My personal notes of the Independent Party’s dealings with the Secretary of the State’s office in 2006.

SUMMARY

Officials of the Independent Party contacted the Election Division of the Secretary of the State's office in March to issue a petition to collect signatures to get the Independent Party statewide candidates on the ballot in November. 7,500 valid signatures needed to be submitted by August 9. After numerous delays and changing stories from the Election Division, a petition for "Independent Party CT" was finally issued June 21st. The Independent Party immediately distributed copies of the petition around the state. The Election Division then sent an email to Independent Party official Mike Telesca on June 26th saying that the petitions were issued in error, and that the name of the party had to be changed. Independent Party officials spent the next month fighting this opinion, and it wasn't until July 28 that the Secretary of the State's office agreed that signatures on petitions issued by them would be accepted. These delays and difficulties prevented the collection of enough signatures for the Independent Party candidates to get on the ballot.

Cast of Characters:

Dr. John Mertens: Independent Party CT candidate for U.S. Senate. I wrote this accounting, in consultation with Mike Telesca.

Mike Telesca: Waterbury Town Chairman of the Independent Party, and Independent Party CT candidate for Lieutenant Governor. One of the greatest guys I know. He has been fighting corruption in Waterbury politics for years. He first worked as a member of the Democratic Party, but finally gave up working within the system, and founded the Waterbury chapter of the Independent Party in 2003. His candidates subsequently won four seats on the city’s board of alderman.

Susan Bysiewicz: Connecticut Secretary of the State. Holder of one of six statewide elected political offices (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of the State, Treasurer, and U.S. Senate.)

Lesley Mara: Deputy Secretary of the State.

Michael Kozik: Managing Attorney, Legislation and Elections Administration Division of the Secretary of the State.

Theodore Bromley: Staff Attorney, Legislation and Elections Administration Division of the Secretary of the State.

Pearl Williams: Elections Officer, Legislation and Elections Administration Division of the Secretary of the State.

Dr. Fand, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the Independent Party. Dr. Fand also oversees the campaigns of local candidates for the Independent Party in the Danbury area.

Background information: to get statewide candidates on the ballot in November, a party must apply for and receive an official signature petition form listing the party name and candidates names from the Secretary of the State’s Election Division. 7,500 legitimate signatures must then be collected and turned in by August 9.

Personal Accounting of Events:

In March 2006, Mike Telesca, the Waterbury Town Chairman of the Independent Party, phoned the Secretary of the State Elections Division to ask how to apply for a petition to run statewide candidates for the Independent Party. He was told they would research the issue and get back to him. On a conference call with Dr. Fand, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the Independent Party, and an Elections Division attorney in April, Mike Telesca was told that Mike Telesca and Dr. Fand were viewed by the Sec. of State’s office as running candidates for “two separate parties, and Mike T. could run statewide candidates, but they would be listed on a separate line in Dr. Fand’s areas.” Mike T. was caught off guard during the conference call by this assertion that they were separate parties, and called back about a week later (late April) to argue that they were not separate parties. He was told that the office would research the issue and that they would get back to him. He called again about a week later (early May) and spoke to an Elections Division attorney who informed him that the office had an attorney and two paralegals researching the issue, and that they would get back to him. Mike called again in May and was told they were still researching it. Mike insisted on a face-to-face meeting, which was set for early June.

Mike Telesca met with Ted Bromley and Mike Kozik at 30 Trinity Street in Hartford in early June. At the meeting the Elections Division attorneys refused to accept that there was only one Independent Party, despite the fact that Mike T. pointed out that “around 1500 people in the state are registered in the Independent Party. There is no designation between ‘Dr. Fand’s’ or ‘Mike Telesca’s’ Independent Party. They are all listed as (IT), and both Mike T. and Dr. Fand have registered people all over the state into this party. Mike T. pointed out that even the state of Connecticut recognizes one Independent Party. The Elections Division staff did not recognize this as evidence that there is only one Independent Party.

