ISSUE SUMMARY

Summary of Dissolution

On Monday, March 31st, after a rushed and rules-suspending process, the Fairfield RTM voted to repeal  Section 102-1 of our Town Code and dissolve the Parking Authority of Fairfield. The Parking Authority, along with its Board of Commissioners, is an independent agency whose primary responsibility is to the permit holders and other users of the Fairfield and Southport train stations, and works closely with the State. It has successfully served our community for nearly 50 years.

As a result of that vote, control and oversight of these facilities, including the setting of parking rates and the current fund balances, are scheduled to be taken over by the Town administration on July 1. The  reason given for expediting this action was so the Parking Authority financials could be accurately reflected during the budget process.

To view a timeline of the events regarding the dissolution of the Parking Authority click here. 

Concerns with the Action

Fairfielders for Good Government believes there are valid reasons for bringing the Parking Authority's operations under the Town's oversight, including improved access to municipal resources, easier budgeting, and more streamlined processes. However, we firmly believe that the reason for expediting the process was not.

We believe the short-term benefit of having the financials in this year's budget is significantly outweighed by many concerns, particularly the following: 

• Multiple procedural deficiencies in the dissolution process

• Insufficient time to hear, consider and deliberate

• Failure to consider all the facts

• No system in place for July 1

• Lack of a plan to protect parking fees and commuter services from political influence or competing budget priorities

• Lack of transparency and stakeholder involvement

• Reduction in checks and balances in Town government

In early April we supported a petition that would have allowed voters to decide on the dissolution. The effort failed in getting the number of signatures required for a referendum.

We are now supporting a resolution being considered by the Representative Town Meeting to rescind the RTM's previous action. The RTM will hear this item at its Standing Committees Meeting on April 21 at 7:30 pm and consider and vote on it at its Regular Meeting on April 28 at 8:00 pm. 

Why Rescind

We believe a rescission will provide the RTM the opportunity to start over and do this the right way: deliberatively, procedurally, transparently, and forward-thinking. There should be a well-defined plan for good governance to replace it that ensures maximum transparency, accountability the commuters, and checks and balances in government when the transition occurs. Government moves slowly for a reason.

The reasons we believe the RTM needs to rescind its decision and start the process over are summarized below.

The Reasons

Procedural Deficiencies

Fairfielders for Good Government believes there were at least 18 procedural deficiencies during the process of dissolving the Parking Authority - including violations of the Town Charter, the Town Code, and the Freedom of Information Act.  Whether these issues will end in an legal action against the town has yet to be seen. But they are at minimum concerning and they disenfranchised the public and the commuters. 

You can read more about those procedural deficiencies in our timeline. 

Unnecessarily Rushed Timeline

The proper process to adopt, amend, or repeal is to have the ordinance under consideration by the RTM for at least three months prior to voting.  When that doesn't happen, there is a good likelihood that the RTM makes a decision without full information and the public is disenfranchised in the process.  In this instance, both of those occurred. The reason the timeline was shortened was so the financials could be included in the budget. We don't  believe that was a good reason.

Problematic for the RTM

Unless the RTM waives its own rules, it must consider an ordinance for at least three months. This is done to ensure that members and committees have the opportunity to hear presentations, request additional information, give thoughtful consideration, and have productive debate on the issue. It also importantly provides the opportunity for members to hear from the public. 

The repeal of the ordinance was fast-tracked which did not provide the RTM members ample time to consider all the facts or the consequences of the decision. The total time committed to the issue by the full RTM in February was 14 minutes.  In March, the item was 23rd on the agenda and the presentation started at 10:47 pm. 

Four of the five committees never discussed the item in committee. Committee discussion typically happens at least twice, if not three times, on an ordinance amendment.

Due to the significant procedural challenges, the majority of the body's debate was on process and not on the actual issue.

Disenfranchised the Public

Because of the limited notification and expedited process, the public was unaware of the proposal. Commuters only became informed in the weeks prior due to communication from the Parking Authority Board. There was no information published in the First Selectman's newsletter about the Parking Authority until April 10, ten days after the vote to dissolve had occurred.

Additionally, no member of the public or the RTM commented at the February RTM meeting, the public had to wait until 10:50 pm on March 24 to hear a presentation on the item at the RTM Standing Committees Meeting, and the public had to wait again on March 31st until approximately 10:00 pm to comment on the matter.

Uninformed Decision

By fast-tracking the decision in order to act before the Board of Finance budget vote, we believe the RTM failed to consider all the facts and opinions, which led to an uninformed decision. Some of the reasons we believe this are:

• There was a significant amount of misinformation surrounding the operations and transparency of the Parking Authority and its Board, including their payment of leases, the cleaning schedule at the stations, and their conducting of annual audits.

• The RTM heard from the Parking Authority Director and a Commissioner for the first time on March 24, just seven days before the vote.

• The RTM heard live comments from the public for the first time on the night of the vote - starting at approximately 10:00 pm.

• The RTM never heard from the State, one of the primary stakeholders in the operations of the station and with whom the Parking Authority is significantly involved.

Short-Sighted Decision

By fast-tracking the decision making in order to act before the Board of Finance budget vote, the RTM failed to consider the consequences of their action. The RTM also missed the opportunity to be forward-thinking by replacing the Parking Authority Board with a similar Commission that could ensure an independent voice for the commuters.

Consequences

There are processes defined in the Town Charter for reorganizing a department, appointing a director, and setting up an advisory committee.  It is our opinion that:

• No Parking Department has been officially created

  • We believe the First Selectman does not have the authority to create a department or alter the organization of one. We believe that it is the purview of the RTM by passing an ordinance*.

    • Per section § 6.1. G (1) of the Town Charter:

      • The Board of Selectmen passes a resolution requesting the RTM pass an ordinance to set up a new department

      • The RTM adopts or amends an ordinance to create the new department 

    • Even if one does not agree with our opinion that the RTM must pass an ordinance for a new department to be created, or that the Selectmen must pass a resolution requesting one, good governance says that the Board of Selectmen, the highest executive authority in the Town, should have a publicly noticed discussion on the matter. That has not occurred.

*Note:  Without expediting the ordinance process, the RTM does not have time to adopt an ordinance prior to July 1 and traditionally does not meet one of the two months (July or August) in the summer.

• No Parking Director has been appointed

  • • We believe the First Selectman does not have the authority to appoint a Parking Director or a Department Head.

    • Per Section § 6.1. D of the Town Charter, The Board of Selectmen appoints Directors or Department Heads unless the Charter or Code gives that specific authority to the First Selectman 

• Advisory Parking Committee should be set up by the Board of Selectmen

  • We believe the First Selectman does not have the authority to create an Advisory Committee. We believe that is the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen

  • Per Section § 6.1. E the Town Charter, The Board of Selectmen appoints advisory boards, commissions, and committees

Missed Opportunities

The RTM could, and in our opinion should, replace the Parking Authority with an independent Parking Commission, appointed by the Board of Selectmen that has powers and duties, including  the ability to create policy for the stations, fix fees, hear commuter complaints, review lease contracts, and other powers and duties similar to the Parks and Recreation, Conservation, Shellfish, or Golf Commission.

Doing so would ensure: 

• • the commuters and lease holders have an independent voice

  • parking fees and permit policies would be set by an independent body

  • parking issues, rate setting, and other station-related business would be discussed and voted on in public meetings

  • there are checks in balances in place to replace the independence lost when the Parking Authority is dissolved

A Parking Advisory Committee, as was proposed by the First Selectman, would have no power or authority.