Opinion: Politics Vs. What Is Best For The Town

The following opinion essay was written by Fairfield Town Attorney James Baldwin:

It’s a sad day when our political leaders put political expediency over good bi-partisan government. In July, I personally sat in a room with Selectwoman Nancy Lefkowitz, DTC chair Steve Sheinberg and RTM representative Jill Vergara for two days and no less than 14 hours to address issues, questions and concerns they had with changes being proposed by the Charter Revision Commission (CRC). In the course of those two very productive days dozens of examples of the modernization of the charter were acknowledged and very meaningful suggestions and “fixes” were discussed, most of which made their way into what became the final charter proposal that is now on the November ballot. Just a few examples of their suggestions that made it into the charter included: removal of the provision requiring the Town Attorney, Police Chief and Fire Chief be town residents; modification of the method of filling a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen; the appointment of Constables; clarification of the roles of Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief of Staff; and not reducing the current size of the RTM or requiring minority representation in each RTM district. In a very clear, and what I believed then to be sincere, promise made by Mr. Sheinberg, I was told that his party would support the proposed charter revision with the removal of two controversial provisions that were then being proposed by the CRC, namely, reducing the number of RTM members and requiring district minority representation. Notwithstanding the removal of these two controversial provisions, Mr. Sheinberg’s promise has been proven, sadly, to be a hollow one.

The fact is that the charter now being proposed is the result of bi-partisan consensus, with considerable input from leaders of the Democratic Town Committee. As they once acknowledged, it is a significantly improved document that is better organized, easier to read and modernized by using language consistent with state statutes that had changed since the time the language was originally crafted (some dating as far back as 1948). Significantly, none of the remaining provisions were considered controversial by these leaders sufficient to make charter reform a political football this November (their words, not mine). These leaders directly contributed to the substantive changes in the new charter together with language and formatting making it “more readable” and easier to follow. In short, the new charter being proposed is the result of careful consideration and collaboration stemming from dozens of public meetings, emails, expert advice and compromise.

The DTC leadership’s newfound objection to the “flawed process” is nothing short of a political red herring designed to politicize what was in fact the most open and collaborative charter revision process in the town’s history. Like many lifelong Fairfielders my age – from both sides of the aisle – who experienced town politics during the John Sullivan, Jacky Durrell, Paul Audley and Ken Flatto years, I am deeply saddened to see politics take priority over what is best for the town.