Some folks in town might be confused by the emergence of yet another Democratic primary vote in less than a year. The situation that resulted in the current primary is complicated. I hope that this letter provides some clarity to people who do not have intimate knowledge of Redding’s Democratic Town Committee, coming from someone whose name is on the “party endorsed slate” but prefers to be affiliated with the petitioning candidates of the “Real Redding Democrats” group.
I find that there are often three kinds of people who operate within large volunteer organizations: leadership, worker bees, and critics. Leadership includes those who have the vision and tenacity to take on the most grueling and thankless work of the organization. The worker bees are those who fill in the gaps and help “keep the trains running on schedule.” I’m guessing most readers will recognize the role and value of the critics. I consider myself a “worker bee.” Yet somehow, I have found myself on the “DTC endorsed slate,” which emerged from the efforts of critics within the DTC. This is not a comfortable place for me: I was never a disgruntled DTC member who felt the need to force “reform” for the sake of change, nor am I a critic of the good work of the Redding DTC leadership.
As a worker bee, I know that the work of the committee is not glamorous. It involves setting up tents at 5am on election day and filling them with tables and chairs, coffee and doughnuts. It involves phone banking and letter writing on behalf of candidates. It involves working with a communications committee to hash out effective DTC messaging for web sites, social media, and post cards. It involves addressing and stamping mailings, organizing fundraisers, asking neighbors to donate money, coordinating candidate “meet and greet” events, and completing and filing state required forms. Most importantly, it involves recruiting and vetting candidates for leadership roles on town boards and commissions (or perhaps more accurately, begging talented and busy people to serve in time-consuming and often thankless volunteer roles so that our town will continue to thrive under Democratic leadership).
From what I have seen, the critics are seldom involved in the real work of the committee. They prefer to watch, judge the efforts of others, and (fittingly) criticize. When they were not voted into leadership or appointed to the nominating committee, they shirked the hard work of improving their ideas and consensus building and instead used other, less savory methods to acquire power and force change. They nominated candidates from the floor at caucus meetings rather than introducing them through the proper channel of the DTC nominating committee. They couched their criticism in progressive sounding calls for “reform” and “transparency,” all while trying to subversively oust those who are doing the work of the committee but may not agree with each and every one of their demands. They deem the experience and good-faith efforts of their fellow committee members—leadership and worker bees alike—expendable, happily sacrificing them in favor of power play politics. Rather than working within established committee protocol and engaging in civil discourse with likeminded and reasonable people to work out differences, they organized and executed a cynical ambush on their neighbors and fellow committee members.
These are not tactics I support or want associated with my candidacy. I believe in process. I believe in respect for established protocols and subcommittees. I believe in learning from those who have successfully blazed trails before me. I believe in consensus building, debate, and the marketplace of ideas. I do not believe in loyalty tests, coercing “transparency” via secret plot, or imposing the will of the entitled few over the majority and calling it “reform.”
I respectfully invite you to vote for the following candidates on March 1st: Julia Pemberton, Margi Esten, Mary Ann Carman, Peg O’Donnell, Jeff Boxer, Daniel Barrett, Sharon Hoverman, Mary Dale Lancaster, Dan Souza, Bob Moran, Dave Pattee, Diana Carlino, Gwen Denny, Karen Gifford, Laurie Heiss, Liz Candler, Mary Lee Pampel, Mary Lou Carlson, Meghan Ely, Peggy Zamore, Aaron Bricker, Amy Atamian, Michele Grande, Kim Yonkers, Roger Van Ausdal, and Phyllis Rhodes.
These are candidates who I believe share the values and respect for process that have led to Democratic successes in Redding. These are candidates who inspire trust and display decency and integrity in their interactions with fellow committee members. These are candidates who are proud to do the good work of Real Redding Democrats.
The Truth about DTC Subcommittees:
A narrowly focused group of Democrats has implied, outright or by insinuation, that the Redding Democratic Town Committee (DTC) has been running its Nominating Committee meetings in a secretive manner that may have been in violation of rules set down by the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (CDSCC).
In response, Real Redding Democrats (RRD) reached out to Attorney Kevin Reynolds, Counsel for the CT Democratic State Central Committee, to ask about the permissibility and legality of closed nominating meetings.
