Calls for charter revisions to Fairfield charter revisionists

The Charter is a town’s foundational governing document and operational manual, functioning as the local equivalent of a constitution. It defines the structure, powers, and duties of all town offices, departments, boards, and commissions. The Charter establishes the essential rules for how the town is run. In Fairfield as in many New England towns, the Charter is viewed as a sacred document that embodies a moral compass: citizens will not pledge loyalty to a power that is not built to serve them.

The Charter Revision Commission (CRC) has produced a document that is an affront to the spirit of the Charter Oak State. This is not a revised Constitution for Fairfield; it is a manipulated operational manual designed to institutionalize bureaucratic gridlock and defy public will. The process was defined by its secrecy: key provisions were inserted at the last minute to avoid public scrutiny, public links to transcripted, recorded meetings were intentionally hidden, and parallel solutions with groups unknown were “negotiated” at the same time. Multiple revisions — many major, made quietly — have the fingerprints of people who don’t live here – out-of-town, vested interests. It ignores input and commentary from both the public and town leaders. 

Finally, the entire document—which ignores commentary from citizens, department heads, and even the path laid by our late First Selectman, Bill Gerber—is cynically presented to the public on a woefully insignificant and manipulated postcard, deliberately obscuring the core, manipulative changes being proposed. The lack of value in this Charter is rooted in the CRC’s abdication of responsibility and its calculated exploitation of a political tragedy and is itself another flagstone of the path of the erosion of Fairfield. 

Let’s go to the videotape — if you can find it

Here’s the first big problem: the video and transcript of the 6/4 CRC presentation to Bill Gerber and the Board of Selectman is not posted online on the town’s YouTube channel. A sneaky act, to be sure (and not the first time)… but on the town’s list of meetings, the original link to the raw footage is posted, so the public can see what transpired after all.

No wonder they didn’t want it posted — it is telling.

There were very few people at the 6/4 meeting at town hall. Bill Gerber (D) was there in person; Christine Vitale (D) attended remotely; Brenda Kupchick (GOP) did not attend, which raises issues about having a quorum.

Heroes in the Crowd: For public speakers, Jennifer Jacobsen from the Fairfield Department of Education dropped everything she was doing that day to pour through the revised charter the CRC had released that day. She found many clauses and actions they snuck in, such as increasing the residency requirement to 35 miles. 

What was said and not part of the official record was as interesting as what was said. The CRC’s process was not only secretive and rushed but was strategically maneuvered to limit oversight, with critical provisions being inserted at the last minute in a clear attempt to bypass any scrutiny.

And in fact, on some of the major issues, like the lack of an org chart, the CRC actually said they are doing things on the side. They are actually working externally on changes but not including it in the charter process for anyone’s scrutiny: “One of the recommendations that our commission will ultimately make is that to the administration outside of the charter is that we need an organizational chart.” said the head of the CRC. Wait, what? The CRC IS doing an org chart, but in a back room, not here. 

Jobs in Perpetuity: The core of Fairfield’s executive failure lies in the “For Cause” trap. Against public sentiment and the First Selectman’s office’s need for executive control, the CRC finalized a document that universally installed the “With Cause” standard, to the Police Chief, apparently as they were jealous as the Fire Chief had it. They also included it for Economic Development and other department heads.

In the public sector as in business, the head of any organization must have the ability to legally terminate someone, not counting discriminatory reasons. They need the knowledge that they have the strength to see their vision is implemented. It’s called At WIll or Without Cause employment which is the opposite of With Cause. In reality it is almost impossible to fire someone With Cause – they have to show criminal activity or other long-term serious transgressions. This is what leads to lifetime employment and low accountability. The CRC knows that requiring “cause” for removal shields the deep-seated bureaucracy, effectively ensuring jobs in perpetuity for non-elected officials — who told them to do that?

The Charter explicitly removes the residency requirement for the Town Attorney, an action the CRC was called on earlier but has not been held accountable for. Fairfield has always had the authority to hire an in-house attorney and assistant attorney, but it never does, instead relying on outside counsel. Now, we are even eliminating the requirement that the people for the roles we don’t fill don’t have to live in Fairfield. One would think our outside law firm would have to approve this — something that directly benefits the them while they advised the commission, institutionalizing an external legal dependency. The revisions demonstrate blatant self-dealing, favoring external vendors over Fairfield residents. Let’s recap for emphasis: Fairfield by charter is supposed to have an attorney, assistant attorney and, by extension, a legal secretary, paralegal, law clerk — an in-house legal department. Yet it doesn’t staff it now, instead hiring an outside counsel for surely a lot more money. Then, the requirement was eliminated to have our non-existent legal counsel even live in Fairfield — a measure that surely was approved by the outside counsel now advisThe 35-Mile Disconnect: On the day of the meeting, the CRC extended the residency requirement for the Police and Fire Chiefs to a radius of 35 miles. This actively works against the vision for affordable homes for town staff and removes key public safety figures from the daily concerns of Fairfield. Fairfield residents want department heads — and all town employees, really — to live here — the way it used to be, said one long-time town employee that actually lives in Fairfield. 

