yours, 

Nancy Lefkowitz
Selectwoman

October 20, 2022

1. The changes increase executive power at the people’s expense.

Checks and balances are vital.  They ground our traditional government structure—the RTM/Board of Selectmen/Board of Finance model—in a highly decentralized form that resists the drive to consolidate power in a few hands.  Several of the proposed charter revisions vest more power with the executive branch and are an incremental step towards having Fairfield become a city with a mayor, a form of government that is incongruous with our quaint, historic town built on civic engagement.  These steps include:

• Adding two high-level positions--Chief of Staff and Chief Administrative Officer--to the Charter, both appointed by and reporting solely to the First Selectperson increases executive power.

• Changing the seven elected Constables to four politically appointed Constables increases the executive body’s power over appointments and decreases accountability to the people.

• Diminishing the RTM’s role in the budget process by condensing the time that the RTM has to review and call department heads before the body to potentially only two weeks; changing the language that authorizes the RTM to determine the annual appropriations in a way that may disable the RTM from decreasing the budget; requiring “cooperation” with other town bodies in approving the town budget (which may cause any challenge to the proposed budget, in the form of proposed decreases, or questions, to be interpreted as “bad faith”).

• Removing the PEOPLE’s power to call for a special election when there is a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen, which deprives the people of a right guaranteed by Connecticut state law and is likely impermissible.

• Reducing the maximum size of the RTM from 56 down to 40 and disabling the RTM from self-regulating to meet the needs of the time.

• Placing primacy on the First Selectperson role generally, where it did not exist before.   

2. The CRC failed to address significant and costly failures of government with any kind of structural solutions; this failure is a huge opportunity cost to the taxpayer.

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.  You would think that we 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, they did not ensure resources or impartial legal counsel for the RTM.

3. I have NO CONFIDENCE in the revisions due to the sloppy, rushed process riddled with statutory violations.  

First, several statutory guidelines for charter revisions were not, and are not presently being, followed.  From failure to vote on the timeline, failure to vote on when to put this question to the voters, failure to remain neutral when publicizing the ballot question, and failure to inform the RTM of its power to educate the public, all sorts of rules have been disregarded.

Second, both the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and the Board of Selectmen (BOS) rushed through revisions with a highly compressed timeline.  All but two of the CRC’s nine active work months (the CRC’s review spanned only nine months, even though state statute provided for 16 months of review, and so the CRC used only 57% of the time allowed by state statute for review) were devoted to topics and items that were the subject of intense public protest and abandoned.  Ultimately, the recommended revisions were voted on in the final two meetings in June, right before submission to the BOS.  Several substantive issues incorporated into the CRC’s recommendations were never even voted on by the CRC members.  

Good process is presumed to produce good outcomes in democratic societies that prize rules and following rules.  Bad process produces bad outcomes.  The charter revision process did not follow the rules, the process was severely flawed and chaotic, and the resulting product is highly questionable.   As a result, I have very little confidence in the product.  There are likely to be many unintended and unknown consequences to the extensive language changes that were not appropriately scrutinized and outlined.  I worry that some changes even conflict with state law.  This is not what good government looks like. 

4. The one omnibus question took away the voters’ power to choose what they wanted to change and what they wanted to remain the same.  

The restriction to one, up or down vote, was unnecessary and ran counter both to the town’s own history with charter revision ballot questions and overwhelming State practice.  In Connecticut, the average number of separate ballot questions has been four to five for a charter change.  The justification for the one, long question was essentially that the voters are not engaged and easily confused.  I disagree.  I have confidence in the people’s ability to decide the rules that will govern them. 

“Let the voters decide” was a consistent theme throughout the charter revision discussions.  The consulting attorney repeatedly stated that with multiple changes being made to the Charter, there would be multiple questions presented to the voter.  His advice was unsurprising considering that various areas of the law recognize that a single, up or down, question that “bundles” various items disenfranchises the voter and for that reason is frowned upon.  For instance, the SEC forbids companies from “bundling” more than one item into the same proxy proposal for its shareholders.  Best practices were ignored by two of the three Selectmen, with very little debate and no public input on the ballot question.  This hasty decision disrespected the voters.

