You're viewing this inside the Facebook app's browser, where buttons can act up. For the smoothest experience, tap the ⋯ (or Aa) menu in the corner and choose “Open in Safari” or “Open in Chrome.” You can still continue here either way.
About the school-zone automated speed-camera (ATESD) program. Pick where you stand, add your details, and we'll write a message for you to send through the Town's official RTM contact form.
This writes a message and sends you to the Town's official "Contact the RTM" form. Pick your district and it's the form for your four district representatives; leave it unsure and it's the form for all 40. So organizers can follow up and show district-level support, this campaign records your name, email, district, and position — but only aggregate district and position totals are ever shown publicly. Your name and email are never displayed.
If a representative writes back
A few responses you may hear — and what the public record shows. Say it back in your own words; a note in your own voice carries more weight than a form letter.
“It was discussed four times in January and February 2025.”
True — but those four were about the ordinance (the legal framework), not the plan (the actual camera locations, hours, and fines). Two of the four were committee sessions; the Feb. 18 one was a brief “any questions?” with the police chief absent and no public comment. Every agenda listed it only as “amendments to the Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance, §§ 102-4–102-17” — nothing about speed cameras. Being on the agenda isn’t the same as the public hearing on the plan the law requires.
“The plan would get its own public hearing later.”
That’s exactly what the RTM was told. Presenting the ordinance on Jan. 21, 2025, Rep. Michelle McCabe said the Traffic Authority would “develop a plan,” that “the plan needs to have a public hearing,” and only then would it go to the state — the Moderator repeated the same sequence. But when the plan reached the Traffic Authority on Aug. 21, 2025, it was a non-voting “discussion” with no public comment taken, and was submitted to the state weeks later. The hearing residents were told to expect never happened.
“The program went through the proper process.”
The ordinance did. But Connecticut law (C.G.S. § 14-307e) requires two more steps before cameras go in: a noticed public hearing on the plan before it’s sent to the state, and a vote of the legislative body to submit that plan. Neither appears in any RTM or Board of Selectmen minutes from that period. The open question isn’t whether the ordinance passed — it’s whether the plan steps the law requires were ever done.
“The state DOT approved it, and our legislators, the Selectmen, and the RTM all voted for it.”
Each of those is real — but they’re different decisions, and none is the step in question. State legislators voted on the 2023 state law that lets any town choose to use cameras — not to install Fairfield’s program. The RTM adopted the ordinance; the Selectmen approved the vendor contract. And the state DOT’s approval judges whether the plan is likely to improve safety — it does not certify that the town held the public hearing on the plan, or took the vote to submit it, that § 14-307e requires. The plan itself — the locations, hours, fines, and data rules — never got its own public hearing or vote. “Everyone approved it” blends several separate decisions into one.
“It’s only school zones / it only runs during school hours.”
The cameras run continuously; the 20-mph school-zone limit applies during school hours, and the road’s regular limit the rest of the time — but the cameras are on. At the March 5, 2025 Selectmen meeting the First Selectman said “we don’t have a plan yet for them, we just approved the use,” and that residents would weigh in on the specifics later. The ordinance also authorizes cameras beyond the first six zones, and site choices don’t come back to the RTM.
“The fines are set by the state.”
State law sets $50 (first) and $75 (repeat) as maximums — “shall not exceed” — plus a $15 processing fee. The town chose to impose the maximum. So the fine amounts, the hours, and how long license-plate data is kept are local choices — the exact things a public hearing lets residents weigh in on.
Drawn from Fairfield’s own public meetings and Connecticut law.
Heard back from a representative?
If an RTM member replied to you, share what they said. We're tracking the answers residents are getting, so the public can see where representatives actually stand.
✓ Thank you — we've recorded what you heard back.
Replies are collected to track how representatives are responding. Your email is never displayed. If a representative's answer is ever quoted, it's their words as a public official — not your personal information.
Where residents stand — by RTM district
Loading…
–
Want public hearings
–
Support as-is
–
Total responses
Self-reported by residents; not a scientific survey. District and position only — no personal information is shown here. Newly submitted responses can take a few minutes to appear.