I missed the debate due to an illness, but from everything I have heard and read points to an overwhelmingly successful presentation and discussion by Marty Heiser compared to the other candidates. I realize it will still come down to voter turnout for either side, but it's obvious the Democrats and PTA/Education lobby will continue to overlook the financial difficulties Ridgefield is faced with. I think it's time we accept the reality that we need somone experienced like Marty Heiser who can deal with fiscal responsibility with more than just words and promises.
Wednesday night at the library, Heiser and DiPreta spoke at an informal event organized by the Rotary Club of Ridgefield about some of the issues they hope to address if elected to the position – Kozlark did not attend the forum due to a miscommunication, according to both her and Rotary Club member Alex Karasanidi.
Maureen Kozlark, the third candidate in the race, wasn’t there. Responding to an e-mail shortly after the meeting she said that she’d been told to go B&G on 7 restaurant on Route 7 to meet with Rotary members, and had gone there. She was upset at the mix-up.
So someone who has openly expressed support for Heiser is involved in a "miscommunication" with Heiser's opponent?
Even worse...
Heiser introduced themselves to the small crowd in the Dayton Room before answering a few questions from Karasinidi and a some from the audience.
So the person who expressed support for Heiser PRIOR to the event was allowed to fire off questions to the candidates?
This was a Ridgefield Rotary Club sponsored event which was opened to the public as a community service. All three candidates were informed of the time and location of this forum and it was announced on the front page and the "Happenings" section of last weeks Ridgefield Press, as well as posted on the Ridgefield Patch, plus numerous email blasts to various groups in Ridgefield. Obviously, 2 of the candidates and representatives from the Ridgefield Press, Patch and the New Times managed to be present. I can't make excuses for the rest of the town.
So much for "miscommunicaiton"...I hope I'm not the only one scratching his head?
Paging Ridgefield Press and Patch! I think Karasanidi has some explaining to do!
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.
