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.
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.
