Third party’s impact felt on City Council race

[Record-Journal]

By Adam Wittenberg, Record-Journal staff
MERIDEN — At first, Diane E. Morenz didn’t want to run, but her candidacy in Area 3 likely made the difference in that City Council race.

Democrat Brian P. Daniels, a political newcomer, defeated Republican Daniel R. Brunet and Morenz of We the People on Tuesday, but the results point to Morenz taking votes from Brunet.

Two years ago, Brunet and Morenz had sought the other Area 3 seat, which Democrat Brian F. Kogut won. In that election, Brunet received 1,256 votes, Morenz, who ran as an independent, got 138 and Kogut took 1,904.

This year, Daniels won the seat with 1,674 votes. Brunet increased to 1,360 votes, a gain of 104, but it was Morenz who more than quadrupled her total, to 587.

“There’s no question the third party had an impact on my results,” Brunet said Wednesday.

We the People formed this year after the Republicans declined to front a mayoral candidate.

Perhaps even more painful was Brunet’s admission that he had turned down a cross-endorsement offer from the third party in July.

“In retrospect, maybe I should have looked at that a little further,” said Brunet, a member of the city’s Planning Commission. “At the time, I really didn’t know the other candidates all that well. It felt a little uncomfortable at that time.”

The Republican Party would have accepted the endorsement, but it was Brunet’s call, said Lois DeMayo, a former Republican town chairwoman who left to lead We the People.

Brunet’s was the only dual endorsement We the People offered.

“(Brunet) said he didn’t think he should be able to do that,” DeMayo said. “But he asked us not to run anybody in that spot. We said, ‘Sorry. We’re offering it to you, and we’re certainly not going to leave it empty.’”

We the People then convinced Morenz to run — she had turned the party down before it approached Brunet. Running with a slate of candidates, she boosted her vote total significantly.

We the People and the Republicans ran on similar platforms of frustration with taxes and the Democrats’ 12-0 hold on the council.

If Morenz wasn’t in the race and Brunet had received 53 percent of her votes, he would have won.

Morenz was pleased with her results and said it wasn’t her fault Brunet wouldn’t take the cross-endorsement.

She hopes Brunet doesn’t view her as a spoiler, Morenz said.

“But what can I say? Who knows where those numbers would have gone for sure?” she said.

In the Area 4 race, which includes South Meriden, Republican John J. Ghidini III and Bob R. Williams of We the People received more votes than incumbent Keith Gordon, a Democrat who was re-elected.

Williams polled 732 votes and Ghidini 704 to Gordon’s 1,303, but combined the two men exceeded Gordon’s total by 133 votes.

“My attitude is, hey, if you don’t win, there’s no prize for second place,” Williams said.

He wasn’t bitter about the result, however, considering that his party out-polled the Republicans in three of the five council races.

Ghidini and Williams got along well. Each told the other during the race that they would be glad if the other won.

That might have happened if the two parties had worked together, a point not lost on Gordon or Ghidini.

“Seeing it was a (revaluation) year and none of us on the council knew what was going to happen, it was good to have the third party in there to take votes away from each other,” Gordon said.

Ghidini acknowledged that having two challengers likely helped Gordon. He hopes the leaders of We the People and the Republicans will work together in future elections.

“I think, in this town, if you really want to effectuate change on the all-Democratic council, I think you have to cooperate,” Ghidini said. “You have no choice, you really don’t.”

Even if that happens, Democratic Town Chairwoman Mildred Torres-Ferguson said it has been tried before, with little success.

DeMayo was with the Republicans two years ago, but split to form We the People.

“They were together (in 2005) when we picked up an all-Democratic council,” Torres-Ferguson said, “so I’m not too worried.”

awittenberg@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2231

[Scouter]

The majority of the We The People Candidates don't stand much of a chance being elected let alone be taken seriously by a majority of city residents. An endorsement from the We the People party could be considered the scarlett letter of Meriden politics. Who can blame Brunet for not accepting a cross endorsement from a political party that runs candidates that stand for little more than being anti-status quo and taxation but have no other plans for the future of the city. I'd rather show up as an independent on a ballot or a petition candidate then be lumped under the banner of We The People in Meriden. The acceptance of a cross endorsement would also be equal to accepting that a third party is necessary for change in Meriden when it is clear that "We The People" screwed up any chance for change that the citizens of Meriden had.