Unfortunately, the BOS rushed its decision to put this question before the voters in one omnibus question.  The draft ballot question language was not provided to the public, or to the minority Selectwoman, until minutes before the BOS meeting, in violation of FOIA requirements; and the public was not given sufficient time or opportunity to weigh in.  Despite having ample time under the statutes to schedule more meetings and discussion about how to present this question to the voters, the BOS made this decision hastily.  This rushed decision ran counter to the voters' best interests.

Unsurprisingly, a flawed ballot question was produced from this flawed process.  The ballot question asks the voters to approve a new Town Administrator position, when the proposed Charter revision is actually a Chief Administrative Officer.  These are two very 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 very misleading for voters and may in itself invalidate the entire question.

These and many more unresolved and unaddressed issues are significant, because Charter review generally only occurs every ten years.  If these changes are approved, we will not be able to fix these problems, and we will likely see costly mistakes repeat.  If you care about how things are done in our town, and agree that Fairfield deserves a second chance to do this job right, please vote NO in NOvember on ballot question #2.

Jill Vergara

RTM Representative, District 7

Making Government better, more efficient, more transparent, and more accountable is a passion of mine. It has inspired me to run for office and proudly serve my community. Naturally, I was eager to support an effort to make life, and our government, better for all in Fairfield.

I was therefore hopeful that the formation of a Charter Revision Commission to examine our current document for necessary changes and improvements would produce these results.

That is not what happened. From the biased and slanted selection of Commission members to the unnecessarily compressed timeline, the resulting product does very little to achieve these goals. And in fact, much of what it has done is detrimental to our form of government.

From a push to force unelected candidates onto our legislative body (RTM or Representative Town Meeting), via a mechanism called minority representation, to diminishing the size and powers of that body, the troubling outcome of adopting these tactics was clear to all following the process.

They would deprive voters of representation and compromise their electoral choices, weaken oversight of the Executive Branch, and weaken the powers of a democratically elected body to govern its size and authority. A recipe for less transparency and the potential for the abuse of power.

For me, those were the most egregious of this Commission’s proposals. They could not provide one coherent reason or justification for these mechanisms other than to weaken, not strengthen, our government.

Once bipartisan public outcry reached an overwhelming level, these undemocratic proposals were dropped.

I am opposed to much of what remains. This is only a partial list:

• The fill pile scandal was just cited in the First Selectwoman’s Letter to the Editor in support of a Yes vote. I share her outrage about this costly abuse of power involving the DPW (Department of Public Works). But in response, the CRC is now advocating to downgrade the requirements for the Director of this critical department. With no satisfactory explanation yet endorsed by our FS despite promising to add safeguards. This does the opposite.

• As the Majority Leader of the RTM, I strongly object to the heavy-handed tactic of taking away our self-determination with regard to the size of our body. The current maximum size of 56 was established in our Charter well before Fairfield was as populous. Despite a growing population and budget, the current proposal is to cap the RTM at 40 members. During the Redistricting process in 2013, the RTM reduced its membership from 50 to its current size of 40. We need to maintain our authority to do so again, at a number we feel best serves our constituents. We don’t need Town Hall tying our hands. It is essential that we maintain the flexibility to right size this body as we see fit, without executive branch interference, to which we act as a check and balance. The Charter Revision process bypassed our authority to draft explanatory language for the ballot referendum, allowing the administration to create a misleading narrative and control information voters need to make an informed judgement.

• In the early days of the current Administration the addition of a costly Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was done outside the budget process as an “emergency” measure to manage the fill pile. Despite repeated requests we have not seen an ROI (return on investment) for this position, nor has the administration provided performance metrics. The overhead in the First Selectwoman’s office is now over $500,000.00. If codified in the Charter, this position will be a political appointment only, accountable to and directed solely by the First Selectwoman. Campaign promises for greater efficiencies, more transparency and increased safeguards will be lost if approved. If the First Selectwoman truly needs this position to run the town, something no previous administration required, it should be a professional hire only with relevant experience and qualifications, something the current CAO does not have. A CAO or Town Manager (which the CRC is incorrectly calling this position after voting for a CAO) should be a highly credentialed town employee with specific responsibilities established by an impartial hiring process. Not a reward for a political insider with no checks and balances.

• The Town Attorney should also be a professional hire, something that was not included in the Charter Revision process despite numerous public requests to do so. Our current TA has made it clear he is working for the First Selectwoman as a political insider, not representing the interests of the town. For this reason, and his admittedly partisan conduct during Charter Revision, no changes should be made to our Charter until this is corrected.

