74°
NORWALK, Conn. – Anna Duleep finds a silver lining to the shifting balance of power on Norwalk’s Common Council: The Democrats are united.
“As much as I regret his decision, I have to thank him,” Duleep, leader of the council's Democrats, said of Michael Geake, who switched his party affiliation from Democrat to unaffiliated last week. “We are going to be very united, and as a minority caucus we are going to present a positive alternative.”
The council now counts seven Democrats and seven Republicans, and Geake, who will caucus with the Republicans. Mayor Richard Moccia and others say that means the Republicans are now the majority.
Democrats may lose their committee chairmanships. Corporation Counsel Robert Maslan, a Republican, has issued a formal opinion (attached below) that says the council can change committee chairmanships at any time. A supermajority is not required.
But nothing has changed yet, Duleep said, because no one has made a motion that can be voted on.
Some Democrats questioned whether Geake can caucus with the Republicans under the Freedom of Information Act and have it be a private meeting. Maslan says the answer is yes. The objection would have been valid before 2002, when the legislature amended the act to say that a caucus can include members who are not in the same party, provided that person is only in one caucus, he said.
Maslan refers to Mason’s Rules, a parliamentary authority, in reference to the dispute over committee chairmanships.
Marc Bradley, chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, said Maslan’s ruling has been forwarded to the state Democratic Party for a review. He also questioned Maslan’s attendance of Monday night’s Republican caucus.
“We’re waiting to hear back from them about each of the points he raised,” he said. “The biggest outstanding question I think is whether he should have been in that meeting at all last night. He certainly could have been standing out in the hallway and not caucusing with Republicans.”
Geake has overturned the will of the voters, Duleep said. “This is one of those issues where you really find yourself questioning what it is to be a Democrat,” she said. “It’s just reaffirmed our commitment to each other as a caucus and to the ideals of a Democratic Party. The voters intent was a balance of power: a Republican-controlled executive branch, a Democratically control legislature. Mr. Geake took that away from the voters.”
Yet she said Democrats feel relieved. “Ever since we were elected, there has been this threat over our heads that if people don’t get their way they’re going to go to the other side,” she said. “We were all well aware of his intentions well ahead of (Tuesday’s) election. … We just hoped he wouldn’t make such a short-sighted decision.”
She speculated that a Republican might decide to switch parties, and the pendulum could swing again. “We could go back and forth for two years,” she said. “That’s the problem to having such a narrow margin, it gives one person the balance of power. It’s just that most of us choose not to exercise that.”
Attached: An opinion written by Robert Maslan, Norwalk corporation counsel (opinion_letter_3-13-12.pdf)
Comments (11)
NorwalkSpectator
Thank you for your well-written and insightful comment.
Based on recent events, it would seem that being a Democrat means fighting for tax hikes so that public employees can continue to enjoy guaranteed raises, benefits, and pensions that are way out of line with anything you'd find in the private sector.
Also, it means opposing any attempts to save taxpayers money by negotiating hard with public employee unions.
NorwalkSpectator
The one thing you forgot to state is that you are a Republican and clearly have a bias view. So in other words your opinion in this mater is worthless.
Funny if it were a Republican I bet you would be singing a different song..Typical
Tim T -
1.) Apparently you need remedial reading lessons or possibly comprehension lessons because you clearly do not understand that I vote for the candidate, not the party.
2.) Kindly name the last time a Republican was on the ballot in South Norwalk. The RTC has considered it a waste of time and effort for the last few elections. But I guess you wouldn't know, since you don't bother to read the candidate's names, just the party.
3.) For whatever reason, you keep trying to paint me with the idea that I would endorse a Republican and totally agree with whatever a Republican candidate would do or say. Your simplistic bias keeps showing up as you try to force me into a box that I have no intention of occupying. It's pretty revealing that all you can do is try to label me as a "Republican". Sadly, that seems to be the extent of your understanding. Non-Democrat equals Republican which equals irrelevent. For all you know, I could be part of Ron Paul's party.
To Tim T. -
Interesting comment. And I assume you speak for the DTC, and all the residents of Ward B, along with all the residents of South Norwalk?
Regardless of what party affiliation I have or do not have, I am a resident of the City of Norwalk. And regardless of what views and opinions I have, biased or otherwise, I am a legal citizen of the United States and have the right to vote. Apparently that's not how you view it, which is downright scary.
Could you kindly cite where it says in the Norwalk City Charter or the Ordinances that all residents of either the City of Norwalk, the Borough of Norwalk or the District of South Norwalk must be registered Democrats in order to vote or to have their opinions matter?
Regardless of whether or not I have a party affiliation, whether it be Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, Working Families, Constitution Party or even (gasp!) Tea Party, I do have the right to vote for the candidate I think is the best on the ballot. That's why the names are listed on the ballot. It appears that you, and others, would like to have the ballot simply read "Democrat" and "All Irrelevant Others".
Once again, as I stated elsewhere, I voted for the man, not the Party.
As one of Geake's constituents, NorwalkSpectator's opinion is entirely relevant, and I'm glad he posted.
By your logic, anybody who is a Republican or Democrat shouldn't be allowed to comment on this matter, due to inherent bias. But wouldn't that disqualify you too?
Geake has overturned the will of the voters, Duleep said. “This is one of those issues where you really find yourself questioning what it is to be a Democrat,” she said.
I beg to differ. Not everyone who voted for Mr. Geake was a Democrat, unless Ms. Duleephas access to the party affiliations of every single vote that was cast for Mr. Geake. That statement also makes a very broad assumption that everyone in South Norwalk is a Democrat. It also assumes that everyone who lives in South Norwalk, regardless of political affiliation, wants what the Democratic Town Committee wants. Guess again.
However, be that as it may, I can attest to the fact that Mr. Geake still has my confidence and I feel he still represents me. I can also account for at least two others who are not Democrats who voted for Mr. Geake and feel this way. Mr. Geake has always been forthright, and while I may disagree with many of his views, I do respect and support him.
As for the unity in the Democratic Town Party, that remains to be seen. Seems to me that when Mr. Bondi changed his party affiliation, the same strum and dram song was played about the caucus meeting. It's beginning to resemble a temper tantrum.
By the way, I think the second half of Ms. Duleep's statement about questioning what it means to be a Democrat is a question worth pondering.
Everyone that voted for him may not have been a Democrat but they all voted for a Democrat and their intent was to have a Democrat represent them on the Council.
I disagree. I voted for the man, not the party. So did others I know of.
I hate to say it, but Norwalk Democrats have never been "United". I love most of them to death, but come on.. lets not lie here.
If I had my way, I'd have ZERO party affiliation to run for office in Norwalk. Who cares if it's a Democrat or Republican. Just get the job done! "Balance of power"? UGH. Without party affiliation people would listen to what folks had to say and how they would solve problems. When Bush was in office you'd have local politicians commenting on the war in Iraq -- are you kidding me????