Editor's Note: This is an opinion piece and represents the author's views, not those of Trumbull Patch. Mr. Fuchs is a former Trumbull Patch journalist.
The Crusade is over. Bill Holden wins.
Trumbull is in the throes of redistricting to correct population imbalances that have arisen since our last realignment, in 1985. That effort gave Trumbull its present alignment of seven election districts, each with three town council seats.
These districts are no longer equal. Population growth and the addition of several apartment and condominium developments have unbalanced the districts. Now a Redistricting Committee has the task of rebalancing district populations to meet the federal One Person, One Vote law.
Holden's crusade is to reduce the number of districts and thereby decrease the power of the minority party. He began during the 1985 redistricting process, when he wrote the minority report that sought a return to the just replaced five districts. 28 years later he continues.
His ability to do so comes about because he is the Republican Registrar of Voters and Chair of the Redistricting Committee. He is joined on the committee by two other Republicans, Town Clerk Suzanne Burr Monaco and Seventh District Council Representative Tony Scinto, and two Democrats, Voter Registrar Jane Aiello and Third District Council Woman Vickie Tesoro.
Holden is also the “unit historian” and the repository of voting law knowledge. And he is a citizen who has participated about as richly as any one person can in the governance of his community – seemingly since the Republican party was founded in the 1850s (OK, the late 1850s).
The current effort comes on the heels of his seeking to do the same last year, as Vice Chair of Charter Revision Commission. There he reproposed his 1985 five district model. He also proposed restructuring the town council to make seven of its 21 seats subject to town wide voting. Together these would have upped the majority party's state allowed maximum from 14 to 16 seats. But both proposals were almost unanimously defeated by the council.
His motivation appears to be a lack of respect for minority rights. “Guaranteeing a minority party one-third of the seats is excessive” was his comment at a recent redistricting committee meeting.
He seems to display a minority party mindset that cries out for rules allowing a Town Council majority to check a First Selectman and Board of Finance of the other party. Holden wants the majority – today Republicans – to be able to hold more than a two-thirds super majority so that even with a couple of defections or absences they still have the votes to override a First Selectman’s veto of a piece of legislation or of the budget.
Holden has two additional objectives. Along with the rest of the committee, he wants to minimize the number of split districts - local districts whose boundaries do not conform to those of state election districts.
Trumbull's lone example is the newly added 122nd state district. It has too few residents to comprise a single local district, and so must be combined with a part of the 123rd state district to make up one local district.
During even year state elections split district polling places must have separate lines to serve each of the state districts: checkers, ballots, voting machines and vote talliers. Each line is a cost – essentially one of the costs of democracy.
The Redistricting Process
The redistricting committee has held three meetings. At the first, on February 21st, First Selectman Tim Herbst began by charging the committee “to be fair, apolitical… (assure) One Person, One Vote… avoid even the appearance of gerrymandering… create districts as close as possible to equal sizes.” He closed by saying “I hope it will be a smooth process.”
The first order of business was reviewing Trumbull's current voting map – the 1985 lay out. The committee, as one, agreed that that that state structure is flawed. Scinto later called it “faulty,” as his district spans much of the southern tier of the town, while most others are geographically compact.
As the Chair was preparing to call an adjournment Ms. Tesoro submitted a map of the seven districts redrawn to balance population and to include the single split district - “for discussion,” she said.
This took the air out of the Republican side, in part because it seemed a bold play by the Democrats when the Republicans were prepared for no more than an organizational meeting.
Also, the map was prepared using Trumbull’s new Geographic Information System, a computer application that integrates the Assessor’s data base with other town data, here, voter registration. GIS has the capability to create new multi-colored maps in less than half an hour, then easily move populations and district lines around to explore “what ifs.”
Holden admitted after that meeting that he does not fully understand GIS. He was prepared to proceed the old fashioned way – using crayons and an adding machine – a process that might take the better part of a day to produce a single map whose accuracy may be disputable.
At the second meeting the Republicans unveiled their four district map and talked to its benefits.
They ignored the elephant in the room – their super majority issue. Republicans seemingly cannot bring themselves to publicly articulate their driving rationale. So they mask it with sheer arguments like more districts reduce costs, larger districts create better community and a ballot with more candidates enhances voting.
