The following is a statement from the Wilton Republican Town Committee (RTC) for which the RTC paid GOOD Morning Wilton to publish. More information on paid content during election season is available in GMW‘s guidelines on election coverage and advertising.
In the aftermath of the Board of Education’s unfortunate and clear descent into partisanship in the past few years, the Row B slate of candidates believe that voters are rightfully wary of the emergence of party politics in our local boards. It is an incredible disservice to all Wilton voters, especially unaffiliated voters, and our candidates believe it has no place in Wilton’s boards.
Seemingly in response to the situation at the BOE, claims of “independence” and freedom from party loyalty have been centerpieces of the campaign of unendorsed Board of Education candidate Sara Sclafani.
Ms. Sclafani’s campaign website, purportedly offering an alternative to partisan politics, states that “division and polarization seem to be growing” and “it’s important to me that the elected representatives for our schools truly listen to the diverse perspectives within our community. I’m running as an unaffiliated candidate because I’m committed to respecting the voices on all sides. I am eager to work with any individuals or groups—regardless of political affiliation…” .
Likewise, at the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum on Oct. 24, Ms. Sclafani assured voters, “I’m committed to keeping politics out of education,” she said, stressing transparency and accountability….I am dedicated solely to what is best for our children.”
These are the right words for a purportedly “independent” candidate to communicate to voters. Unfortunately, Ms. Scalfani’s claims of “independence” and freedom from party loyalty appear to have been empty promises. In fact, the very day after Sclafani’s above representations made at the LWV forum, Wilton Democrats paid for a digital ad campaign on social media attacking Ms. Sclafani’s opponent, Heather Priest. Those ads were very specific in supporting and endorsing Sclafani, at Heather’s expense. They also encourage voters to support Democrats and Sclafani.
If Sclafani disagrees with the ads, disagrees with their tone or content, and is telling the truth about “independence,” she ought to have immediately disavowed the ads and explained. But she didn’t, and voters ought to ask why.
Why has she remained silent?
If Sclafani fails to disavow such party support and attacks, Sclafani’s promises of “independence” are just that: campaign promises.
Last week, voters also heard a lot about transparency from the Board of Education candidates, and how it should be enhanced. Sclafani’s acceptance of financial and other support from the Wilton Democrats and her acquiescence in their partisan, party-driven attack ads — while claiming to be “independent” of party influence — suggests her promises of “transparency” is likewise an empty campaign promise.
The above has importance for another reason: Connecticut law limits the number of endorsed candidates a single party may hold. Sclafani’s accepting the Democrats’ support — which certainly looks and sounds like an endorsement — and benefiting from Democrats’ attack ads, while nominally running as an “independent” candidate, looks like an end-around these statutory minority representation rules.
Paid for by the Wilton Republican Town Committee, Carol Lenihan, Treasurer
OK, so first off: you literally ran a piece a few days ago touting the Republicans’ friendliness to unaffiliated voters *because you were running unaffiliated candidates in your ticket.*. So to turn around and suggest that an unaffiliated candidate *not* on your ticket is somehow partisan in a way that the Republican-nominated ones are not is the height of hypocrisy.
Second: Sclafani’s campaign is heavily focused on your candidates’ glaring and disqualifying ethics concerns. One of the Republicans the Democrats are running against has the exact same conflict of interest. So it’s entirely reasonable they’d want to work together – they’re fighting the same people over the same issue; the only “partisan” thing about it is that both Sclafani and the DTC think we ought to have a school board that isn’t too conflicted to actually do their jobs.
I suspect that most Wilton residents agree, and will see past this cheap attempt to manufacture a scandal to distract from the actual bona fide one surrounding your candidates.
I don’t really understand the concerns discussed in this letter. Of course I welcome any support from anywhere, including the DTC. If the RTC or any other group wants to encourage votes for me, I would take that too. I am equal-opportunity on who wants to support my campaign, and none of that detracts from me being the only true unaffiliated candidate in the race.
True or false: “the very day after Sclafani’s above representations made at the LWV forum, Wilton Democrats paid for a digital ad campaign on social media attacking Ms. Sclafani’s opponent, Heather Priest. Those ads were very specific in supporting and endorsing Sclafani, at Heather’s expense. They also encourage voters to support Democrats and Sclafani.”
