.

Letter: GOP Redistricting Plan 'Not Radical at All'

RTM member Joe Palmer, R-4, explains the GOP's redistricting proposal.

[Editor's Note: The RTM GOP's redistricting proposal will be up for a vote at the May 21 RTM meeting.]

Dear Editor,

As a fellow member of the Redistricting Committee, I was surprised and disappointed to read an recent article on the redistricting in which Our plan isn’t radical at all. In fact, I sincerely believe we proposed a sensible idea for improving the RTM as a town body that will also have several ancillary benefits, like cost savings. I can’t help but think that Republicans are being obstructed for petty political purposes, (i.e. “we can’t let the Republican majority get credit for a smart plan”) and it’s a real disservice to the community.

Our plan simply reduces the number of districts in Town from 10 to eight while maintaining five representatives in each district. Any reasonable person who attends the RTM proceedings or watches them on FairTV would agree that the RTM is too large and cumbersome. In fact, Mr. Hoffkins seems to be the only person on the Redistricting committee who disagrees. Even his fellow Democrats on the committee openly acknowledge that it would “create a more close-knit group” if smaller and it would help eliminate the “non-committed members.”

Also, as a practical matter, it is often a challenge for both parties to assemble a full slate of 50 candidates (unpaid citizen volunteers) who can each fulfill the extensive time commitment and often grueling demands of the RTM. Members can get burned out, especially during budget season. With fewer members, it would be much easier for each party to ensure that their candidates are fully-committed to handle the demands, which in turn will surely make for a more serious, informed and engaged membership on the RTM. It’s as simple as that.

Keep in mind, the State General Assembly redistricting that occurred over the winter had a huge impact on the Town. . So, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but many of us will already have a new town district number and unfortunately, many could have long drives to polling locations, regardless of whether we go with 8 or 10 districts.

Mr. Hoffkins stated that eight districts versus 10 districts would make it too hard for representatives to focus on neighborhood issues. Really? Fairfield isn’t that big and I know from experience that when there is a neighborhood issue in your district, your constituents will make sure you are aware of it. Under the Republican plan each resident will still have five representatives to turn to with an issue. Honestly, only RTM candidates will feel the impact, having more area to cover while campaigning and a having to represent a more diverse district. Again, those committed enough to go through this process will only be better members and campaigning in a diverse district will make them more well-versed on the issues if they get elected.

The lines drawn for the 8 districts are not “radical” either. Our plan will result in less “split” districts, or districts which are shared by two State Representatives. There are currently three split districts where three polling locations require separate machines and lines for each state rep. Under the Republican plan, there will be only one. Polling locations are also more centrally located around schools with an eight district plan. With 10 districts, many voters would be forced to vote in odd and unfamiliar polling locations like the Pilot House and various congregational halls of some of the community’s churches.

Lastly, Mr. Hoffkins completely disregarded the savings it would bring the taxpayers as “insignificant." Even if our plan saves the town a minimum $2,000-$3,000 per election, with an average of two elections per year with general election, primaries, referendums etc. it could save the town roughly $60,000. I’m sorry but that’s far from insignificant especially when many Town departments are already being asked to trim back their budget by similar amounts. There are also savings in the Town Clerk's office, printing and mailing 10 less packets each month, which could potentially save a few thousand each year in paper, postage and manpower alone. Mr. Hoffkins also failed to mention that our plan would also save our part-time Registrars from struggling to recruit and train approximately 10 less poll workers per election.

We are proposing a good, sensible plan for Fairfield and we urge the Democrats on the committee to allow it to come to the floor of the RTM so ALL the representatives can review it, make amendments and vote. Or we invite the Democrats to create and present their own plan that we can also be debated alongside ours on the floor of the RTM. If they can convince enough representatives that it is a better plan, then it will surely pass. However, if the Democrats fail to allow this plan to move forward to the floor of the RTM, we will be forced to open 21 districts for the upcoming primary, which will cost thousands of taxpayer dollars.

 

Joe Palmer

RTM, District 4

BronzeStar May 16, 2012 at 03:27 PM
It's more an issue of megalomaniac Jamie Millington pulling the strings behind the scenes on this one. Palmer does make good points, but it is hard not to be suspicious when Millington is involved.
peacemaker May 16, 2012 at 04:38 PM
I don't think the issue is really what's in the plan, but how the plan was put together by a few and brought to this bipartisan committee. The whole point of the committee was to create a plan together that both sides support and buy into. To leave out the democrats made this a republican plan. Maybe it's a great plan, but it's not bipartisan. You two missed the point.
BronzeStar May 16, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Peacemaker you're 100% correct. It wasn't bi partisan. The issues aren't necessarily party driven, but PERSONALITY Driven. When some of these egos disappear off the political scene I.e. Millington, et al, maybe we can really get down to doing the people's business and get away from hidden agendas.
Concerned Fairfielder May 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM
I think Palmer has totally missed the public sentiment here which does not surprise me considering his track record. We the People do not want a reduction in the number of RTM districts! We the people want a reduction in the number of member from each district!!! We demand efficiency in Government!!! ONLY TWO REPS. FROM EACH DISTRICT! CHANGE THE CHARTER TO TWO!!! THIS WAY WE ONLY GET PEOPLE WHO TRULY CARE and not PART TIME HACKS WHO DON’T SHOW UP, or WALK OUT DURING VOTES (Kupchick)
R. Ludlowe May 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM
2 reps per district. Love it.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »