Now that the latest battle in the DTC civil war primary is over, questions regarding the future of the Democratic Town Committee remains somewhat unclear.
In fact, a close look at the primary results seems to indicate that the results in the primary did little to mend wounds between supports and critics of the present leadership of the DTC.
Here's my take regarding the post-primary breakdown of the committee and why I feel that things could become rather ugly when the members of the DTC cast their votes for leadership next Monday.
Currently, the committee comprises of 28 members from the city's 7 wards (4 members per ward). In order to have a majority, one would need 15 votes. On Tuesday, challengers to the current DTC leadership picked up a total of 8 seats.
1st Ward: Warren Levy, Elefo Furtado, Beth Bogues
2nd Ward: Susan Ward
6th Ward: Ben Chianese, John Gogliettino, Joan Hodge, Richard Kaback
So far, based only on the primary results, those who want to give current DTC chairman Joe DaSilva his pink slip have 8 out of the 15 votes needed to remove the head of the committee.
This is a list of members of the town committee who were not challenged in the primary.
3rd ward: Lori Kaback, Lynn Taborsak, Billy Taylor, and Bill Tanner
4th ward: Tom Saadi, Alice Earle, Francis Kieras, and Rose Schlemmer
5th ward: Catherine Conciatore, Joe DaSilva, Elenor Lewis, and Pat McCleary
7th ward: Glenda Armstrong, Phil Cervone, Julie Kushner, and Bruce Lees
In order for the DaSilva to lose his chairmanship, the challengers on the committee need 7 more votes from the pool of members who were not challenged.
From my crunching of the numbers (and without naming any names), based on my understanding of the DTC, and talking to various members of the committee, here's my take of the current state of the local Democratic Party.
From members of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th ward, there are a total of 6 members who are solid behind a change in leadership. This brings the number of DTC members who will vote for change increases from 8 to 14 members with at least 2-3 wild card votes from people who could vote either way. In reality, the challengers should have 16-17 votes, but as someone who's attended his fair share of DTC meetings, anything can happen and a vote for or against new leadership is never guaranteed (even more so if the vote is done via/secret ballot as opposed to a hand vote).
In the end, what does this mean for the future of the DTC? One word: chaos.
The two camps fighting for control of the DTC are not new to those who know politics in Danbury…in fact, these two camps have been battling for control of the committee for at least 10 years (and I use the term "at least" lightly). The concern for Democrats in Danbury shouldn't be who leads the committee after the vote on Monday, but rather the division which become more apparent after the primary vote Tuesday night.
Whoever takes control of the DTC will probably lead a committee that will be very divided. Add the fact that there will be at least 2 to 3 people on the committee which will have no loyalty to either camp, and you have a situation where whoever winds up leading the DTC will preside over a committee which comprises of two camps that don't see eye to eye on much of anything.
Needless to say that the DTC's next meeting on Monday night should be rather interesting to say the least.
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.
