Who Will Run Fairfield Hills? Panel Considers Options

By John Voket

There are many options when considering a long-term management entity for the Fairfield Hills campus. While the generic label for such an entity is typically an “authority,” members of the ad hoc Fairfield Hills Management Committee learned Tuesday evening, that such an authority could be crafted legally while incorporating the best input from experts, volunteers, and the public.

Committee Chairman John Reed said several times during lengthy discussions on the matter that he wanted the public involved in whatever capacity they could participate.

“I don’t want the public to think we are rushing to make a decision on this, or trying to make an end run with the final option,” Mr Reed told the committee. “We need to make sure everyone understands every implication of the decision, and that we don’t get sidetracked by emotion. When we get emotion involved it can lead the focus far from the original issue.”

Chairman John Reed has articulated that in time, the symbiotic relationship currently enjoyed between the committee and the town’s political leadership, especially the first selectman, may change.

“There may come a time when the person serving as first selectman wants nothing to do with the day-to-day management of Fairfield Hills,” he reiterated Tuesday.

Mr Reed said that to get the job done right, he envisions the formation of a body with increased responsibilities and designated duties. He said during a previous meeting that the ideal scenario may incorporate an appointed or elected body of six to eight people charged with carrying out routine, day-to-day responsibilities.

Committee member Richard Sturdevant told the group previously that early momentum toward establishing an independent authority or tax district on the campus grew out of two issues: the idea that there would be significant commercial development like a modest hotel or medical facility on the campus, and that the negotiation of leases for such businesses would be stymied under current charter provisions.

But, Mr Sturdevant said, ideas about the future scope of development on the campus have changed sufficiently for him to withdraw his former outright support for an independent tax authority or special services district, with all the powers granted to it by state statute.

On Tuesday, a subcommittee charged with reviewing options for future long-term management reviewed and discussed myriad options, and suggested the committee could even recommend a sequence incorporating several ideas.

The subcommittee, consisting of Amy Dent, William Lavery, and Donald Studley, outlined steps that could establish some type of nonpolicymaking authority through charter revision, or by special act of the Connecticut legislature.

State Representative Julia Wasserman serves as an ex-officio member of the group, and said she would immediately begin researching the options Newtown has for possible action in the current legislative session. But that action would only occur if the subcommittee endorsed that option.

The full committee discussed combining a planned charter change creating the local authority in the future, while tapping the legislature to install some type of formal managing body with a sunset clause in three to five years. This option would allow for sufficient consideration of a permanent solution incorporating local public hearings as well as the input from charter revision volunteers and other experts.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal told the committee that the combination plan with a sunset clause giving way to a future charter change might be the best step if members were concerned about expediting the process.

“There is little likelihood that there would be any charter revision on this that would be ready in time for the November ballot,” Mr Rosenthal said. “There hasn’t even been a resolution to seat a charter review committee yet.”

Mr Rosenthal said the only possibility of moving a charter revision to the 2005 fall ballot would be if the committee was directed to focus on just the single issue of a long-term management entity at Fairfield Hills.

But Newtown Legislative Council Chairman William Rodgers, who was in attendance at the meeting, took exception to that idea.

“I would rather not see Fairfield Hills be the tail that wags the charter revision committee dog,” Mr Rodgers said. “We would rather not see [the charter committee] rushed to report back before the election.”

That comment prompted an alternate idea of seating two charter review committees, one specifically charged with creating the local authority and a second to deal with other numerous changes that had been proposed since the last charter revision.

Rep Wasserman said she liked the idea of creating a legislative initiative with a sunset clause, if possible. “If we take Amy’s suggestion of creating a statute with a sunset clause, then you can work on the charter revision,” she said.

Rep Wasserman also reminded ad hoc committee members that the legislature was already in session, so there would be no opportunity for public hearings on the proposed statute. But management committee member Moira Rodgers said she would insist some type of local workshop be held to allow for the public to present ideas on the proposal.

Mr Reed agreed. “We would owe the town an explanation. This is not an issue that has been widely discussed,” he said.

While the subcommittee on the charter/statute issue split their initial recommendations, with Mr Studley and Mr Lavery favoring a charter change and Ms Dent favoring a legislative statute, the subcommittee agreed to meet again within the next two weeks to formalize a recommendation.

“We’ll meet as soon as we get the information we need from Julia,” Mr Lavery said, referring to Rep Wasserman. “If the public wants to make any initial input on the authority they should contact me.”

Mr Studley added that, “The public should understand that we are talking about a management authority, not a policymaking authority.”