The True Mandate: Bill Gerber recognized that Fairfield’s town government structure with a Board of Selectmen (BOS) had serious flaws. At the 6/4 BOS special meeting, when the CRC presented the Charter that they had already filed with the Town Clerk, Gerber called for exploring new structures of government to replace the problematic Board of Selectmen. Many towns of course have mayors; Gerber suggested exploring a Town Manager to streamline town services and install professional oversight. His mandate causes pause — what boss, the person on top, gives up his power by saying we need to restructure? It’s an insight into his mind and resolve. He possibly knew that he was running out of time, and he tragically would pass away three weeks later.

However, the CRC ignored Gerber’s request to explore a new structure of town government. Furthermore, the CRC intentionally failed to create a proper organizational chart or address genuine staffing accountability during their lengthy review. This absurdity is now exposed as the current First Selectperson, Christine Vitale, is left publicly discussing the need for an org chart — work the CRC should have completed. At that 6/4 meeting, they were challenged on the ‘silo’ structure that was now in place and the lack of accountability.

The Cynical Ratification: Bill Gerber passed away on July 15, 2025. The remaining BOS members approved the CRC report on August 6, 2025. This tainted “approval” is Question 7 on the ballot, asking citizens to legitimize a document that defied the executive’s wishes just after his death.

A Charter of Self-Interest and Outsider Control

The proposed Charter fails the test of local commitment and transparency, prioritizing external vendors and shielded positions over local citizens.

The 35-Mile Disconnect: On the day of the meeting, the CRC extended the residency requirement for the Police and Fire Chiefs to a radius of 35 miles. This actively works against the vision for affordable homes for town staff and removes key public safety figures from the daily concerns of Fairfield.

“Notice” was given to the public with this newspaper at town hall.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F1fKEtQwM0iUaT_Bh8YVWhEsml5lUzl1/view?usp=sharing

The Postcard Indictment: The Many Traps

The ballot questions presented to voters on the official postcard are a deliberate attempt to gain approval for the status quo by obscuring the core, manipulative changes. The Qs sailed through with affirmative votes, except the town seal — proof that the public was not aware of the issues discussed. 

The Vague Proposal
1. RTM Legal Counsel: Creates redundancy and pulls the RTM out of central town control with independent counsel. Creates insulation by having RTM make their own decisions with their own legal counsel without town involvement or implicit support. 
2. WPCA Utility Manager: A one-off fix that ignores the systemic need for a complete organizational chart. No conversation about adding more personnel and thereby justification for budget beyond control of First Selectman. 
3. Chief Operating Officer: Codifies a title without installing the proper executive structure (Town Manager) or accountability (At-Will power). Wait until org chart is finished.
4. Remove Public Notices: Eliminates newspaper publication, shifting critical notice to a less accessible website-only model. Makes town even more inaccessible.
5. Selectman Vacancy Rule: While seemingly democratic, it’s bundled into a document that rejects *all* other true structural reforms. 
6. Change Town Seal: Spends time on a politically sensitive issue beyond their knowledge or knowledge when foundational governance is broken. 
7. Accept Everything Else: A “Yes” vote ratifiesdthe entire document, including the “For Cause” trap, the 35-mile residency loophole, and the chaotic term lengths. 

Conclusion: Draft a True Charter

The flawed Charter is a betrayal of the spirit of Fairfield, the spirit of America, and the global rights of man. The town can withhold approval of the Charter revision vote results until after the February 3, 2026 Special Election. We can recommission the Charter Revision Commission with a transparent, citizen-led process to write a Charter that installs accountability and restores power to the citizens of Fairfield’s 24 neighborhoods. A charter written by and for the people honors the spirit of the Charter Oak state.

For The Record

• Current Town Charter
• Official Redline Draft of the Proposed Charter
• Public Commentary and Full Archive:
• Emails Submitted to the CRC from The Voice