Letters to the Editor
Updated 11:37 am, Friday, July 14, 2017
To the Editor:
Article 2.1.C of the Fairfield Town Charter goes as follows: “Single office requirement for elected Town office. No person shall be eligible to hold any elected Town office, including membership on any elected board or commission, who is at the same time an elected RTM member, an elected or appointed Town officer, an elected state official, or a member of an elected board or commission or a permanent appointed board or commission.”
I am of the belief that the Bridgeport judge rightly intervened early in and appointed James Baldwin, an elector of our town, as Assistant Town Attorney (ATA) to represent the Board of Selectman (BoS) in the never ending saga of the special election for Selectman. And that is coming from someone who believes that both Baldwin and the BoS Republicans were wrong, and are still wrong, in their opposition. The state statutes are very clear that petitioning for the special election is, and was, a right of the petitioners. The town charter and that state statutes are in full harmony on that.
However, before Baldwin could accept that appointment as ATA, which made him “officer” of the town, he was required by the charter to resign his current elected position as a member and chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The “single office requirement” could not be more clear on that. Baldwin can not have it both ways.
Time and time again Fairfield Republicans have been out lawyered by the Democrats when it comes to political power plays. This is just the latest one where they have come up short. Baldwin’s continued quest is a no win situation for anybody, including himself personally and professionally.
There is municipal election this fall. Fairfield Republicans, in particular most on the RTM, are good at governing. I suggest Baldwin give it a rest and the party focus on showing off what they do best - governing in a fiscally responsible way.
Leave the lawyering in court to gain power to the Fairfield Democrats. That is, at least, until some better lawyers come along to join the local party.
To the Editor:
Because of the past several years of one party dictating state tax and spend policies, the state has not recovered from the recession, it is more in debt, corporations are leaving (Aetna’s headquarters staff now planning to go) and people are leaving. CT’s population has declined for the last three years — young and old alike. Job growth is abysmal, due to excessive regulations, high taxes and continued anti-business bias at the state level. Even more perplexing is the majority party seemingly endorses lower wage jobs to replace the high wage jobs leaving. Go figure.
The CT House Democratic leadership looks to be pushing for some tax increases and zero structural reforms in state government. They favor state employees at the price of the majority of hardworking, private sector employed residents. This cannot be allowed.
Hopefully, this year our Fairfield state legislators align as one team against the House leadership and effectively push for ever more needed structural reforms, a balanced “no-tax increase” budget and no transfers of state obligations to the town (transfers would just mean more property tax increases). Any legislator(s) truly wanting to help get CT back on a positive path should oppose the CT House leadership and work on a bi-partisan basis with Republicans.
John P. (Pat) MacMonagle