Brunet turned down the cross endorssment and We The People ran a candidate in the slot after he turned it down. Why did We The People run a candidate? It's bad politics and bad strategy on their part. For a political party that is about taking seats from the democratic caucus that makes up our city council they certainly did not act on that message when they ran a candidate who has lost in the past. They knew that a third candidate would split the vote. They should have left Area 3 alone and provided Brunet a fair chance to win. If the mission of We the People is to put new voices on the city council you can lay full blame on that party for choosing to run a full slate of candidates rather than win seats on the council for a minority party. Running of candidates, even though a trained monkey could tell the vote would be split, "We The People" turned into "Another political Party of People Out For Their Own Political Gain"

[eds]

It started with the Concerned Citizens of Meriden representing and bringing a message to the council. That group originally started out trying to be a lobbying voice of the people, not a political platform. That was all they said they wanted to do at first. Then it became a glory seeking group of people thinking "Hey why not run for office?"

I went to the meetings and all they did was b!tch and complain about taxes and spending without offering any real solutions. Shamock jumped on the bandwagon as a vehicle to relection. He's no more WTP than Bush is. He's a Republican plain and simple. He did a Joe Lieberman and ditched the GOP but that does not mean he's no longer a Republican. The same way Joe is and always will be a Democrat no matter his party.

So what did the WTP gain really? I think their 15 minutes is up.

[collie]

Brunet turned his nose up at the opportunity; bet he would have taken it from the Democrats! He was a good candidate but there's nothing wrong with Diane Morenz; she had a good point about the Humane Society with its crappy ventilation, leaky foundation and financial problems. She's a hard worker and a professional. Look how well Cathy Abercrombie has done as state rep. and she had no experience other than being PTA president and LOSING when she ran for BOE. Don't expect third parties to do the Republican's dirty work. If we wanted Republicans we would have voted for more of them, not that there's much difference between them and the Democrats in Meriden (maybe that's why people liked having ANOTHER OPTION). WTP has been labeled as incompetent, idiotic whiners but they took a third of the vote easily after just forming earlier this year and running on a shoe string budget. Remember the 4,000 people in Meriden who signed a petition for Charter Revision. City Hall swore the 4,000 "didn't understand" the petition they signed. HELL YES, we understood what we signed and people get tired of being called stupid; the sanctity of the voting machine is a glorious thing! Sounds like sour grapes to me over WTP and democracy in action, a whole lot of grousing because someone else ended up on the slate besides the usual demorepublicans. And Walt Shamock had been going to Concerned Citizen meetings from the time they first formed and when he was still a Republican city councilor. How come the Republicans didn't run him this time? Did his having associated with the riffraff you seem to think WTP are cause the Republicans to not ask him to run? God only knows but that wouldn't have been very nice of them. Walt Shamock is just as conservative as the mayor of Meriden only he is also fiscally conservative. He certainly in my opinion is a kinder person than Patty Lynes.

[Scouter]

I suppose WTP did take a third of the city vote for mayor because it was really a two party battle. If a republican candidate was endorsed for mayor the third of the city voters that went to WTP would be split between WTP and the Republican candidate. This split would be similar to the split that is seen in the area races where WTP candidates were a hindrance for change. I also wouldn't go as far as saying the WTP candidates are riff-raff, idiotic, whiners or incompetent. I would say that they don't exactly fit the profile that most people would vote for as a city councilor.