• The numerous changes to our Charter deserve to be considered individually. Instead, the CRC is putting only one omnibus question on the ballot, written with misleading language and a lack of specificity. There are few if any other towns that have taken this approach. If each of the recommended changes can be justified, then the voters deserve a chance to cast an up or down vote on those having the most long-term impact on the town, its residents, and our form of Government. And they deserve language that clearly explains what they are voting for.

Because there are too many important issues that need to be addressed, and too many ways the current revisions create more problems than they solve, it is necessary to wait until a more transparent and competent process, free of politics, is undertaken to update our Charter. It would be far more appropriate for these changes to come before voters during the Municipal election in 2023, as the timeline for completing this process extends for another year. There was no reason for this rush other than to compromise best practices and force voters to make a hasty decision.

I am voting NO on November 8th so that this process can continue, free of partisanship and gamesmanship. The finished product before voters in this election does not meet the definition of good government.

Elizabeth Zezima
RTM Democratic Majority Leader
Representative District 4
Cell: 203.856.4868
lizzezimartm@gmail.com 

• "I'm not going to vote for something I don't understand and/or that wasn't explained clearly to me."

• "I'm not going to vote for change just for the sake of change."

• "What's the rush? What's so important that it can't be afforded more time to do it right?"

Charter Revision would reduce the RTM’s ability to restore BOE budget cuts

All Town residents, especially parents, should be aware that the revised charter would reduce the RTM's time in half to hold budget hearings and to decide appeals seeking to restore budget cuts to the Board of Ed budget.

Under the revised charter, the time between the Board of Finance’s (BOF) final budget recommendation and the RTM’s Annual Budget Meeting would be cut to from 30 days to 14 days, a decrease of 53%.

What does this mean?

This gives parents less chance to participate and have their voices heard by the RTM, which has final say on the budget and is the sole authority to hear appeals seeking to restore funds cut by the BOS/BOF.

For example, this year the First Selectperson proposed to cut $2.5 million from the BOE, but the BOF rejected the cut.

But what if the BOF had approved the BOE cut? Then the BOE’s only recourse would be to file an appeal to the RTM. But the revised charter would reduce the RTM’s window from 30 to 14 days.

This means 53% less time for parents to comment on the cuts and communicate with the RTM, for the RTM to hold public hearings, for the BOE to lobby and support the appeal, and for the RTM to conduct its review of the appeal and the entire budget including meeting with department heads, debate with each other and hold the RTM’s Annual Budget Meeting.

Appeals take time to prepare and file, so if the RTM gets it at the 10-day appeal filing deadline, then the RTM would only have 4 days to review and decide on the appeal. 

It’s a high hurdle to approve a budget appeal- 2/3 of the RTM must vote in favor of restoring the funds. So its critically important that parents and the BOE have enough time to fully participate and for the RTM to hear all sides before deciding.

The RTM is the final word on the BOE budget and the final chance to restore cuts to any future BOE budget.  The drastically shortened timeframe jeopardizes its ability to give BOE budget appeals adequate attention.

         There is not much scrolling through my newsfeed that makes me feel hopeful.  But in the midst of deepening political discord and tribalism across the country, I have found a ray of hope and a possible solution to so much that is wrong these days.  I have become involved with the nonpartisan group called Fairfielders for Good Government.  We are a cross section of the town:  Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Unaffiliateds, working together, learning from each other and trusting one another.  In the past, some of us have been on opposite sides of debates on all kinds of town issues and elections.  We came together to advocate for good governance, which on the most basic level we believe requires everyone, including and especially Town leaders, to follow the same rules.  We also all share a concern about any concentration of power and want to preserve important checks and balances that we see as being essential to who we are as an historic New England town that prizes citizen-based, decentralized governance. 

         Collaborating with people can be hard work, but it is rewarding, and I feel I have learned so much and have begun to see the political landscape in different ways.  This space where people have very different views on political hot-button topics but seem to agree very much on fundamental principles, like the ideas that process matters and that ends rarely justify means, has made me think there is hope for salvaging our democratic enterprise after all.  I hope that others can use this new issues-based, nonpartisan group as a model to step outside of the divisiveness and find common ground.  We have to return to being neighbors who may and indeed should disagree at times, but who can engage in thoughtful democratic deliberation to learn from each other and get to the best, most informed outcomes for our Town.