The attorneys then stated that Mike Telesca could not run statewide candidates for “Independent Party” because they would be on the same ballot as Dr. Fand’s candidates in the Danbury area, and candidates from two different parties cannot use the same name on the same ballot. Note: this contradicted what they had said in the conference call in April. When Mike T. asked how to get statewide candidates on the ballot, they told him to form a new party, and that he could use the name “Independent Party CT.” They also said no matter what he did, Mike T.’s statewide candidates could not be on the same line on the ballot as his local candidates that already had ballot access. (This was the first time Mike T. had heard this. Listing his statewide and local candidates on the same line on the ballot was a major goal, since local candidates will appear higher on the ballot if their party is also running statewide candidates.) The attorneys suggested that his local candidates give up their ballot status and petition onto the ballot, and that Mike T. should abandon his Independent Party and its 500 members in Waterbury. Mike T. indicated that this was unacceptable, since it had taken a lot of hard work to get ballot status for the local candidates, some of whom were already holding office! Mike asked if he could simply change the name of the local party so the local and statewide candidates could all be on the same line, but the attorneys said that there was no provision for a name change of a party.

Mike left the meeting, and called back on June 16th and left a message to request a meeting to file an Application for Nominating Petition and to make sure Mike Kozik would be present so there would not be any delay in receiving the petitions. Mike Kozik called back the same day and asked why he should be there, because they had already discussed this. Mike said he intended to bring up an Application for Nominating Petition for statewide positions for “Independent Party”. Mike Kozik said “You are wasting your time,” and that he had already said that he would refuse it. Mike Telesca informed Kozik that he was going to bring two separate sets of applications (both signed by both Mike Telesca and Dr. Fand), one for “Independent Party”, and if it was refused, it should be refused officially, and that if it was refused officially, Mike T. would then file an application for “Independent Party CT.” Mike K. said on the phone at that time that “Independent Party CT” would be acceptable, as he had agreed to in the meeting previously in person, and he did not need to be there, and he would leave instructions that it should be accepted. Mike called a few days later, and set up a meeting with Pearl Williams on June 21st, and presented the paperwork exactly as he told Mike K. he would do. Pearl Williams informed Mike T. that the first application would not be accepted per orders of Mike K. and tried to hand the papers back to Mike T. Mike T. insisted that she take them and log them in, and if they were going to be refused, he needed an official notification. She accepted them, and said he would receive a letter from the attorneys. She then asked “Where is your other set of paperwork?” Mike T. proceeded to file three additional documents. These included (1) a Nominating Petition for statewide positions for “Independent Party CT”, which was identical to the “Independent Party” Nominating Petition, (2) a party committee reservation form that was signed by 31 individuals from around the state, including Dr. Fand, to form the “Independent Party CT”, as required by statutes, which included the statewide offices and all the state district offices that would be applicable according to the areas of the names on the form, and (3) an additional Application for Petition for Edward Walsh, a candidate in the 17th senatorial district under the name “Independent Party CT”, so that he could run on the same line as the statewide candidates. If the “Independent Party” application would have been accepted, Edward Walsh would have applied under that name. Pearl Williams issued a statewide petition to Mike Telesca for all the statewide candidates for “Independent Party CT” that requires 7,500 signatures, and issued a separate petition for Ed Walsh for the 17th district under the name “Independent Party CT” that requires 261 signatures.

That day, Mike Telesca, John Mertens, and Scott Merrell (Independent Party CT candidate for Governor) immediately copied the petitions at a local Kinko’s and distributed them widely around the state and began collecting signatures.

The following week Mike Telesca received an email from Elections Divisions Attorney Ted Bromley, dated June 26:

Dear Mr. Telesca-

We are writing this e-mail to first apologize and to second clarify a ruling that we provided you regarding the reservation of your party name. After reviewing the state statutes we have discovered that we have made an error in the advice that we originally provided to you regarding the establishment of your party name.

We first advised you that you could not use the name "Independent" and petition a candidate for any statewide office because that party name would ultimately appear on the same ballot with an established minor party. We then advised you that a simple change in your party name from "Independent" to "Independent Party CT" or a similar variation would satisfy this requirement and allow you to petition a statewide candidate.

