Should Democrats Sit Alongside Republicans?

Members of the newly elected 30-member Representative Town Meeting (RTM) took their seats on either side of the aisle Wednesday night, Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other. But they may not be seated side-by-side, separated by an aisle, for long. If the Republicans and some Democrats have their way, the RTM will soon be seated by district, not party.

As it turns out, it’s an idea that was tried in the past. But it failed.

Kurt Schwanfelder, former Republican majority and minority leader on the RTM, and an RTM member for 22 years, said in an interview that the seating-together idea was tried two or three times during his tenure. It failed each time, he said.

“There were a few times that they tried to homogenize us. It didn’t work. There are basic philosophical differences between the parties. And when you are with your own group, it is easier to work together. The other way it becomes very disorganized. Regretfully as much as we feel we should be homogenized, we are not. And anyone who says anything different from that is lying.” 

Branford is pondering this question as a similar proposal has emerged to have Republicans sit with Democrats at this year’s State of the Union address before Congress.

The idea to integrate Branford Republicans and Democrats came from Ray Ingraham, an RTM member elected for the first time two months ago. The Republicans are currently the minority party on the RTM, holding 11 out of 30 seats. Ingraham is better known as the head of the Republican Party, known as the Republican Town Committee. His seating idea, advanced in recent weeks, has several charted versions. His view is that RTM members should reflect the view of their neighbors, rather than what their party ideology might ask. It’s not clear if the Democrats have proposed a seating plan of their own. 

The full RTM may vote on the issue at its February meeting but first it must be approved by the RTM leadership: Chris Sullivan, the new RTM moderator, Dennis Flanagan, the clerk, Majority Leader Anthony Giardiello and Minority Leader Frank Twohill. After their recommendation it will likely be voted on by the full RTM.

In other critical decisions, Sullivan instituted major changes in the way RTM meetings are conducted. He implemented a three- minute time limit for members and non-members to address the RTM. He said he may implement a rule permitting residents to speak only twice during a meeting. He also banned the use of static signs, usually political in nature that are designed to be seen by television audiences.

The Branford RTM is a partisan legislative body whose members are elected every two years. They come from seven electoral districts across town. Unlike the towns of Greenwich and Westport, for example, whose RTM members are non-partisan, voters in Branford elect their legislators along party lines. Indeed, the minority party in the RTM must by law hold at least eight seats, according to the new census.

Jamie Cosgrove, a former Republican RTM member, first raised the seating issue in an interview with the Eagle last fall when he was seeking a seat on the Board of Selectmen, a seat he ultimately won in the November election. In an interview he told the Eagle that he thought the physical set-up of the RTM room creates conflict. Click here to read the story.

“Others have said this too. What If people were mixed up among one another? I would be curious to see how that would work, ​“he said. ​“Otherwise it is our side against their side. Obviously each side knows what it wants to do beforehand, they caucus beforehand. But obviously psychologically it might be very different if we sat people from different parties next to each other.”

Prior Seating History

Warren Gould, a Democrat and political activist from Short Beach, recalled that years ago when the Taxpayers Party held several seats on the RTM, a party then led by Jamie Cosgrove’s grandfather, Danny Cosgrove, the RTM attempted to merge seating. ​“It didn’t work,” he said.

​“If it serves the town better now and it happens to work and the RTM members do a better job by sitting together, fine,” he said. But he, like Schwanfelder, was not optimistic.

The party that benefits is the minority party, in this case the Republicans, he said. ​“They don’t have the numbers and they are hoping the Democrats will fall into line.” It is also more difficult to identify who belongs to what party, he said. ​“If everything looks mixed, and it is not clear who voted for what, then that is to the advantage of the minority party.” 

Schwanfelder suggested the RTM do a little work on the issue before it formally votes. ​“Before you make decisions of this sort, see what has been done historically. In my 22 years on the RTM we tried it two or three times and it didn’t work at all.” 

“As dysfunctional as our federal and state legislature is, if we try to do things like this, we will have procedural constipation far worse than what we have already seen. It is ridiculous,” he added. 

A number of sitting RTM members interviewed by the Eagle were not happy with the idea; they did not feel comfortable with the proposed new arrangement and they said they will not vote for it. But some said they knew how they would vote on an issue and it didn’t matter where they sat. 

