Vote Planned on Republican Bylaws Changes that Would Limit Voting Rights

Who makes the decisions about Farmington’s Republican candidates could be consolidated if proposed changes to the party’s bylaws are approved at a meeting Wednesday night. 

Party leadership recommended the proposed changes within the past few months, with some discussion at the last meeting and sent an email in the past week notifying members of the Republican Town Committee that the issue would be voted on Wednesday, April 3 at 7 p.m.

For the most part, the changes have to do with consolidating voting rights now open to any registered Republican in town to only those elected to the Republican Town Committee. 

Specifically, registered Republicans would no longer be able to vote on selection of the party’s slate of candidates for town elected offices. Instead, only committee members would be able to.

Also, members of the Republican Town Committee would be elected only by current committee members and no longer by the “eligible electors,” that is, any registered Republicans.

Additionally, any subsequent changes to the bylaws could be made by town committee members alone and not by Farmington Republicans.

In addition, the number needed for a quorum would be changed to a third of the committee members. 

Committee Chairman Mike Clark said the changes are really just “a tweak to our nominating process.”

“The key thing is that there are 70 members of the committee – 35 from each district – so with that many members, they’ve got a pretty good finger on the pulse of the community,” Clark said.

Those 70 people are also the most active in party events are most familiar with potential candidates and with party issues.

“And it’s just less cumbersome to rely on these 70 delegates, if you will, to make the nominations because they’re not doing it blindly. It’s not people voting because someone called up saying ‘come vote yes or no’ and they don’t know who or what they’re voting for,” Clark said.

“It will help the party be more united going into the election and I think we need that.”

The proposed changes don’t have to do with some recent challenges to the party slate, according to Clark, but rather to a history that’s repeated itself with no positive outcome.

“I’ve lived through that and I don’t think it helped us much as a party. I’m not a big fan of the primaries because it gets a little bit divisive… There was Jon Landry, and before that Harry Kraiza [who challenged for the party nomination at caucus]; we’ve had these issues before and for the most part the one the committee selected is the one who got selected and won,” Clark said.

But town committee member Matt Pogson, whose father Skip Pogson challenged for the nomination for the Town Plan and Zoning chairman after serving on the commission for 23 years, said he objects to the speed with which the changes are being pushed forward. And his concern, he said, is that whether or not the party is unified, people should be allowed to participate in the sometimes-messy practice of democracy.

“I’m concerned for the town, concerned we’re moving toward a small group that’s going to make the decisions for everyone,” Pogson said. “The change in the bylaws is pushing toward the mentality of ‘here are your candidates and this is what we’re going to do.’”

Pogson, himself a committee member, said he already senses that from the way the bylaws changes have been approached. At the last meeting, there was some concern about the changes and a relative consensus that they should be discussed further before moving forward.

But then members got the email notifying them that the vote would be next week. In addition, Pogson said Clark has scheduled a caucus immediately following the meeting.

“This is a red flag to me that it’s not a diplomatic process anymore - this is something that’s going to get pushed through one way or another,” Pogson said.

“I understand the people in the RTC are going to know those candidates are the best but there’s nobody there to keep an objective eye on that,” he said. “And by having a caucus, we’ve been able to protect that. Whether or not it’s right that Jon or CJ [Thomas] or my father caucuses, that’s the democratic process.

“We’re taking your right away to vote and that’s wrong. I’m all for checks and balances and for everyone being able to have a say.”