WTP overall, looking at all area council races, did not take 30% of the vote. In many areas the minimal votes they received were just enough to prevent a credible republican candidate from winning the council seat. So let's take a look at how the council races looked overall on votes per party:

Democrats - 5003 - 50.47%
WTP - 2093 - 21.12%
Republican 2816 - 28.41%

If WTP truly felt that their mission was to take seats from the democrats they should not have run a candidate in area three and in area two and should have worked with the republicans to pick one candidate in area four. In doing so the chances of a non-democratic candidate being elected would have been greater. But it is now our loss that a third party, and republican party, prevented the citizens of Meriden from seeing a true change in the make up of our city council.

[collie]

Someone recently pointed out, in a negative way, that WTP was composed of both Democrats and Republicans. I never thought the "purpose" of WTP was strictly anti-Democrats. I thought they felt one party rule was unhealthy, too many decisions going on in closed door caucus pre-council meetings. In this case, of course, it was an all-Democratic city council but still I never got the sense WTP was an anti-Democratic party. How much more gracious could they have been offering to cross endorse Brunet? Brunet is, in my experience, a politician who treats citizens who approach him with decency. He is well liked for the person he is. Intelligent voters don't vote party or anti-party lines and Brunet doesn't stick his finger up in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing before he says hello to a person. Some of Meriden's politicians do, real phonies. I'd love to see Brunet run against Rep. Altobello with the support of both the Republicans and WTP. He might actually respond when you call or email his office.

[brunet]

It is intresting to hear the feedback, I have received plenty since the election. Much has been positive and negative.
I had hoped more races would be closer, but that is not the case.

If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer you, I am honest and will always answer that way.

[brunet]

Upon reading my post, it sounds like a phony politician post. Not

[eds]

Ok it's dead. Bludgeoned and beaten until no more can be said. Hey that rhymed! Maybe I should post in the poetry forum every now and again.

Anyway...it's dead.

Can we move on to something more like "Now what?" What's the big plan, Stan? How are we going to move Meriden forward? What are we going to do now that the elections are over?

Talking about the election outcome is nice and all, but it's getting old. Let's revive this horse in two years for the next council election in 2009.

[Fit 2 Print]

It'll be interesting to see what the new council and board will do to address the very pressing needs of the community. What are the top issues upon which to focus?

[eds]

I think we need to let the council and their committees set their agenda. Then we will know.

I think the first order of business is to replace the outgoing chairwoman Pat Lynes of the Health and Human Services Committee. Unless their is a process for that. I don't know for sure.

[Man in the Middle]

There's actually two committee chairs open, Pat Lynes' Human Services, and Steve Zerio's Economic Development committee.

The Dems will be caucusing to divvy up leadership and chairmanship roles. Walt Shamock by default as the lone minority member will be Minority Leader, and get his pick of committees, but he won't be a chairman. Look for him on Finance and Public Works, the committees he was on before being ousted 2 years ago.

[Fit 2 Print]

I think it would be healthy to see some new committee chairs, especially given the political complexion of the council. Shamock's role is all-too predictable, even though a welcome voice.

[Man in the Middle]

It may be healthy, but it's not political, and that's what drives the power. However, 2 out of the five committees will have new chairs, so that will mix it up a bit.

Walt is predictable. He will say no to anything the BOE wants, but he will vote for budgets (he has in the past, he just splits his vote to say no to education). But he won't bring anything new to the table. Has he ever submitted his own resolution or budget before? I don't think so.

[Fit 2 Print]

I don't mind Shamock's views as much as that he rarely, if ever, advances some compelling original ideas. Perhaps he does, but if so, I haven't heard of it. Has anyone?

[collie]

Would they let him? Don't "resolutions," those creative new ideas you refer to, require ANOTHER COUNCILOR to sign on in order to even get on the agenda? You make it sound so easy but really a lot gets done behind the scenes before the curtains opens for that great drama we all enjoy so much, the fabled Meriden City Council meeting. Even if Walt Shamock did develop a separate budget, they're not going to let him bring it up at a televised city council meeting. That's not the way their "process" works. God forbid they start to televise the committee meetings. They won't. People might actually watch and get a better sense of how the budget works.

