At October 7’s Easton Board of Selectmen meeting, First Selectman David Bindelglass addressed three board/commission vacancies in the following manner: pushed a Democrat through for one at the expense of an unaffiliated candidate; tabled a vetted Republican candidate for another because “Democrats want to find someone to nominate”; and, after an attempted stall, appointed a Republican P&Z alternate to a full member position only after being asked point blank by Selectman Sogofsky if he would be similarly stalling over a Democratic appointment.

The next day, Bindelglass wrote in his weekly newsletter that “there are some board and commission seats which remain unfilled. We have so many talented people in town, and the more we all get involved, the better.”

Then, at the October 17 ER9 Board of Education debate, Democratic candidate John Foley was asked about difficulties inherent to the local tri-board system. He admitted he “doesn’t understand” the system but was counseled about it “when I was asked to run.”

Wait, asked to run? Mr. Foley’s debate answers on the whole did plenty to showcase his lack of fitness for the job, but that specific statement gives the further optic his candidacy is little more than a function of getting a second Democrat on the ticket, even if it’s at the expense of the integrity of the position.

But if there are “many talented people” to get involved, how have the Democrats not only not found a volunteer for a commission spot vacant since July, but also claimed good faith in putting forth an ER9 BoE candidate who is both unqualified and uninterested?

For a party that promotes diversity, equity, inclusion, and integrity, their actions of pushing to work only with their own, no matter the cost to their constituents, speak louder than their words.

Lou DiPietro


Print Friendly, PDF & Email