Attorney Reynolds stated that the CDSCC has strict rules that inform the governing of the Democratic Party in all towns in CT. These rules, in turn, must adhere to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Charter.
Attorney Reynold’s answer:
The DNC Charter is “clear” – the State Party Rules must be “in accordance with the DNC Charter.” As per the DNC, subcommittee meetings, which are not official, do not require notice and/or a quorum, and are NOT public meetings. Therefore, subcommittee meetings, including the Nominating Committee, may operate without public input.
Attorney Reynolds went on to suggest that requiring subcommittee meetings to be open (for example: campaign strategy or fundraising meetings, as well as nominating meetings) would be unimaginable. If that were the case, there could never be a private meeting in which confidential information could be shared. Every subcommittee meeting would have to be publicly noticed and the entire public would be privy to what are often sensitive and confidential particulars and facts of the DTC and its aspiring candidates.
Following a long-established practice of DTC’s, not only in Redding, but throughout the state, the Redding Nominating Committee (10 members – 25 % of DTC) held candidate interviews in private. This was to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the aspiring candidates as well as to assure the integrity of the process.
Real Redding Democrats (RRD) is proud of the way the Nominating Committee held its meetings, and the candidates it has brought forward. RRD pledges to continue to run the DTC in a transparent, ethical and open fashion.
Did you know that there are two separate tax credits available for residents over the age of 65?
REAL REDDING DEMOCRATS – RRD – are in support of BOTH the Redding Town AND the CT State SENIOR TAX CREDITS.
Most Redding senior residents are familiar with the Town Senior Tax Credit as supported by REAL REDDING DEMOCRATS – RRD. This credit is currently offered to all those persons age 65 or more who are permanent residents and have paid real estate taxes for at least three years. The Town Senior Tax Credit is currently $2664 and is hugely popular with Redding seniors. WHY? It allows for those on a fixed income to remain in a town with few affordable housing options for seniors.
The CT State senior tax credit is altogether separate from the town credit. It is available to those 65 and older whose income is limited. Fewer than 80 household units met the strict guidelines in 2021. Only the limited State smaller tax credit appears to be fully supported by the other side.
ONLY REAL REDDING DEMOCRATS – RRD – SUPPORT BOTH THE VALUABLE TOWN TAX CREDIT AND THE STATE SENIOR TAX CREDIT.
Redding Democrats – Is Our Senior Tax Credit at Risk?
The upcoming Democratic Primary on March 1st may be confusing to some, but there are some critical issues at play, and one of great importance is the status of the Senior Tax Credit.
Several new members affiliated with parents and school boards managed to win support at the January Democratic caucus. These folks now represent the caucus-elected slate. The candidates who requested a primary after being overrun at a packed caucus are known as the Real Redding Democrats. These candidates are drawn from active civic-involved Democrats with a broad base of interests.
The caucus-elected slate does not explicitly say they would eliminate the Redding Senior Tax Credit; however, a clue may be gleaned in Chris Parkin’s response to the Redding Civics League questionnaire from his failed run for Board of Finance where he suggests looking at means testing the benefit and offering seniors alternatives such as moving into accessory dwelling units or senior housing!
Chris is a primary influencer within this group, and such changes are a frightening thought for someone who, after over 20 years in town, is finally able to take advantage of this benefit, and it really helps! This is a serious concern because their platform specifically endorses advocacy in the town budget, so active advocacy against the senior tax credit would put a benefit many of us rely on at risk.
Karen Gifford’s response to the same Civics’ League questionnaire provided suggestions to improve the senior tax credit, which thoughtfully included increasing the residency requirement from 3 to 5 years, assuring that Redding is the taxpayer’s primary residence, and increasing the eligibility age to correspond with Social Security guidelines. She does not support means testing stating it is divisive. I give a lot of credit to Karen for her financial acumen, and willingness to propose realistic options on a tough issue.
Karen was elected to the Board of Finance in November but was not reelected to the DTC at the January Caucus – she is one of a very experienced and talented crew running as a primary candidate on the slate offered by the Real Redding Democrats (RRD).
