Comments on: As the World Turns aka NASCAR night at City Hall

By: Bruce Rubenstein

Bruce Rubenstein — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:31:56 +0000

Well…the state central decision is in and it verified everything I said.Poor strategy from Holloway’s strategy team may well cost her the chairmanship on the revote as now Mr Arena is cloaked with a certain momentum and sympathy.

By: Bruce Rubenstein

Bruce Rubenstein — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:50:29 +0000

In addition neither the local or state party rules explicitly say that once you notify a town committee using the looser state rules that then your entire subject matter of the meeting is then under the state party rules.

By: Bruce Rubenstein

Bruce Rubenstein — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:12:05 +0000

No….there is no “incorporation” that mandates adhersion to all the state party rules simply because one elects to provide notice pursuant to a certain state party rule.There is absolutely no authority by either statute,case law or the decision precedents of state central ( i saw most of the precedents in my time as finance chair)Whether the entire “tie matter” is under the state party rules simply because Mr Arena chose to use the looser state party rules as to notice, doesnt mean that the state party rules would govern something substantive like the “tie matter”..it will be a panel decision, selected by state central.I suspect since the state party rules are clear about superceeding only when a local bylaw might be silent,vague or ambiguious, the tendency of a neutral panel will be to punt on some “adhersion” or “incorporation” theory.But we will all see shortly.

By: Thom Page

Thom Page — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:44:51 +0000

I believe when Sean did not call the meeting within 48 hours pursuant to the local rules but chose instead to follow the state rules and call the meeting within 30 days, he submitted the reconstitution of the Town Committee, which occurs every two years and involves calling the meeting and electing new officers, to the state party rules. He couldn’t then cherry pick which rules he wanted to follow (local or state) for which issue may arise (calling the meeting, how to resolve a tie vote, etc.) – Once he chose to proceed under the state party rules, he would be required to stay with them.

By: Bruce Rubenstein

Bruce Rubenstein — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:36:13 +0000

The State Party Rules only trump the local ones where for instance the local rules may be silent…or vague ..or ambiguious..which isn’t the case here.In all other instances the local rules govern…and the local rules state clearly that Robert’s Rules are the guide on all parlimentary issues( article5,section1),so the State Party Rules will not not apply since the local party’s rules are clear and explicit as to what the controlling authority is.That being said,Roberts RUles is clear in Section 43 that a temporary chair cannot break a tie…

By: Luis

Luis — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:58:40 +0000

That’s cool. Except everyone and their mom was mentioning Roberts Rule and the debate that I heard centered around who had what updated version. I was even on my way out when I was asked to loan my computer for a quick research…and that’s when people speaking on both sides of the debate used said machine to hammer out why they felt they were right. I’m sure someone spoke up about the State rules, but acoustics there are awful.

However, I just spoke to someone who told me (basically what you’re saying) that the State Party rules (which I guess trumps RRO) allows what happened yesterday to happen.

fun times…

By: Thom Page

Thom Page — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:31:32 +0000

Luis: Perhaps this will help to understand the result of last evening:

I question 1) the applicability of Roberts Rules of Order in last evening’s tie election scenario to begin with, primarily because they typically only apply when the party rules do not address the particular matter(=tie vote).

I also question any vagueness of the State Dem Party rules (www.ctdems.org) regarding a town committee’s election of officers in a situation where the local party does not elect to follow their own local rules and a tie occurs in the election of town committee officers(See Art VIII, section 7). Their rules also speak to when a tie occurs when a Town Committee is endorsing Town Committee Members (not done in Hartford), and endorsing Delegates to Conventions (Art. VIII, section 19) and when a Town Committee is filling a vacancy of a previously nominated person for a municipal office (Art. VIII, section 22). Perhaps surprising to some, in all of these situations, the chairperson of those meetings appears clearly enabled to vote as a member of his/her town committee AS WELL AS to vote as the chairperson to dissolve a tie vote: “the chair may vote to break a tie, but this provision shall not affect his/her right to cast any vote, as a member of the Town Committee, in the first place.”

By: Bruce Rubenstein

Bruce Rubenstein — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:30:24 +0000

Peter G…Kelly I assume?..there was no “ballot” as defined in Robert’s Rules..therefore the tie should not have been broken

By: Hartford And Its Democratic Town Committee «

Hartford And Its Democratic Town Committee « — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:07:56 +0000

[...] Then, someone voted a second time (seriously), the committee called it a win for Holloway, Arena pledged to fight the result, and everyone is headed to state party headquarters today for some advice. Here’s Working Families Party Councilman Luis Cotto’s take on it. [...]

By: Luis

Luis — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:30:52 +0000

Well, the body had 100% attendance with 66 so we might be seeing these types of tied votes in the future.