While using a recycled excuse from 2007, Boughton is using another well-known tactic from his political playbook...stubbornness.
In light of the last honest man's dodging, Goncavles issued the following press release:
Day 24 since the League of Women Voters issued their invitation on September 10, 2009 to Mayor Boughton and I to attend their debate to be held on either October 20th or 22nd, free of charge, at the Portuguese Cultural Center.
STATUS: NO ACCEPTANCE BY THE MAYOR AS YET.
As a Danbury resident and taxpayer who was born, raised and educated in Danbury, I consider the Mayor’s initial response and the fact that he has not accepted even after the News Times editorial, totally unacceptable. It is a display of arrogance and power by the Mayor to the voters and taxpayers of Danbury who have a right to hear the opposing views of the candidates in an open and no-cost forum. It further reflects the fact that the Mayor is not the same candidate who took office eight years ago when people believed his slogan of “People over Politics”.
The excuses offered by the Mayor were a flagrant slight to the League of Women voters, a storied organization whose trademark is all about fair play in our Democracy, and to the Portuguese Cultural Center, who has offered their facilities to the voters of Danbury free of charge for the debate.
Perhaps the Mayor was afraid to defend his performance as follows:
eight straight years of tax increases coupled with the long term debt acquired by significant expenditures;
recent News Times articles reporting the failing grades for some of our schools and the sharp increase in poverty levels in Danbury;
the continued deterioration of our quality of life in the City, accentuated by a decrease in city services and choking traffic congestion;
or perhaps the other behind the scenes issues well kept from public scrutiny, such as the lawsuit brought against the city by civil service job applicants who claim to have been passed over illegally in the questionable practices involved in that specific Civil Service exam cycle.
I'll meet the Mayor anywhere, anytime, in any forum, and I'll meet him as often as he'd like. It's a genuine offer, and one I hope he'll accept.
Are we going to have a repeat of 2007 when Boughton was no where to be found during the early days of the Pauline Basso/Joel Urice/Mary Teicholtz racist email scandal (a.k.a. when the ran away while the mainstream media was at his doorstep)?
...and for the record (or before Boughton attempts to make this excuse).
The Chamber OF commerence luncheon IS NOT a FREE and OPEN mayoral debate.
It's a 45 dollar a plate luncheon that held during the middle of the day in the middle on a weekday...hardly the appropriate time for a MAJORITY of the public to attend (yet along afford). The debate is also done by an organization that does not have the same standing as the League of Women Voters.
What's needed here is LEADERSHIP and not the type of arrogance that's becoming too typical when it comes to the last honest man and the local Republican Party.
For this to even be a issue in this mayoral campaign is ridiculous. We're talking about a simple FREE and OPEN debate.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
