Letter To The Editor: Voting No On Charter Revision

To the Editor:

I’m Voting No on Charter Revision on Nov 8, Here’s Why.

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, CT