However, after reviewing the statute in question in more detail, we discover that we were in error. In addition to the requirement that parties with identical names cannot appear on the ballot, the statute also forbids the incorporation of a minor party name which is entitled to nominate for an office which will appear on the same ballot as the reserved party name in question. In this case, the reservation of "Independent Party of CT" or the like would indeed incorporate the name of a minor party already in existence and that is indeed entitled to nominate for office that would appear on the same ballot as your statewide candidates.

Therefore, we again apologize, and advise that you should establish a new party name that does no incorporate the name of any minor party.

Theodore E. Bromley
Staff Attorney
Legislation and Elections Administration Divisio
Office of the Secretary of the State

This denial of the use of the name Independent Party CT was in spite of the agreement of Mike Kozik in person, and on the phone over the course of the previous month that the name could be used.

The email was sent Monday, June 26, 2006. Mike T. didn’t read it immediately, as he did not recognize the sender’s address. He read it over the phone to Dr. Fand on Tuesday, and sent a copy to John Mertens. Dr. Fand called the Election Division and spoke to Ted Bromley who told him that Mike Kozik was on vacation and would return Wednesday, July 5, and was assured that Ed Walsh’s filing for the 17th district under the name “Independent Party CT” would be unaffected (This is very odd, given what follows in future meetings/discussions.) John Mertens visited the Election Division’s office in person on Friday June 30th and requested a meeting to discuss the matter. Ted Bromley told John Mertens that Mike Kozik would be back on Wednesday, July 5th, after the 4th of July holidays, and to call the morning of the 5th and Kozik would see John on the afternoon of July 5th. Note: At no time did anyone suggest that signature collections be suspended. John Mertens called Wednesday morning, July 5, and was put into Mike Kozik’s voice mail, and left a message that Bromley told him to call and schedule a meeting for that afternoon and to call him back. At 4:00 Wednesday John called again and reached Kozik. Kozik requested that they delay the meeting until Friday morning at 11:00, July 7th. John accepted the meeting time.

In the meantime, Mike Telesca had received a letter in the mail signed by Kozik indicating that the first application for “Independent Party” was refused according to a section 9-453u, which governs “Reservation of Party Designation”, NOT section 9-453b, which governs “Issuance of Petition Forms.”

Mike Telesca, John Mertens, Mike Kozik, Ted Bromley, and Pearl Williams met on Friday, July 7th, 2006, at 11:00 A.M at 30 Trinity Street. Mike Telesca brought a letter signed by Mike Telesca and Dr. Fand indicating that they are one party. After a lot of discussion, the Elections Division staff members indicated that in light of the “new wrinkle”, i.e. the letter that verified what Mike Telesca had repeatedly told them all during the process, they may reconsider issuing petitions with the name “Independent Party.” When John Mertens tried to confirm that the signatures that had already been gathered on the petitions for “Independent Party CT” issued by the Sec. of State on June 21st would continue to be counted if a new petition for “Independent Party” was issued, the Elections Division staff informed him that they would probably not be accepted: quote “I wouldn’t count on it.” This was the first time they had ever said anything like this, and only because John Mertens asked. They offered to research the issue about issuing “Independent Party” petitions, but made it clear that we could not use “Independent Party CT.” When John Mertens asked for a specific time when they would reach a decision, they said they would get back to us “Monday or Tuesday.” When Mike Telesca pressed the issue, Ted Bromley said “You know what, I think we’re going to have to take this to the Attorney General instead. That will take at least a couple of weeks,” which Mike Kozik agreed with. Mike Telesca suggested that we all go see the Attorney General that day, Ted Bromley replied “We will take care of forwarding this to the Attorney General’s office, and it will probably take at least a couple of weeks to get it to them.” Mike Telesca indicated that that would make it impossible to collect 7,500 signatures by August 9. Mike Kozik and Ted Bromley were unmoved and maintained their position. After several minutes of pleading from John Mertens, they rescinded the statement about going to the Attorney General’s office and said they would get back to us on Monday or Tuesday. They also criticized us for continuing to collect signatures after they sent the email (note: there were no phone calls or letters confirming the email or suggesting any courses of action at all), and in the meeting they also criticized us for not meeting with them sooner, even though Dr. Fand contacted them the next day, and John Mertens visited the office four days later, and was put off for a meeting until July 7! When we brought up in the meeting that email is not a reliable or legal form of notification, especially of such a serious matter, Mike Kozik said “Oh, come on.”