I suspect that if the Republicans ran an ad encouraging voters to support Republican candidates and Sclafani, she would welcome their support as well.
But obviously there’s a tactical benefit to the Democrats in supporting Sclafani – she’s running against a Republican, one with a particularly glaring conflict of interest. Turning out people to support her helps them too, not to mention that the same conflict of interest also applies to one of candidates they’re running against. She could agree with Democrats on absolutely nothing except for the conflicts of interest and it would still be very much in their interest to support her.
Since this race seems to be getting more attention than any of the other BOE ones, it seems like it has the potential to be a fantastic turnout driver for the Democrats, which is maybe why you’re making all of these desperate attempts to halt Sara’s momentum.
If you don’t understand the concerns of this letter, then you don’t understand the minority representation rules that the town operates under. As you know – you met with the Democrats (per the GMW article when you announced your candidacy) about running on their ticket – a party is limited to four seats on the BOE. The Democrats intentionally did not run someone for the two-year seat, knowing that you would be running for it. The DTC is spending money on ads supporting you. You can’t claim you are the only ‘independent’ voice when you have received a ton of support from one party. Heather Priest and Mark Shaner are likewise unaffiliated and independent. They are just honest about where their financial and other support is coming from. Honesty and transparency are important – I’m not sure why everyone wouldn’t see it this way.
It’s not that they “intentionally did not run” someone – they weren’t allowed to. The Republicans were allowed to, because the 2 BOE seats not up for election this year are both held by Democrats. So – rather than have a Republican run uncontested for this 2-year seat – Sara stepped up to run against them.
And it’s a good thing that she did, since her Republican opponent has an absolutely disqualifying conflict of interest; if Sara hadn’t run, it would have been impossible to avoid a situation where at least one BOE member had to recuse themselves from most of the actual work of the BOE.
Thankfully, if Sara prevails in her race, and if the one guaranteed 4-year slot the Republicans have doesn’t go to the other conflicted candidate, Wilton’s kids still get to have a fully functioning Board of Education.
Why not just be honest about it then? The Democrats want to pack the Board of Education with their people. They should just say so instead of going through the motions of “independence” with a stalking horse candidate.
I don’t know why you think Sara is one of “their people” – she was unaffiliated long before she entered the race. The fact that she’s running as an alternative to a Republican does not make her a Democrat, it just makes her not a Republican. And – of particular interest to voters – somebody without a disqualifying conflict of interest.
If Democrats win 2 or 3 seats on the BOF this year – thus making it impossible for them to nominate candidates for all 3 slots in 2025 – I might well decide to answer your repeated calls and run as an unaffiliated petition candidate myself, as I would greatly enjoy campaigning against Koenigsberg. But I would not be doing it as a secret Democrat – while my politics are very much left-wing I suspect that at times the DTC wishes I would shut up almost as much as the RTC does; rather, I would be doing it because I saw it as an opportunity for me, as an unaffiliated candidate, to run for an office that interests me without the risk of costing Democrats a seat on that board.
Wilton’s DTC certainly supports Sarah. Her only opponent for the two-year slot is one of two Republican candidates who Wilton’s Ethics Council determined have an unfixable conflict of interest. More important, Sarah has impressed us with her knowledge, energy, and commitment to strengthen our schools even further. So yes, we hope all voters will support Rows A+C for an effective Board of Education.
Tom, maybe the Ethics Council should make a ruling on that admission. That seems like a clear conflict if the DTC is funding the election efforts of an alleged “independent” candidate.
The DTC isn’t a municipal body, the Council on Ethics has nothing to do with them; you might as well ask Stop & Shop to consult with the Council on Ethics because your shopping cart had a broken wheel.
And legally, she can’t be nominated by the Democrats or be a registered Democrat, and she’s not. There’s no rule that says the DTC can’t support her. In fact, it’s a shame that the RTC didn’t reach out to Sara after the Council on Ethics decision – perhaps they might have found enough common ground to agree to drop their own irredeemably conflicted candidate and support her instead.
Do we have any evidence that Mrs. Sclafani actually had anything to do with the ads mentioned? Or is this just a poor attempt at muck raking before an election. I think the democrats would advise voting for a cardboard cut out over the republican candidate who they believe has a conflict of interest. Maybe put up a more viable candidate rather than trying these dirty techniques. And shame on you Carol Lenihan for putting your name on this garbage.