To say that Andrea Gartner has given her critics more reason to question her competency as chairperson of the Danbury Democratic Town Committee would be an understatement.
Here's what Gartner told Newstimes reporter Julia Perkins on April 2nd regarding the steps the town committee would take in endorsing a candidate for mayor (NOTE: There are currently three Democrats challenging for the party's mayoral nomination: Roberto Alves, John Esposito, and Sedeaka Lawrence).
The Democratic Town Committee won’t endorse a candidate until the summer, said Andrea Gartner, chairwoman of the committee. Lawrence is a registered Democrat but not a member of the committee, although she said she welcomes his candidacy.
Here's what Gartner said at last night's town committee meeting (ten days after the Newstimes article).
Alves' early endorsement (and the avoidance of providing a roll call vote or an allowance to have "no" votes heard) came to no surprise to people who stated that the long-rumored move was in the works well before Gartner made her remarks to the newspaper.
I guess it's not like the chairperson was hiding her lack of impartiality since she was seen volenteeering for Alves door knocking campaigning...
It's one thing for the town committee to endorse a candiate when no one else has shown interest in the race. It is another matter when you have multiple candidates in the race and a chairperson who claimed that there would be no endorsement "until the summer" turns around and does the exact opposite in less than ten days.
To be crystal clear, I have no issue with Alves or his campaign, but I have serious concerns about the actions of a town committee chairperson who, in my opinion, overstepped her role as head of the town committee on more than one occasion and is stacking the decks in favor of HER candidate when she should and remain neutral and respect the process.
The main critique among Gartner's detractors is that her viewpoint takes precedence over the public's view. The recent actions of the chairperson only provide more merit to her critics.
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.