Mary Davis, the new Democratic chair of the Rules and Ordinances Committee, said at the RTM meeting that her committee voted 7 – 0 to adopt the new seating arrangement. The committee first studied section A236‑8 of the General Rules of the Branford Code, the section that addresses seating of members. It says: ​“The regular RTM members shall sit together in a section apart.” Whether this means they shall sit together as a group apart from the public or they shall sit apart in their own section, is not clearly articulated.

“We didn’t think the construction of the phrase meant that Republicans and Democrats would have to be seated apart,” Davis said at the meeting. ​“We didn’t feel the need to amend, just to interpret it.” Their interpretation was that the two parties could sit side by-side. She said the committee’s tentative decision was to seat RTM members by their districts.

Davis , who is an attorney, also was elected parliamentarian of the RTM. She has the authority to interpret the rules and their application ​“to the matter at hand.”

Davis told the Eagle after the meeting that the committee did not investigate or research the history of how the seating plan came to be. Nor apparently did the committee interview anyone with past experience on the seating issue. The committee’s decision to adopt came quickly and with little discussion, those involved said. 

When the meeting began, two Democrats, Doug Hanlon and Clare Torelli, were already seated at the Republican table. Two Republicans, Marc Riccio, who is also the vice-chair of the RTC, and Peter Black, were seated in the second row with Democrats Maryanne Hall and Josh Brooks (pictured.) 

At one point, someone asked where Hanlon was seated. From the Republican table he smiled and said: ​“I am on the wrong side.” Robin Sandler, a former Republican Town Counsel, and a new member of the RTM, quipped: ​“It is really the right side.” 

Meeting Rules Instituted

In other action, the RTM adopted the latest version of Roberts Rules of Orders with the intention of actually using them. According to town rules, Roberts Rules is supposed to be used to run smooth meetings, but over the years it has largely been ignored. An outside consultant spoke at last month’s RTM meeting about the rules, educating RTM members. Several RTM members were seen carrying the Roberts Rules of Order book Wednesday night. 

Last month Sullivan( pictured here with Dennis Flanagan, the clerk) presided over an introductory RTM meeting where the rules governing RTM meetings were discussed. 

In other actions, Sullivan took the following actions: 

• He ordered a three minute time limit for members and non-members to address the group.

• He said he was considering limiting to two the number of times a person may address the RTM in an evening. This is an effort, he and other RTM members said Wednesday night, to stop constant back and forth conversation at meetings.

• Sullivan also ordered no further display of static signs at meetings, which he characterized as a distraction and unfair to those speaking. The political signs of others are visible on BCTV, the town’s cable television network and become a backdrop for any person addressing the RTM, whether that speaker agrees with the sign’s content or not, Sullivan said.

2012 Agenda Items

Overall the broad outlines of some projects before the new RTM term were outlined via a series of letters and assignments. Some were coming back for a second try. 

Sullivan announced the creation of a special committee to examine land owned by the town’s farmers and the tax requirements imposed by the state to maintain the beneficial tax status. One aspect of the state law requires farmers to farm. This issue came before the RTM’s administrative services committee over the last two years. Tax Assessor Barbara Neal, Town Counsel William Clendenden and former Third Selectman John Opie outlined various issues. In the end, the farm issue was not acted upon. In effect it died.

However, it was resurrected in a letter sent by Republican RTM member Richard Greenalch, Jr. Sullivan decided that this time a special committee of five, specifically three democrats and two Republicans, would again examine the issue and report back to the RTM. David Baker will chair the committee. 

Greenalch, who was absent, also resurrected another RTM issue which died in the last legislative session by an 11 – 10 vote. By letter he asked again for formal review by the Board of Finance before the First Selectman may initiate litigation against another party that exceeds $10,000. 

The decision to sue is one made by a city’s mayor or a town’s first selectman but typically these suits have approval from other boards, an approval often obtained in executive session. Second Selectman Andy Campbell conducted extensive legal research on the issue when he served on the RTM. He reported he found no other town or city in the Connecticut that required prior oversight before a first selectman or mayor initiates a lawsuit.
 
###