As stated in a previous post, students at Western Connecticut State University were rather pissed to see their midtown campus littered with Roy's campaign material.
As someone with a tad bit of knowledge at Western, I questioned whether it was even legal for Roy to place campaign material all over the campus.
Well, according the a recent article in The ECHO, I'm not the only one questioning Roy's tactics....
Students at Western Connecticut State University may have noticed a large amount of campaign posters hanging around campus promoting the campaign of Derek B. Roy to be elected to the Common Council in Danbury's 5th ward. Some students at WestConn expressed concern about these posters.
Student Sara Waterfall was particularly concerned with the posters and decided to send them to the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC). This means that the State of Connecticut will now begin an investigation into the issue of the posters at WestConn
DOH! I think someone is in trouble...
To add insult to injury, listen to Roy's explanation...
...Roy went on to explain that from his understanding, the signs were hung by Danbury High School students. When asked if he thought it was appropriate for signs to be hung on campus, Roy replied, "I think it's important to advertise, but you need to advertise correctly. The SEEC does have certain rules and regulations, I think it's important that candidates use the law and follow the law and enforce it with their volunteers.
WTF?!? Let me get this straight.
Roy's campaign stuff has been all over Midtown campus for weeks (if not at least a month), YET he's attempting the blame the situation on "Danbury High School students?"
Hmm....who TOLD THEM TO PLACE THE campaign material on campus?
If you're someone who wants to uphold the law, why didn't you remove your material from the campus grounds (a state facility).
...and lets not forget the FACT that some of your campaign material clearly stated "ATTENTION WESTCONN STUDENTS" which mean you meant to place the material on campus.
...anyhow, take a look at Roy's continued comments in the student paper article.
...Roy seemed annoyed that he was being reported to the SEEC at all. He was very insistent on the ideas that issues should come before politics. "It's about the issues, it's not about a sign, it's not about tape."
No Derek, this is NOT about politics but rather you placing your political material at a state institution to the annoyance of students.
...oh by the way, Roy seemed to have also pissed off the higher ups at the university.
With all the controversy surrounding the campaign posters on campus, The ECHO contacted Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Walter Bernstein. In an email statement, Berstein said "The University, or any other state agency, may not be used as a place for candidates to promote their candidacy. Because of this, we have asked Mr. Roy to take down any such signs that may be on campus."
Seems like someone has been sent to the principal's office for bad behavior.
UPDATE: In all seriousness, I've covered many campaign in Danbury as well many municipalities and I've never heard of one candidate creating so much controversy in such a short period of time than Roy. As I stated, I don't have it out for the kid but DAMN, did he piss off a lot of people in the 5th ward as well as on campus.
By demand, here's a copy of the article as reported by The ECHO as well as his response to the piece that was made as an insert in the paper.
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.