[Man in the Middle]

Collie, you seem to know a lot about the Council and their ways. I"m surprised you don't know that any councilor can submit a resolution to the full Council, as can the Mayor. They don't need another councilor to sign on, but the majority leader sets and approves the agenda. He could block it, but I don't think that ever happens. And what about when he had two other Republicans with him (Feest and Clermont?).

Televising committee meetings is a good idea, but it could be expensive to do all of them, and many of the meetings are like watching paint dry. The Council does video budget hearings however (and here's where Walt could submit his own budget, but he never has and never will). They've also video'd controversial meetings like Abbatamatteo's defense of dismantling community policing, the Auto Auction debate in Economic Development, and the public hearings on Falcon Field.

Do you have proof of backroom conspiracies? You're pretty cynical.

[eds]

Does collie attend the meetings?

[collie]

I have attended many but find them excruciatingly nauseating to endure, don't enjoy the "atmosphere." Frankly, I only attend BOE and Council meetings three or four times a year now when I absolutely have to. Which is my humble right. However, if my memory is not failing I believe Councilor Claremont told me of trying to get a resolution through and could not get the needed support to get it on the agenda. I remember him telling me others had to sign on - in that case, I think the mayor did so but he couldn't get another. So perhaps I'm right, perhaps I'm wrong but I sure am entitled to feel cynical. We would never know how many resolutions were blocked, according to your theory because the system lacks transparency. And aren't you, man in the middle, the big Steve Zerio supporter who agreed with former majority leader Zerio that this is not a democracy but a "representative republic?" I mean what would a councilor denied do, write a letter to the editor? That's not what politicians do, they suck it up. Try going to a council meeting in Wallingford for ha-has. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. Public comment there is PART OF THE MEETING. The only time they actually talk about televising committee meetings here in Meriden is prior to an election. Then they forget about it. Cynical enough for you? I'd call it realistic instead.

[Man in the Middle]

Merriam Webster defines democracy as:

a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

In a pretty good informational website run by the government http://http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm), the distinction between direct and representative democracy is pretty well laid out:

"Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens." (bold and italics mine). It's clear from this definition that that's how Meriden's government is formed.


I think that's what Zerio meant. He was working in the system he was elected to. The people can change it, but they haven't thus far. It's clear you don't like the man, but not everybody feels the way you do. And he's left the stage, so if you feel he was the impediment, you get to effect change with a new majority leader and team. Perhaps you can convince Rohde to change the Council rules to allow public comment within the meeting now, although by his comments in the R-J today, that's unlikely.

Transparency in Wallingford government? Let's talk Wooding-Caplan.

[collie]