A personal note: I have never been witness to anything quite like this meeting: often there were literally several minutes of dead silence in response to questions by myself or Mike Telesca. At one point, when we were requesting some way of having the Waterbury local candidates on the same line as the statewide candidates, I asked: “How can we solve this problem?” There was literally 90+ seconds of dead silence, before Mike Kozik said “I’m not sure there is a solution.” I personally have never witnessed such a total lack of an attempt to problem-solve. It was about a 90 minute meeting, and nothing helpful was suggested.

Mike Telesca and John Mertens left the meeting and went to Susan Bysiewicz’s Office at the State Capital Building. It was about 1 P.M. We were met by Dan Tapper, Director of Communications. I told him “We were issued a signature petition by your office on June 21st to run statewide candidates, and we were just told by attorneys at the Elections Division that they are not going to accept signatures that we collected on those same petitions issued by your office.” He left for a few minutes, came back and took my phone number and said Susan Bysiewicz would call me later that day. I received a phone call from Lesley Mara at 5:30 P.M., who connected both us to a conference call with Susan Bysiewicz. We spoke for about 30 minutes. I explained all of the above. Susan B. stated that it was her personal philosophy that it was the job of her office to help parties get on the ballot, that it seemed to her that we should be able to use the name Independent Party, that we should be able to use signatures collected on petitions for Independent Party CT, and that she was distressed that we were told today that we could not use petitions issued by her office, but were not issued new, valid petitions that day. (She commented to Lesley Mara: “They need to collect signatures over the weekend. If the attorneys said they needed new petitions, why weren’t they given one today?” Susan B. said she was going to see the Attorney General the next day (Saturday) and bring it up with him. She said hopefully this would be resolved by Monday, and if it wasn’t, I would receive a call by the end of the day Monday. I got a call from Lesley Mara on Monday, 7/10, informing me that nothing had been resolved yet, the Attorney General’s office was looking into it, and that I should call her the next day. I called her on Tuesday, 7/11, and she said the AG’s office needed time to research the issue and I would hear from them as soon as they got something from the AG, but I was welcome to keep calling. On Friday, July 14, Mike Telesca and I each got a fax and email letter from Susan B. explaining what they had received from the AG:

July 14, 2006

Dear Mr. Telesca:

This letter is in response to recent issues raised with our office regarding certain nominating petitions that you are currently circulating under the party designation of “Independent Party CT.” More specifically, you have requested that our office re-examine our initial opinion that the nominating petitions circulated under the party designation of “Independent Party CT” are invalid. To properly address this question we must examine two issues: (1) Does the party designation of “Independent Party CT” violate provisions of Connecticut General Statutes?; and (2) Can our Office accept petition signatures gathered under the party designation of “Independent Party CT” in reliance on advice from our office, which advice our office later rescinded?

As you know, we requested an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General (a copy of which is attached for your information and review). Based upon a re-examination of the relevant Connecticut General Statutes and the attached opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General, this office is of the opinion that the party designation “Independent Party CT” violates the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes §9-453u and, therefore, must be changed. However, since you relied upon our office’s initial acceptance of that party designation, this office will honor any signatures otherwise properly collected on any petition page with the party designation of “Independent Party CT” up to and until such time as we can meet with representatives of your organization and issue new petition pages in compliance with C.G.S. Section 9-453u.

The following is a brief overview of our analysis of the questions presented:

(1) Does the party designation of “Independent Party CT” violate provisions of Connecticut General Statutes?

Connecticut General Statutes §9-453u states, in relevant part:

…(c) The statement shall include the party designation to be reserved which… (3) shall not incorporate the name of any minor party which is entitled to nominate candidates for any office which will appear on the same ballot with any office included in the statement…

Our records indicate that a separate and distinct ”Independent” minor party does exist and does have the ability to nominate candidates for an office which will appear on the same ballot as your proposed candidate for Governor. Therefore, the party designation of “Independent Party CT” must be changed in order to comply with the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes. We are proposing a meeting (see below) to discuss possible options.

