Letter To The Editor: A Disservice To The Town

To the Editor:

The letter penned by Jim Baldwin (Patch, Oct 31st) is emblematic of a broader concern I’ve expressed publicly about the ability of the Town Attorney to offer impartial counsel for the entirety of the Board of Selectmen – a problem that would only be further exacerbated if the proposed Charter revision were to pass.

I urge you to consider the following text from the Town Attorney, meant for the First Selectwoman, but sent to me in error this past July; it was sent in response to my public challenge of the Charter Review schedule and calendar:

“okay, Nancy is towing the line. Let them (the Democrats) bring a lawsuit. Steve (Mednick, the attorney hired by the Administration for the Charter review process) thinks we are on solid ground”

Realizing his misstep, Attorney Baldwin immediately responded to me with this text:

“sorry, not meant for you but I guess you shouldn’t be surprised to get a sense of my disappointment”

The “Town” Attorney’s response to my point of view is as concerning as his expressed disappointment in it: asking questions, interrogating a process, demanding adherence to codified procedure is not divisive, partisan politics, but rather good governance and what we, as Town Officials, are elected to do.

In his letter, Attorney Baldwin alludes to a “newfound objection” to the Charter review process. For the record, I’m on the record for over a year objecting to the process. I’ve subsequently argued that the process adversely impacted the product, and this compelled my no vote — a position not unique to Democrats, but one shared by Republicans, Independents and Unaffiliated voters, as well.

Throughout the Charter review process the public was assured there would be multiple questions on the ballot. In the end, we haven’t been provided rationale as to why the Charter revision is being presented as a single omnibus question. Voters are being denied agency over what changes are being made to the Charter and I object to this.

As to the 14-hour meeting Mr. Baldwin referenced: yes, Jill Vergara, an attorney and Democratic member of the RTM, and DTC Chair, Steve Sheinberg, were in attendance. Ms. Vergara participated by asking clarifying questions and, in several instances pointed out “errata” in the form of missing information, and false or misleading annotations. Mr. Sheinberg, on the other hand, remained mostly quiet; he was there (at my invitation) to bear witness. To say, we brokered deals as part of this collaboration is a mischaracterization of what occurred. Instead, we delved into a painstaking forensic accounting of the proposed draft, which was rife with mistakes and absent of a red-lined document, making it difficult to evaluate and discern. There was nothing politically expedient about this process; instead, it was the frustrating, but necessary response to incomplete, inconsistent work on the part of the attorney hired for the process.

Mr. Baldwin asserts in his letter “it’s a sad day when our political leaders put political expediency over good bi-partisan government.” I’d ask the Town Attorney to consider his role in this: he may be “disappointed” in me but claiming my opposing point of view as “political” rather than what it is, is what does the Town a disservice.

So therefore, I dissent.

Voters, the choice is yours.…and I hope you’ll join me in choosing to vote no on the Charter Revision on November 8th.

Sincerely,
Nancy Lefkowitz
Selectman
Fairfield