Okay, some of you will just want to jump to the original legal mumbo jumbo, but I’ll whittle this down to my between the lines interpretation:
The Norwalk Democratic Party proceeds at its own peril if it doesn’t immediately ask for Galen Well’s resignation, stop conducting witch hunts and stop operating as if it is intent on driving out its entire membership. The state party would have tossed the caucus elections but because it would have placed a significant burden on Norwalk by doing so, the panel chose to allow the results to stand, however the way that they were held was undemocratic and not in the spirit of how the state party operates. Lastly, they note this is the second time Wells (Mme. Defarge) was censured.
The ruling itself:
Connecticut Democrats
Kevin N. Reynolds
[personal info removed]Decision Concerning the Dispute of
The Norwalk Town Committee
January 25, 2008
Dispute Resolution Panel
Tom McDonough
Lon Seidman
Sharon Sherman
Preliminary Statement
Michael Coffey, Fred Biondi and David Brown (hereinafter referred to as
the “Complainants”) filed a complaint dated January 13, 2008 alleging
several violations by the Norwalk Town Committee relating to the conduct
of certain caucuses held on January 9, 2008. The complaint is
understood best in three separate parts.First, the Complainants allege that notices from the Town Committee were
improper. Multiple notices were sent. The first notice failed to
specifically state when and where the caucuses would be held for the
five wards. A second notice, while providing the time, date and
location of the caucuses, did not indicate the time, date and location
of any runoffs that may be necessary. That notice also was published in
the Legal Notices six days in advance of the caucuses. The notices fail
to reveal who the candidates would be.Second, the Complainants challenged the results in three wards, alleging
the following:1. Ward B
a. Rule C(1)(e) of the Local Party Rules provides that a ballot
has to include seven votes in order to be valid.b. A candidate, Daisy Frank, withdrew as a candidate but her name
remained on the ballot;c. The Caucus Chair used a bag instead of a ballot box to collect
the votes;d. Candidates at the caucus also helped administer the election,
including counting the ballots.2. Ward C
a. Notices were only sent via email.
b. Notices did not provide the name of the candidates.
c. Candidates at the caucus also helped administer the election,
including counting the ballots.d. Rule C(1)(e) of the Local Party Rules provides that a ballot has
to include seven votes in order to be valid.3. Ward E
a. Voters were deprived of the opportunity to fill out ballots
with sufficient distance from the checkers.Third, the Complainants charged that Sections C and N of the Town Party
Rules, which, among other conditions, require an individual to attend
three district committee meetings in order to be eligible for election
to the town committee, are exclusionary and contravene a principle of
the State Party Rules to prohibit a test for membership. Additionally,
the Complainants assert that district meetings do not occur on a regular
basis and often lack a quorum.Finally, the Complainants assert that these mistakes were caused due to
a combination of neglect, improper rules and intent on behalf of the
Chair and others on the Town Committee.The Respondent Town Committee, through its Chair, deny these allegations
and argue that the caucuses were held in accordance with the Local Party
Rules and the results of the caucuses should stand.Discussion
The Complainants, represented by Mr. Coffey, provided a
comprehensive and cogent brief to the Dispute Panel. Additionally,
their testimony was reasonably concise and their assertions were clear.
The picture that they paint is of grave concern. It appears that, to a
certain degree, the Norwalk Town Committee hides behind arcane and
problematic rules that, notwithstanding their intent, cause confusion
and suspicion. More disturbing is the utter failure by the Town Chair
to acknowledge and address these problems. Indeed, the Town Chair
seemingly was content to allow acrimony to fester among Norwalk’s
Democrats.The Respondent’s made three important points:
a. A December 7th notice was sent the Town Committee members that
the caucus would be held, and that members must state in writing their
interest in being candidates.b. In accordance with the Local Party Rules, a January 3rd legal
notice was published in the local paper, six days before caucus, stating
that caucus will be held on January 9th.c. The January 3rd legal notice was also posted on the Town
Committee’s web site.d. Additionally, a postcard was sent out in District E one week
before the caucus, adding more notice.The Respondent also acknowledged that the notice failed to provide the
time, date and location of a runoff and admitted to using a bag, instead
of a box in Ward B. The Respondent added that the Local Rules are in
sore need of revision, that other issues in Norwalk contributed to this
dispute coming to Hartford and that the goal of all present ought to be
some sort of resolution for the good of the party. However, the key
argument put forth by the Respondent is that, notwithstanding the rules
and the mistakes made by the Town Committee, there is no justification
for throwing out the results of the five caucuses and the election of 35
members. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the consequences of
invalidating the caucuses would be substantial.Conclusion
The Panel agrees unanimously that, while imperfect, the
notice provided for the caucuses was sufficient. The first notice at
least alerted the town committee of the period during which the caucuses
might be held. The second notice, published in the newspaper and posted
on the Town Committee’s web site, provided the necessary information.With regard to the other alleged errors, the panel finds that the
failure of the Town Committee to adhere to its rules of notice is very
troubling. Its inability to explain this failure is also curious.
Equally troubling are some of the odd and problematic provisions in the
Local Party Rules. The panel was especially concerned by the
requirement to cast seven votes in order for a ballot to be valid.
While it could not be shown that this helped or hurt the Complainants,
its purpose ought to be reexamined. Also, the Town Committee should
reconsider whether its requirement to attend meetings is within the
intent of the State Party Rules and, if so, how it could be implemented
in a way that is not unfair to Norwalk Democrats.Furthermore, the panel takes notice of the fact that this is the second
time within two years that the Norwalk Town Committee was the subject of
a Dispute Resolution Hearing. As with the prior matter, the core of the
problem is the Local Party Rules and the Town Chair’s conduct. The
panel advises the Town Committee that it ought to carefully reexamine
and where necessary revise its rules to avoid these problems. Put
simply, the Town Committee proceeds at its own peril if it does not
amend its rules. The panel further cautions the Chair to reevaluate her
apparent penchant for secrecy and apparent willingness to allow
disharmony among Norwalk’s Democrats.The panel also finds that invalidating the caucuses would create a
significant burden. The panel notes that each of the Complainants still
has the option to run in a primary, a process that provides the highest
degree of both participation and transparency.For these reasons, the panel unanimously denies the complaint and allows
the results of the caucus to stand.
