It Might Be Legal, But Is It Right?

For months now, we've been talking about the process of Clinton's government. Who is involved and what the laws and regulations require them to do. As you may recall from earlier columns, I'm fond of saying "decisions are made by those who show up." Today we are going to see how that works out in the real world of Clinton's politics.

Recently, at a meeting of the Clinton Republican Town Committee, the committee selected their candidates for the upcoming municipal elections in November - not an unusual process in many towns in the state.

In Clinton, however, as far back as anyone can remember, this was the first time the Republicans have done it that way. Previously, candidates were endorsed by the town committee and presented to the town's registered Republicans at a town-wide caucus (a meeting advertised and open to all registered Republicans).

At the caucus, any registered Republican, whether a member of the town committee or not, could be recognized and make a nomination for candidates not selected or endorsed by the town committee.

There would be nominating and seconding speeches, and sometimes many ballots to end up with an agreed slate of candidates. It was sometimes messy and loud. Anywhere from 50 to 70[1] participants maneuvering to get support for their choices, but in the end the choices were settled by votes and then later would be certified to the town clerk. The certified names would then appear on the ballot at election time.

What was different this time? No choosing of candidates by anyone except members of the town committee and no nominating from the floor.

Was that change because no one except the town committee was interested? Don't the bylaws of the committee require a caucus to give all registered Republicans a chance to voice their concerns and choices?

We'll attempt to provide the facts so you can see how we arrived at where we are today so you can answer those questions for yourself.

Up until May 19 of this year, the bylaws of the Republican Town Committee did require a caucus to be advertised and held to select candidates. Also, the bylaws stated that in order to amend the committee bylaws a caucus must be held.

Caucuses must be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in town, advising (in this case) all registered Republicans of the date, location and purpose of the caucus, no later than five days before the date of the caucus. With regard to changing the bylaws, the legal requirement to advertise was met.

How was it met? On Friday, April 22, Good Friday to be exact, a tiny legal notice one inch by one and five eighths signed by the Secretary of the Town Committee, was placed in the New Haven Register. It appeared on page C7 of the classified ads, the smallest of the 14 legal notices to be found there sandwiched between 23 help wanted and 25 tag sale and articles for sale ads.

It indicated a caucus to revise or amend the bylaws of the Republican Town Committee to be held on May 19 in the Rose room of Town Hall at 8pm. It also indicated the street address of the town hall building. What it did not do is indicate what changes in the bylaws were to be considered, a violation of the Republican Town Committee's own bylaws as indicated by a copy of those bylaws on file with the Town Clerk of Clinton.

Improper and misleading, to say the least, but not illegal.

I should note here that since the secretary is not empowered to call for a caucus either the chairman, who is empowered to call a caucus, directed the placement, or a vote was taken by the Republican Town Committee members authorizing the placement.

Sources tell me they can’t recall a vote of authorization for a caucus, but it really doesn't matter since the chairman doesn't need a vote, under the existing bylaws.  

It is interesting to note that at the national level, politicians and government officials often put out news they want to go unnoticed on a Friday, and if they can, on a holiday Friday.

A coincidence here? Perhaps. Would placing the notice in the Harbor News, a free paper that goes to every household in Clinton, have reached more of Clinton's registered Republicans than the "Register," of course, but I repeat, the legal requirement was in fact met.

On May 19 as advertised, the caucus was held.

It is significant to note here that the date of the advertised caucus was the same night as a regularly scheduled monthly Republican Town Committee meeting, but the time was slightly later.  Even if no one saw the notice, the caucus was assured to occur since those showing up for the regular meeting would in fact become the caucus one half hour later.

There is no quorum or minimum number of attendees required to hold a caucus, so even if there was no quorum for the regular meeting, a caucus was still possible. 

I am told it was attended by approximately 25 or so interested parties, of which all but about four or five were town committee members. I asked a committee member when they knew there was a caucus being held, to which they answered, "when I arrived at the regular meeting."

At the caucus, there was a vote to change the bylaws eliminating the caucus to pick municipal election candidates and reserving that privilege to only the Town Committee. The change eliminated the ability of any registered Republicans, except the committee members, from picking candidates.

Sources say only four or five people voted not to change the bylaws. So in effect, approximately 20 or so committee members voted for the committee to take for themselves the privilege of picking municipal election candidates[2]. I will repeat here, it was all quite legal.

Why weren't there more "non-members" present even though they were technically invited by legal notice?

Part of the reason is obviously because there was no aggressive campaign to get them there, to get the widest possible participation. Certainly, if you are having a vote to take away someone's privileges, you wouldn't be aggressively working to get them to come out and vote against you.

Was that the case? I'll leave that for you to decide. On the other hand, the 2,400 or so registered Republicans in town bear some of the responsibility for what happened. I dare say, that even if the notice had been placed in the Harbor News, it's not likely hundreds of participants would have shown up.

Very few readers, when they have time, or still read the paper, make it a priority to check the legal notices and announcements. They are usually getting their information digitally or word of mouth and the only daily digital paper, Patch.com, was not afforded the notice placement.

In addition, to read the New Haven Register requires a paid subscription or for a reader to go to the store and buy a copy. Of those that would have seen the legal notice, a large percentage either aren't interested in politics, don't understand what a caucus is, or have attended in the past and were intimidated by supporters of one candidate or another, leaving them fearful of attending again. All understandable, but not excusable.

So bottom line, what is the result of "not showing up?" Loss of privilege, loss of choice and loss of rights that existed before.

The point here is not that the process for picking candidates has changed. Many town committees use that method, including Clinton's own Democrat party. If the prevailing Republican sentiment is to use that system, it is their right to vote to do so, but when the system changes, albeit legally, and deprives them of their vote without their participation or representation, that is another story altogether.

All this cloak and dagger and behind the scenes maneuvering is viewed differently by different individuals. Some say it's just politics, and others, like an elected Republican I spoke with said: "It may be legal, but it doesn't pass the smell test."

It certainly doesn't do much to undo the common view that politics is a dirty business. While it certainly is apparent that the process could have been more transparent and inclusive, the best guardian of your rights, political or otherwise, is your own eternal vigilance.

Is this change permanent? It doesn't have to be. It depends on whether the general Republican population wants it to be.

Maybe most of the registered Republicans trust the town committee to make the candidate choices for them, in which case it will and should stay the way it is now.

Of course, if that is not the case, there is a process for change.

Every two years there is a town-wide Republican caucus in which the town's registered Republicans vote to pick their choices for members of the town committee, or even to get nominated to become one of the 35 members. The next caucus is in the spring of 2012. It is a matter of numbers. You vote for who you want and if you are nominated and have enough votes you can be a member.

The only way to change the bylaws of the town committee is to be on the committee, and have a vote to have a caucus to amend the bylaws, just as was done in this case.

That is the process. Simple, straightforward and legal. It takes interest, involvement and showing up. That is democracy at work. The process is there and available to everyone: The rest, is up to you.

Until next time,

Arthur Isaacson

[1] This small number of participants certainly doesn't speak well of community involvement, but it was open to any registered Republican who wished to attend, even if all 2,400 of them chose to do that.

[2] Of the 22 municipal election candidates endorsed by the committee at a later date at a special town committee meeting held July 21, 16 were the committee members themselves.