Letter To The Editor: My Budget Vote, Explained

To the editor,

Last week, the first selectwoman’s proposed budget was passed by the Board of Selectmen — with a few adjustments to revenue — with a vote of 2-1.

For an overview of the process and next steps: www.fairfieldct.org/budgetprocess.

I believe our budget should be both a literal accounting of the dollars and cents reflected in each line item of it, as well as a statement of our values, arrived at through an inclusive and wholly transparent process.

After careful consideration, and in consultation with many stakeholders, I voted against the budget for several reasons: The process was neither inclusive nor wholly transparent; it was built around a plan I wasn’t given time to evaluate; it comes with too high a pricetag; and it does not prioritize what many of us value most — our kids and schools, inclusion and diversity, and the good stewardship of our wetlands and open spaces.

As stated by the Republican Town Committee, “putting a pencil to paper and doing the hard work to put forward an equitable town budget requires thoughtfulness and months of careful planning.” I couldn’t agree more. This is exactly why (as I asserted at the time) it was so frustrating to receive the administration’s reorganization plan (which is at the heart of so many of the recommendations made in the proposed budget) five minutes before the voting meeting was to begin. The expectation that I could make an informed and thoughtful several-hundred-million-dollar decision that impacts every resident, based on one 15-minute presentation and a cursory review of it, is not reasonable or fair to the town. Sending out this document at the last minute, while permissible, is not a best practice; it didn’t allow for meaningful exploration of it, accountability, shared ownership or true dialogue.

Transparency can’t just be an ideal we strive for; it must be the accepted norm beyond reproach. We can’t hide facts and figures behind spin. We must state things as they are, not how we hope they are interpreted. Something to consider: The proposed tax increase is 6.49 percent. Based on an approximation of data shared to date, 14,000 of the town’s 22,000 property owners could see an increase of more than 3 percent to their tax bill; more than 8,000 property owners could see an increase of up to 10 percent or more. These numbers are a far cry from the proclaimed 1.98 percent, which actually refers to the mill rate increase and not the proposed tax increase.

At the hearings, I suggested cuts to contingency and surplus to offset motions I made to restore monies to education and conservation. This year’s increases to contingency and surplus are a reflection of reductions made last year; I understand we have to make our way back from this “cliff,” but I think it’s imperative we do so more judiciously, over the course of a few years. The proposed line items for lawyers, legal fees and not-for-profits included significant percentage increases in this budget, yet some of these organizations were not asked to appear before our board. A year ago, we were promised an accounting of the ROI for a senior staff member added to last year’s budget in the Office of the First Selectwoman; this position was carried over to this year’s budget yet, to date, we’ve not been provided metrics for evaluating the investment. In absence of this data, and the opportunity for open discussions, we cannot come to fair or reasonable determinations about what is (or is not) affordable this year.

As the minority party member on the BOS, had I been allowed to assist in the initial interrogation of the budget’s creation over months, my colleagues and I may have arrived at compromise solutions and achieved nonpartisan support for this budget, including further reductions in spending. Input should not be limited to one party. In the future, I urge the administration to consider merging the hearings of the BOS and the Board of Finance; I believe this will enable a truly inclusive and representative process.

I hope the suggestions I offer here are received in the spirit in which they are intended: Namely, as constructive criticism, which — as stated by my friends on the RTC — is a “healthy” part of this process. I believe good faith discussions about spending and common values can be had, but to do so the administration must be more inclusive and must share the truth more audaciously.

Nancy Lefkowitz

Selectwoman