OOPS, ANOTHER TWIST IN THE HARTFORD DEMOCRATIC TOWN COMMITTEE ROAD TO IRRELEVANCE

Hang on Hartford Democrats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

It seems that (FORMER?)Hartford Democratic Town Committee Chairperson Sean Arena's "Endorsement Dispute" filing may be the latest violation of State Central rules.

According to the Democratic State Central rules, Article V, section A, Arena's complaint would have to"be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution".

In this case, that would be the same person who replaced Arena by the process being disputed, Jean Holloway. The other Democratic State Central member from the District would be Hector Robles.

In essence, for Arena to have exhausted his "administrative" remedies in the required process and go through the appropriate steps, he would have to file his complaint and attempt to resolve the issue with Robles and Holloway on the local level first.

I know, it is all very confusing, but typically whether it is a union grievance or a political dispute, or pretty much any civil matter, you have to exhaust your "administrative" remedies before moving to the next level when you feel aggrieved.

Arena has not done that, and potentially his complaint could be kicked back to the local level where it needs to be dealt with first, according to party rules.

That raises another problem though. As the clock ticks on Arena's complaint, other issues come into play. Most likely the complaint should get kicked back and see what happens on the local level. That can cause a few things to happen. Robles and Holloway determine that it is a conflict for them to decide and since Robles supports Arena and Holloway supports herself they are at a deadlock. Refer the matter up the process to State Central.

Or Holloway resigns as a State Central member and her replacement and Robles attempt to resolve the matter. That scenario is highly unlikely and would potentially have a great impact on any balance of "power" on the Town Committee.

The more likely outcome is that no matter what they decide,short of Arena being named Chairperson, Arena will not accept their decision. At that point, since he had exhausted his "administrative" options on the local level, Arena could take his dispute to State Central. That would be the normal progression, and in a court of law, where this is most likely to end up, taking the proper steps up the ladder is required.

And now on to the next major problem. As the clock ticks on all of this, the Democratic State Convention is rapidly approaching and delegates need to be selected for the convention. The problem with that is there are hard and fast deadlines that need to be adhered to for that selection. There are also specific time lines that govern the dispute process.

In addition to the five day time frame to select the members of the "dispute" committee from other State Central members, there is a requirement of a seven day notice to be given before any hearing can be held.

The hearing process timeline would most likely extend beyond the delegate "deadline" resulting in the Hartford Democratic Town Committee being unable to send legitimate delegates to the convention when the whole process is in question.

With the number of candidates for Governor and other Constitutional statewide offices in the mix this year,more so than ever, every delegates vote counts. If a winning candidate should receive a nomination based on a slim vote margin, I doubt they want to risk that support on a Hartford delegation vote that might not hold up.

If a Hartford delegation to the Convention can't be chosen due to the illegitimacy questions, Hartford's local party rules once again kick in. Apparently those rules call for the same delegates to be sent to the convention that were sent 4 years ago.

Welcome back Abe Giles and company as delegates to the convention for 2010.

I know, it is still very confusing, but that's politics in Hartford. You can't make this stuff up.

HERE IS THE FULL SECTION 5 ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

Article V:

FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE

A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedures must first be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedite any such disputes, State Central members may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. If the parties involved cannot bring about a resolution to their differences within seven business days, then the issue may be referred to the State Party Chairman in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. If the dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising the Dispute Resolution Committee.

B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed of no less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson
thereof, none of whom shall be represent the district or districts concerned. The decision of the committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties.

C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the Democratic Party Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances warrant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within three (3) days of the close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.