(2) Can our Office accept petition signatures gathered under the party designation of “Independent Party CT” in reliance on advice from our office, which advice our office later rescinded?

Based upon the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General, the Secretary of the State, as the Chief Elections Official for the State of Connecticut, has the ability to issue rulings pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §9-3. In addition, this office also has the ability and authority to issue rulings to remedy possible harm such as the potential disapproval of numerous signatures that have been collected in reliance on advice that has subsequently found to be erroneous. Therefore, as mentioned above, this office will accept any signatures properly collected on any petition page with the party designation of “Independent Party CT” up to and until such time as we have meet with representatives of your organization and have issued new petition pages with a new party designation. We feel that this solution will avoid any potential harm to you and will also provide you with ample opportunity to select a new party designation to comply with Connecticut law.

In an effort to timely address any other issues surrounding your petitioning efforts, we kindly suggest a meeting with your representatives on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 2:00 P.M. with Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley Mara and her staff. If this meeting date and time is not convenient, please contact Deputy Secretary of the State Mara as soon as possible to arrange a new meeting time and date. We are also inviting Mr. Fand, as his presence will enable us to explore all possible options for moving forward and to ensure that all interests are properly taken into account.

I hope that this information is helpful and we look forward to meeting with you as soon as possible to resolve this matter. Thank you for your patience and for your continuing commitment to Connecticut’s future.

Sincerely,

Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State of Connecticut

Cc: Mr. Robert Fand

On that day Lesley Mara also arranged for a meeting with Mike T. on Monday, 7/17. When Mike T. showed up at the appointed time, only Kozik, Bromley, and Williams were present. The attorneys said we could not use the word Independent in any statewide party name because there were two local Independent parties. They stated that this was true because both Dr. Fand and Mike Telesca had filed separate candidate forms in 2004, a year in which there were statewide elections, despite the fact that neither of them ran statewide candidates. (Note: While Dr. Fand and Mike Telesca did in fact file separate forms in 2004, they filed only one form in 2006, which they both signed, as mentioned above.) When Mike T. brought up that the Green Party has also filed multiple local candidate forms in previous years, but was viewed as one party, the attorneys countered that the Green Party had only done so in odd numbered years, never in even numbered years, as far as they knew.

In addition, the attorneys maintained that when a new petition was issued to us (which they said had to be done, and that it could not use the word Independent), all signatures collected on Independent Party CT petitions had to be handed in by that date, and new petitions with the new party name had to be redistributed around the state. (This clearly contradicts the letter from Susan B.) Lesley Mara showed up 75+ minutes later, and the meeting went another 2 hours without any progress as to how to get local candidates and statewide candidates on the same line, in the same party.

Mike called me and told me about the meeting. I called Lesley Mara and left a long voice mail message Monday evening saying that it was completely unacceptable to expect us to recall all the old petition forms the day they issued a new one, and that she should call me. Lesley M. called me Tuesday morning, and we talked for an hour. I explained that Mike just wanted to get his statewide candidates on the same line as the local candidates, and that we should be allowed to do what the Green Party has done. She said they would research it. I called her Wednesday afternoon, July 19, and after some discussion we agreed on a plan of action. She said that they would send us three things in writing:

1. The results of their research on how the Green Party has run local and statewide candidates; if the Green Party was ever in the same situation as us (i.e. two town parties filing candidates in an even year, rather than just in odd years) then a precedent had been had set, and we would be allowed to do it too.

2. If not, then they would present us with several options that would alloy us to run our statewide and Waterbury local candidates to be on the same line.

3. They would put in writing that the petitions issued on June 21st would be accepted through August 9, regardless of the results of 1. and 2.

I said that this is what we wanted all along, and that #2 is what Mike asked for back in March(!).

We expect to receive the above in writing soon. It is now July 27, 2006. We began this process in March. Signatures are due August 9. It is my opinion that the Elections Division of the Secretary of the State’s office has done the exact opposite of Susan Bysiewicz’s statement that “it was the job of her office to help parties get on the ballot.”

Needless to say, all of the above delays, meetings, time, and energy slowed our ability to collect signatures. If we had gotten the response in March that we got from Lesley Mara on July 19, I believe we would already have collected far more than the required 7,500 signatures.