The sheerest of all goes to the benefits of cost reductions – fewer telephones, fewer voting machines, fewer poll workers and fewer sandwiches. Holden apparently believes that the number of voting machines depends on the number of locations, not the number of voters, and overlooks the inconvenience of longer lines and potentially aggravated parking problems.
When he totals these savings he manages to reduce these costs of democracy by less than $8,000. Mere pocket change in a $300 million budget (Split districts come into play only in even year state and federal elections. $300 million approximates two years of town budgets).
The Democrats presented their seven district plan at the meeting on Tuesday (March 6th). It simply reshapes current districts. It integrates the 122nd and takes advantage of the 134th being almost precisely the size of two Trumbull districts. Then it moves residents at the borders of existing districts to achieve population balance.
The difference between the plans is huge. The Republican model has three districts with five council seats and a Super District with six, the Democrats’ has seven districts, all with three seats and all with the same number of residents.
The Republicans' moves some 18,000 residents – half of our town’s population – and 10,900 voters. In contrast, reshaping current boundaries requires moving only 4,900 residents and 3,100 voters.
Tuesday's discussions ended with the two groups agreeing to disagree - the most likely outcome when the committee votes on which plan to forward to the town council.
But no matter. Republicans hold a majority on the committee and will get the four districts they want. And with a 14 – 7 majority in town council, they will get what they want there.
The change will become effective with this year's primaries.
Holden wins. Democracy suffers. But we'll save $8,000.
Weak argument. As the one person who overwhelmingly has more posts on TChat and Patch than anyone in this town your argument is attacking Mr. Holden (no surprise) and does nothing to advance your argument against Mr. Holden's position.
I can see where you would be confused. Mr. Fuchs is a very nice man, however his objectivity as a Reporter is only equaled by his editorial competence as a blogger. Mr. Fuchs is a long time Democrat, once a member of the Board of Finance in Westport. As a reporter for Patch covering the BoF Budget process last year only consulted (and photographed mostly) the Democrats and never once discussed the BoF with it's Republican Chairman. Me. As a blogger I have not problem with that, but as a so-called news reporter that fails the objectivity test.
And how does this address Mr. Holden's argument? Your Proof by verbosity fallacy which you continue to employ just doesn't work. You figure you will attack with other strawman arguments in this strategy, yet it doesn't work. Sometimes, less is more.
This is another argument for which almost everyone in town doesn't care about except a handful of regular Democrats who NEED to post in opposition everyday in order to be relevant to the community. DEMOCRATS: 1. Get a Platform that benefits the community, one people actually care about. 2. Get People interested in that platform 3. Focus on that Platform as President Clinton said "like a laser beam" 4. Go back to #3 All this is trivial at best and you look foolish for attacking it because everyone in town knows that if they want to vote they will vote. No one is stopping them from voting, so its a non-issue. However, as Democrats again you feel you need to Whine and attack this administration on TRIVIAL issues. Again you act as the "Sour-Grapes party", not real Democrats (Opps! I forgot, most of you are disgruntled Republicans acting as Democrats as your personal vendetta).
Where in my posts in this thread do I agree or disagree with Mr. Holden' plan? Personally, I don't care. I will have an opportunity to vote on election day, that is all that matter to me. This is another BS argument by the Democrats because AGAIN they have nothing to offer the town other than to Whine, Whine, Whine about anything the Republicans or this Administration does. Like most people in this town, I don't care if there are 4 or 14 districts. Just show me where to vote. Some of you people in the Democratic party need to get out more. There are a hell of a lot more important issues going on around us that you can focus you energies on than the number of voting districts we have in Trumbull. There are: 1. The Economy 2. Employment in CT. and the U.S. 3. We are still at war. 4. Healthcare Costs 5. Energy Costs 6. High Tuition Costs 7. Taxes Just to name a few, yet the Trumbull Democrats want to spend there energy on fighting for Voting Districts, Board Alternates and Tim's attitude. These are issues that virtually no one in Trumbull cares about because of those seven items I just mentioned above. Those seven are the reality that people are fighting with every day, not voting districts.