Please look at the candidates on the Real Redding Democratic slate – you will find a well-rounded and experienced group representing a cross-section of interests. Most importantly, please come out to vote at the Democratic primary on March 1.
https://realreddingdemocrats.org/
– Janet August
We, the Undersigned, Align with Real Redding Democrats
We, the undersigned, are nine candidates nominated by the Democratic Town Committee (DTC) in January for a two-year DTC term. At the Caucus following the nominating meeting, most of this slate was voted off by a faction of Democrats who were touting so-called “reforms” with a narrowly focused agenda. Many of these individuals were not previously involved with the DTC. They did not have enough candidates for a full slate, so we were voted on as well, essentially by default.
Our names are appearing on their campaign literature (Democrats for Redding), and we are, indeed, on their slate. We would like to make clear that we all are part of the larger Real Redding Democrats which includes the majority of the originally intended slate who have petitioned for the upcoming primary on March 1st.
The petitioning candidates include many long standing and devoted DTC members who have worked in your best interests for many years. Together, we represent the diverse interests of all Redding Democrats, not the narrow focus of the new “endorsed” slate. This is why we urge you to vote for us along with the petitioning candidates of the Real Redding Democrats slate.
For more information visit our website:
Real Redding Democrats (https://realreddingdemocrats.org/)
Amy Atamian, Dan Barrett, Diana Carlino, Mary Ann Carman, Peg O’Donnell, Dave Pattee, Phyllis Rhodes, Roger Van Ausdal, Peggy Zamore
Letter to the Editor
Don’t be Mislead!
Simple sound bite messaging may play well, but it can also be used to mislead voters. Opponents of the Real Redding Democrats hope you will follow their simple instruction to “Vote for Redding’s party-endorsed Democratic slate!” But as a member of that slate, I know that this slogan obfuscates uncomfortable facts that voters need to make an informed decision on March 1st.
Nine members of the endorsed slate, including myself, would prefer not to be affiliated with the tactics that led to our “endorsement.” Instead, we ask voters to examine the campaign of disinformation used to recruit 100+ caucus attendees. We encourage voters to take a hard look at the proposed “reforms” that in truth seem designed to mislead rather than educate voters.
Consider these facts: 1) DTC meetings have always been open to all registered Democrats; 2) private nominating subcommittee meetings are not only allowed but encouraged under state rules; 3) there is no material difference between being an ex-officio/emeritus “member” of the DTC (with zero voting rights) and coming to a meeting as any registered Democrat in town. These “reforms” would be laughable if they hadn’t been used to mislead good-faith Democrats.
Nine of us understand we are “endorsed” only because the leaders of the “reform” ambush were unable to field enough candidates to complete a 40-person committee of their choosing. We were deemed expendable for not agreeing ahead of time to their demands for so-called “reform.” Their ideas failed to convince a majority of DTC membership, so they found another way to seize control. The “reforms” were clearly not about effecting meaningful change. They were about recruiting caucus attendees using disingenuous but progressive-sounding calls for “reform” and “transparency.”
The most disturbing aspect of all this may be that a number of well-meaning caucus attendees have since admitted they were recruited this way. Some feel used and misled by people they once trusted. When approached with pleas for their support of “reform” and “transparency,” they did what they were asked, in good-faith. A few realized even before they left the room that they had unwittingly participated in mean-spirited and unnecessary political machinations they didn’t fully understand.
The caucus is now being disingenuously framed on social media as random “voter turnout” which we all should encourage. In fact, those who answered the call now know that the events of that evening were orchestrated, during a COVID spike, with little regard for their safety, simply to avoid doing the insurmountable work of consensus building around bad ideas within a committee of members who had all the facts. The goal was simply to oust experienced, hardworking public servants via power-play politics and gain control of the DTC to force a narrow agenda.
As a member of the endorsed slate, I ask that you vote instead for the petitioning candidates of the Real Redding Democrats. Please choose civil discourse and consensus building over disinformation and ambush politics. Please vote for those who demonstrate integrity and believe in voter education. I ask for your vote on March 1st as a member of the Real Redding Democrats, the slate of proven leaders with a track record of accomplishments that can be found at realreddingdemocrats.org.
Respectfully,
Phyllis I Rhodes