I never said Wallingford was "transparent" - I said the way their city council meetings include and "handle" public comment was infinitely superior to Meriden. If I lived in Wallingford I would have signed the petition and helped the Wooding Caplan referendum movement. The night I spoke before them I was there to support affirmative action; they allow an open question and answer period when the meeting starts and also allow the public to comment as items come up on the agenda, letting them have the final word before the vote is taken. Interesting article this morning about the new council leadership posts. They all look good but Rohde has guaranteed future disruptive public comments with his refusal to consider "another way." Went digging through my files yesterday - do you remember when Steve Zerio had the televised public comment at city council meetings removed from the air? The mayor, Walt Shamock and Rob Claremont were opposed at the time but Zerio "won." Eventually public pressure forced the resumal of televised public comment. Frank Kogut caught tremendous public disapproval, in my opinion, when he pulled a similar stunt with the BOE. Public comment at their meetings was also returned to the airways. Also, I attended almost every one of the Meriden City Charter Commission meetings; there were many and very few people attended from the public. Can't say I blame them after the way the neighborhood associations, the petition organizers, were LEFT OUT of the commission. But at any rate, the final report of the Charter Commission included a recommendation re improvemements to public comment sections of the city council meetings. Couldn't find that article but doubt the exact recommendation matters now BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IGNORED IT! And for cripes sake, I'll bet it's pretty cheap to televise committee meetings. A lot cheaper than Falcon Field, for sure. Really, what would it be, fifty bucks a meeting if a meeting lasted an hour? A worthwhile investment considering the challenges we face - I'd like to see finance, economic development and budget meetings televised; also the Planning Commission and POCD, HUB reuse meetings! The bottom line here is I think one of communication skills. Councilors Zerio and Rohde never could deal with some of the public comment; they should have years ago just let people have their three minutes and not get into arguments with them. It takes two to tango and the whole situation is ridiculous, also quite amusing, at this stage of the game. It's like watching a bad marriage. Also the resentment councilors seem to bear towards "the same people" who come to every meeting. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their public comment and the politicians who control the meetings shouldn't either. Meriden shows its disrespect towards a so-called "democracy" when it refuses to make public comment a part of the actual city council meeting as MANY OTHER communities in the state do. Public comment starts at 6:30, no requirement for councilors to be there because the real deal starts at 7 pm. Also, no matter how many people have come and wish to speak, they will be left out if they haven't been able to speak and it's the magic hour, 7 o'clock, when the "real meeting" starts. Four or five years ago, I would go to a city council meeting and speak before maybe two or three councilors, no mayor there and I was outraged. What a blatant lack of basic respect and human decency. A democracy I do not call it and what a perverted form of representative republic, a farce is more like it. I think more of them show up now, but frankly I think that is because people complained loud and clear about the farce going on. Continued progress is needed in this area unless you want council meetings to continue to be a PUBLIC JOKE when it comes to public comment. And if they can't handle the situation, I guess that explains the big screw ups like Edison School; how will they be able to handle more difficult problems?

[eds]

From what I have seen of Meriden public comment, perhaps integrating the period as part of the meeting would be a welcome change. However the issue at hand is that so many people decide to use the public comment period to berate, belittle, and otherwise show disrespect to the councilors. These people vent their frustration towards the council in an destructive manner. The speeches I have heard lack clear direction and add little value to the process.

Were a person to prepare a well-written speech, with clear points, and convincing arguments the council may actually listen. It is very hard to listen to ranting and complaining in which the person uses the council as some type of therapy session. No councilor wants to sit there and be lambasted for 30 minutes.

To be constructive and to effect real change, one needs to formulate an argument, support it with facts, and present that argument in a clear and concise manner. Length is not the issue if the speech is compelling. I have spoken at length with Keith and Dave and the other councilors and they have listened. When one just vents vitriol one does not feel much like listening. Thirty minutes is about all anyone can take of that.

[collie]

Let's get real - you are referring to Art Petrocelli at this point, aren't you? In fairness, I have heard councilors respond to him really nastily, which is totally uncalled for. The professional thing to do would be to listen for three minutes, politely say thank you and MOVE ON! Frank Rotelli talks a little these days but for God sakes, the man is blind and I think dying now. I can tell you four or five years ago if the council had just given them their three minutes, not made faces, bothered to even attend and not responded with verbal attacks a lot of this could have been avoided. Like I said, it takes two to tango. All one sees from the TV set at home is the speaker; you'd have to be there I guess to see that this is not as one sided as it's made out to be. What did our mothers teach us - Two wrongs don't make a right.
So who else do you begrudge their public comment? Arlene Dunlop, Mary Ellen Mordarski, Andy Piatek ... Give me a break. Who wants to go up there to speak on an issue that is important to you and get labeled as "someone who wants to get on TV!" That is so rude, councilors who are "tired" of the "same people" going to council meetings. I cannot understand why people do not feel as I do - that that attitude is so disrespectful and unacceptable. Totally not the professional attitude I expect to see from a city councilor.

[eds]

So you are saying the people can be as nasty as they want to, and the council should just sit there listen and move on? That the councilors should just take their verbal beating like children being scolded? In simple terms, the people started it, not the council. If anything, the councilor responded in kind.

I have never seen the councilors respond to anything without provocation.

Public comments are supposed to be used to inform the council of the will of the people. Public comment period is not a throw down. There are several people, and everyone knows who they are, which do not constructively criticize the council but seek to change the council through badgering, strong language, and adversarial positioning which can only serve to vent frustration and do little to offer real solutions or real change.