Redistricting from seven to four districts and increasing the number of seats the majority can hold from a super majority of 14 of 21 to 17 is anything but "TRIVIAL." Having the chair justify the change by stating that “Guaranteeing a minority party one-third of the seats is excessive" is anything but "TRIVIAL." It is a view of democracy and minority rights quite at odds with anything I was taught. Having the committee chair recommend a Super District when the First Selectman charged the committee to make each district approximately the same size is not “TRIVIAL.” And having the chair rationalize a map with one district 25% larger than the others, one that even the town attorney believes does not meet the One Person One Vote law, is not “TRIVIAL.” Then adding that a savings of $8,000 in $300M of budgets is certainly not a reason to make voting less convenient. My hope was that offering an opinion on what many believe is important would elicit substantive criticism. Instead, I have been disappointed by level of argumentum ad hominem in lieu of serious debate. If you disagree with my position, tell me why, tell me what you recommend and why. More to the point, I await responses from members the committee majority.
* I care about the economy because the health of my business is directly dependent on it. * I care about employment because I have one daughter who recently graduated and is working overseas, and when she comes home to the U.S., I want her to be able to start her career. I have two kids who graduate from UConn in the next two years. I want them to be able to have good jobs. * I care about all of these never-ending wars because our economy can't support them and they're harmful to U.S. interests. It's worth noting that the people who beat the drums for war the loudest are also the people who complain about high gas prices the most. How ironic. * Healthcare costs are a huge concern. * Energy costs. See above about gas prices. * Tuition costs. See above about two kids in college. * Taxes. I have to use part of my (modest) bonus to pay my taxes. Bummer. Mitt Romney pays 14 percent, half of what do. That's really fair, right? All that said, I care very much about the nature of Trumbull's political structure, and about how the balance of power and checks and balances affect our town. I regret that you don't care.
In the last election the Democrats put forth a clear and comprehensive platform that was mocked by the Republicans just as they mocked Ms. Thornton. Well as noted, Mr. Herbst has latched onto those platforms and made them his own. In fact, I can't think of a single new idea the republicans offered in the last election except for personal property tax releif that we now know to be illegal. Civility in Government (Ms. Thornton's idea) Use of Outside expertise to find savings (Ms. Thornton's idea) Expansion of existing Senior Tax Relief Programs (ms. Thornton's idea) All adopted by the current Administration. While we may not have won the election, we seem to have done quite well in the battle of ideas. So, on the issue at hand, JG is correct, why adopt the Holden Plan? There is no arguement that I have heard that makes it superior in any was to the Democratic plan. None. Unlike mark, I do believe the people of Trumbull care about the kind of Government that exists in Trumbull. Trumbull people are fairminded and want a government that reflects that. They are also logical and want plans that reflect that.
What does Romney have to do with the number of Polling districts in Trumbull? And the number of Polling districts that we have in Trumbull will solve these issues for you and the people of Trumbull? M BTW, I KNOW you don't care if I don't care about this topic. So, stop trying to be so sanctimonious it's not working.
Tim leads with ideas and in some cases backs up his leadership with consultants. Ms. Thornton's platform had the Consultant coming in as surrogate First Selectmen being the leadership and coming up with ideas. HUGE difference. Every good business leaders uses Consultants and Lawyers to run their business effectively. However, their ideas on how to go about their business is truely their own. Ms. Thornton didn't have any good ideas, just watch the debates again she supported Tim's platform with little or no rebuttal. No ideas and personal attacks does not win one an election. Again, you try to Strawman National politics in with local politics to attack Republicans. First you are wrong and second you don't get how wrong you really are.
Ms. Thornton had many ideas but intuitively understood that there are people who have expertise that she (and for that matter Mr. Herbst) does not have. In my opinion, any elected official who wants outside experts to confirm his or her own ideas really does not understand the function of true experts. In our business we bring in ourside experts such as Accenture and Oliver Wright, not to confrim our ideas but to take a fresh look at what we do and how we do it. That was Ms. Thornton's approach, it was refreshing and now it is vindicated. I am sorry you don't understand it. This is not about the National level and I understand the republicans desire to wish the Bush years never happened. They did. In the words of the great Democrat, Harry Truman, the buck stops here and while both parites and Citizens who could care less about politics all share in the blame for the economic catastrophe and these seemingly endless wars, they happened on the republican watch. I know it is hard but, you have to deal with it. As for redistricting, there is no rational reason for a "super district". None. There is no rational reason for a radical restrucing of our Town Government. None. The Holden plan was rejected in 1984, it was rejected (in a slightly different form) by the Republicans and the Democrats in the Town Council during Charter revision. What theory are we operating under, "the third time is the charm."?
