From Friday's editorial:
Open and spirited debate is necessary so the electorate can make informed decisions when voting. But Mayor Mark Boughton is waffling about whether he can fit a proposed League of Women Voters debate this month into his already busy schedule.
Excuse us, mayor, but few events could be considered more important than letting voters hear candidates' views and answers to questions during a public debate.
[...]
Both candidates will participate in the debate scheduled for Oct. 14 by the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce at the Holiday Inn.
That is good, but it does not suffice.
That mayoral forum is part of a $45-a-plate luncheon that begins at 11:30 a.m. Not everyone can afford to attend and for some it could be difficult to leave work at that hour.
The chamber forum is an excellent idea for reaching members and other business people. An evening debate, such as the one organized by the League of Women Voters, would broaden the reach.
[...]
Voters should not be limited in choice; they should not be limited in finding out as much as they can about the positions of candidates who will represent them.
Both candidates for the mayor of Danbury should take part in every debate between now and the election.
When it comes to avoiding open and public debates, residents shouldn't Boughton should not be allowed to get away with the same tactics he pulled with Helena Abrantes in 2007.
For the mayor of the seventh largest city in Connecticut to avoid debating someone who will question his record is a grave disservice to the public. We line in serious economic times and the public has a right to see candidates debate the issues without forking over 45 dollars for a chamber of commerce luncheon (in the middle of the day).
...and all due respect mayor, spare the public the schedule excuse, we've heard that tune before.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of day laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