These people should offer a real solution and back it up with facts. Then the council would have something worthwhile listening to. When one hears the same argument over and over again, when one can actually predict what the person will say before they say it, perhaps that person should bring something new to the table or risk being tuned out. That's human nature. And the councilors are human.

I think, of all the towns in the area, this council does a better job at keeping meetings from becoming a boxing match.

[collie]

Name the several people, please.

[jma]

Collie, I believe you already did. I've been to the meetings and have seen both sides. I have personally wanted to toss Rotella out on his ass a few times. Frank and Scrapper may have valid points at times, but the delivery comes across as a vicious, personal attack. Andy and Arlene at least try to make a point, instead of using the time to rant and rave. There is no way the council will open the whole meeting up to a question and answer period with these two up there. Can you honestly expect it to be productive?? Please don't excuse Rotella's behavior on his physical condition--if you've been around Meriden long enough, you'd know that his behavior hasn't changed in many, many years.

[eds]

I am lousy with names but jma named the group for me. I have met personally with Arlene and spoke to her on the phone. I don't find her to be disrespectful. She does try to bring a point to the table. Passionate speeches are not rude.

Petrocelli I remember from the Concerned Citizens meetings. I believe he was the one standing by the door when we met in the library. A very bitter man in my opinion.

Then there's the Tom's Place gang. A couple old guys I've seen. Big burly types and I can't remember their names. I just know about them from the Maces. They tried to stop the stop signs from going in on Rice and Cutlery.

Remember folks, my family has been in Meriden since the mid 1800s. I know a lot of Meriden's history from personal accounts. Do you know of William Godburn? He's related to my wife by way of her mother. My opinions are my own though input from the family is highly regarded in my mind.

[collie]

Still, it seems to me two people don't add up to "several." I am a nurse and communication skills go a long way in life and in the professional world, especially when people are upset. Nothing is completely one sided. Competent people who run for office and win should view this as an opportunity to resolve a difficult problem. And the guys from Tom's Place and William Godburn aren't offensive to you, are they?

[eds]

Rotella, Petrocelli are the two I can name with jma's help, but there are others whom I cannot. I can't remember names to save my life. But I remember faces very well.

Your last sentence I do not understand.

Bill is certainly not offensive to me. He's family. Perhaps you missed that in my last post. After all, you only read a few sentences so you say. I see him regularly. His op-ed piece on Veteran's Day was spot on.

As for the two from Tom's place, my run in with them involved the stop sign on Rice St and if their behavior during that council sub committee meeting is any indication, I would find them offensive to the council as well. All they were doing at that meeting was opposing the stop signs because they use Cutlery as a short cut to Tom's. They don't even live on that street and every resident on that street signed the petition to install them. Butting in where they do not live is offensive to the residents of that street and wastes council's time. It was a totally personal agenda which did not coincide with that which the residents of Cutlery wished. I have seen them at other meetings promoting the WTP agenda as well.

Let't see, I think that adds up to four.

[collie]

I only read a few sentences when it comes to graphic descriptions of soft core porn. Don't twist words around.

[eds]

Glad you made that clear.

[Scouter]

Just wanted to toss in here. If people want the council to take them seriously during public comment then the people need to speak to prepared speches and not "wing it". Granted one of the reasons I watch the city council meeting on tv is to see the humerous public comments at the beginning. Getting up at every council meeting and picking on a part of the agenda does not make you an activist, it makes you annoying. Rallying people behind you for support, acting as professional and civilized as possible and speaking clearly on your point will make you an activist. Of the regular characters, and I do mean characters, who speak at public comment none can really be taken seriously by the citizens of Meriden let alone the city council. Perhaps if they changed tactics they would gain more credibility.

[eds]

A well-written, clear, concise, and persuasive piece would go a long way to getting people to listen. Whining, complaining, and otherwise venting into councilors is no way to be activist. Scouter is spot on!