Opinion: Charter Revision Does Not Address Governance And Operations

The following opinion essay was written by Fairfield Selectwoman Nancy Lefkowitz:

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, after 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.