Today, Danbury Democratic Town Committee Chairperson Andreqa Gartner attempted to provide a raionale behind going back on her promise made on April 2nd to not endorse a candidate till the summer.
Previously, Gartner had said Democrat leadership would wait until its nominating meeting on July 20 to make its pick for mayor. On Tuesday, Gartner reasoned that in 2019 Democrat leadership endorsed Chris Setaro well before its summer meeting, and that Monday night’s endorsement of Alves was hardly a rash decision.
“It might have been different if Roberto Alves hadn’t already raised $75,000 and hadn’t already distributed literature to 2,000 doors and hadn’t already been endorsed by Danbury’s entire state delegation,” Gartner said. “He has clearly been getting the work done.”
Things to note:
1. The end of the fundraising period for Roberto Alves occured on March 31, two days beforeGartner's promise to voters not to endorse any candidate until the summer.
2. The "entire state delegation" made their intentions known about their approval of Alves in statements and/or campaign contributions, weeks if not months before the recent state legislation announcement.
3. Most of the distribution of Alves literature happened BEFOREGartner's promise to voters on April 2nd...and Gartner overstepped her bounds as being an impartial chairperson by actively campaigning for the Alves team.
In short, Gartner's explanation makes no sense.
As I stated in an earlier post, the top criticism among elected local and state officials centers around Gartner's political hubris and her inability to be honest with the public when being questioned about her decision-making.
This is not rocket science...Alves is Gartner's choice for mayor and her choice for mayor or Alves himself is not the issue.
The root of the problem with Gartner's interference in the process comes down to a lack of fairness that Democrats and progressives expect (and demand) to see from their party.
The problem with Gartner lies when a person blurs the lines between being an impartial chairperson and a campaign surrogate; in fairness to the process, Gartner simply can't have it both ways.
It's been twenty years since the city had an open seat mayoral election, and Danbury Democrats have 139 reasons to learn from the fallout that occurred the last time more than one candidate competed for the top of the party's ticket.
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.
