DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN — The Brooklyn Democratic Party’s organizational meeting was marked by hours of delays, disputed votes, and protests Wednesday at New York City College of Technology, as party members approved controversial rule changes, while leaving the larger battle over who will lead the county party unresolved.
Expected to begin at 10 a.m., proceedings didn’t get underway until around 1:30 p.m. and lasted around eight hours. Problems arose with proxy registrations, voter lists, and the electronic voting clickers. There were also major disputes over who could vote, and whether votes were being accurately counted.
The biggest takeaways from the meeting, however, were the following:
The controversial August rule changes expanding the group participating in party leadership decisions beyond the traditional 42 district leaders were put to a vote again — and passed. The changes had previously been struck down by Supreme Court Justice Jill Epstein, but the Appellate Division had stayed Epstein’s ruling.
In addition, Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn was not re-elected chair. Party leadership announced that a vote on whether Bichotte Hermelyn will remain chair will take place Tuesday. So the standoff between Bichotte Hermelyn and Julio Peña III remains unresolved.
Howard Graubard, representing the plaintiffs, speaks to reporters. Photo: Wayne Daren Schneiderman/Brooklyn Eagle
2 parallel battles a few blocks apart
While all of this was happening at City Tech, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn was hearing arguments on the underlying lawsuit challenging the August rule changes.
No appellate ruling had been issued by the end of the meeting.
Epstein previously ruled that outgoing members of the committee improperly voted on
party-rule amendments at an Aug. 25 meeting, declaring the resulting rule changes null and void.
The changes would have expanded the Executive Committee from 42 members to more than 68.
When the Appellate Division ultimately issues its decision, that could change the legal status of the Aug. 25 amendments, and potentially affect the outcomes of Wednesday’s meeting.
Mark Hanna, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, outside the Appellate Division courthouse. Photo: Wayne Daren Schneiderman/Brooklyn Eagle
Howard Graubard, representing the plaintiffs, was asked if a chair were elected under current rules, during the stay, and after the Appellate Division determined the rules are invalid, could the elected chair relinquish the position, to which he replied, “It may be possible.” Graubard also said he believes a decision will be rendered “sooner rather than later.”
Mark Hanna, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, spoke to the Brooklyn Eagle outside the Appellate Division courthouse.
“We finished the argument,” Hanna said. “The judges asked a lot of interesting pertinent questions, mostly focusing on the issue of whether or not the bylaws prevent the executive committee members that lost their elections from voting. So it hinged on what it means for them to be an elected state committee member. And what does it mean for the bylaws to require elected status? The appellants are arguing that it doesn’t matter.”
Hanna pointed out that the state election law provides that the term of a state committee member begins at the primary and ends at the next primary if they didn’t get reelected.
“We are patiently waiting for a decision — either on the motion for the stay to see what happens there, or for the ultimate appellate decision,” Hanna said. “It’s an election law case, so it should be expedited. Any other case might take a long time — but in these cases, it’s generally fast.”