No she didn't Tom. Thornton had no ideas because if she did she would have been proud to put them in her fliers. Instead all she did was use a smear campaign. Anyone with real ideas would be proud to announce them to the world, she didn't because she did'nt have any. Attacking Tim Herbst was her platform. You know what? She and the Democrats failed! Tell me I am making this up. The proof is in the vote, get over yourselves and your so called plans and move on.
The problems took decades of incompetent career politicians (of both parties) creating them! But, Mr. Silber, the best thing you can do for your and your children's futures is to vote for the Republican nominee instead of PBO in November. For Mr. Fuchs to proclaim both proud support of PBO and concern for citizen enfranchisement is the height (depth?) of illogic! Obama is the most dictatorial of any president ever of our nation. He frequently declares his wish to be able to act without any check by congress! Also, while always claiming concern for the "middle class," his actions (enabled by the DEMS controlling congress) have caused MILLIONS of them to be laid off from their jobs, and other millions to become more and more DEPENDENT upon government! Is that not turning them into serfs??!
I think you're looking at Obamacare all wrong, and to say that the solution is to vote for the Republican is ridiculous if Romney is the nominee. Romneycare was the model for Obama's healthcare, and the results of Romneycare in Mass. are that costs are declining and people are healthier. Also, Obamacare resulted in a huge windfall for insurance companies, because 30 million or more people will be put on their books. Also, a good thing, you and I won't have to pay for those people and their poor healthcare decisions anymore. In terms of jobs, job loss peaked in November 2008, and declined every month since then until a couple of years ago, when the economy began adding jobs again. Hard to hit Obama too hard on that one. Thanks for a good reply.
Let's stay with redistricting and save the other issues fro another time.
Also, the Town Council resolution forming the Redistricting Committee is posted on the town website, but it is not the correct resolution. Vicki Tesoro asked Mr. Holden at the committee's organizational meeting to see that the error was corrected and the correct resolution posted, but it is still wrong.
Now, to forestall the typical Republican resonse and to keep focus on the real issue I will, honoring the debating skills of Rush Limbaugh, Bill Holden, and Mark Smith, I hereby call MYSELF a verminous, jerky, sanctimonious slut. Now that that is behind us, the question is why do we do a radical restructuring, including creating a "super district" when all of that is unnecessary?
Given that error I don't believe tonight's meeting can be legally held and should be rescheduled. Our charter requires meetings to be posted to the web site 48 hours ahead of time including the agenda and all supplementary materials. While the charter does not explicitly say that the proper location must be provided, it's clear that the intent is to permit an educated citizenry to attend the meetings. Sending such people to the wrong side of town because the leadership didn't ensure proper notice is clearly not in line with that provision.
Even more important than the legal requirement is the ethical one, Each board has an obligation to the citizens of this town to provide proper notice. If they screwed up then they should take a step back and do it properly. It's really not that hard to do the right thing.
In addition, two weeks ago the meeting time was changed from 7pm to 8pm, but the town calendar says 7pm. The posted agenda (which is not on the home page like the calendar, but instead is posted under Agendas and Minutes) did show the correct time. The agendas do not give the location of the meetings, however, so the only information posted on the town website regarding location has been incorrect.
Perhaps you could clarify for me what happens after you submit your report. Our charter doesn't state what steps must occur. Has there been discussion regarding the process for the TC? If not, has it been past practice for a sub-committee of the TC to review the proposal before presenting it to the full body (presumably not before the May meeting)? Has there traditionally been a public hearing? Lastly, what is the effective date of the new district map?
Let me reiterate my post. Trumbull's redistricting committee will meet on March 20 - in what will probably be its final session. Its task is to recommend new districts to town council that equalize population to meet the One Person One Vote federal requirement. Trumbull today has seven districts, each with three town council representatives. each district had the same population when the town was last redistricted in 1985. Since then, population growth and new housing have unbalanced some districts. Committee members have created two plans. The majority restructures the town into three districts of five seats and one of six - making one 25% larger than the others, and allowing the town council majority to hold 17 of the 21 seats, well beyond today's limit of 14 (a super majority). The minority seeks to move district boundaries to keep the seven districts while equalizing populations. Adopting the majority plan entails moving over half the town's population into new districts, the minority's about 10%. The majority says its plan will save the town $8,000 every second year. The minority's accepts this rather slim cost for a democracy, noting that its plan offers more polling places, shorter lines - all together, more convenient voting. Republicans, what say you?