Complete Election Results: Edelson, Democrats Roll

Democrat Ed Edelson will be Southbury’s next first selectman.

Democratic challenger Ed Edelson beat out incumbent Republican Bill Davis in the race for Southbury First Selectman.

The results were announced just moments ago at Southbury Town Hall. Edelson won by a vote of 2,996 to 2,016.

Complete Election Day results are below.

Note: *** Denotes wining candidate.

First Selectman
(D) Ed Edelson - 2,996 ***
(R) Bill Davis - 2,016

Board of Selectmen

(D) Ronald Pugliese - 2,143 ***
(D) Edward Gittines - 2,240 ***
(D) Donna Pereira - 2,263 ***
(R) Marcia Gore - 2,126 ***
(R) John Bucciarelli - 2,089
(R) Chad Landmon - 2,284 ***
(I) Jon Norris - 563

Region 15 Board of Education
(D) Jennifer Connelly - 2,697 ***
(D) Sharon Guck - 2,691 ***
(D) Steven Suriani - 2,344 ***
(R) John Monteleone - 2,280
(R) Jason Buchsbaum - 2,135

The following candidates were running unopposed and were all elected:

Board of Finance

(D) Justin Bette
(D) Douglas Ziemke
(R) John Michaels

Board of Finance Alternates
(R) Brian Emerick

Board of Assessment Appeals

(R) Dennis Dwyer

Planning Commission
(R) Edward Gore
(R) Richard Teardo
(R) Edward Hatfield

Planning Commission Alternates

(D) Bob Tendler
(R) Chris Radlicz

Zoning Commission
(D) Beth Barrett
(R) Todd White

Zoning Commission Alternates
(D) William Navas

Zoning Board of Appeals
(D) Paul Sullivan
(R) Geoffrey Ice
(R) Peter Peterson

Zoning Board of Appeals Alternates
(R) Alan Hull

Inland Wetlands Commission
(D) William Kimball
(R) Carl Hornbecker
(R) Jeffrey Manville

Inland Wetlands Commission Alternates
(D) Karen Huber
(R) Camille Bertrand

Marxist November 15, 2011 at 01:15 AM
Dear Comrade JHS, Thanks for Join THE REVOLUTION!. From your fellow comrade, Marxist
carol renza November 15, 2011 at 01:23 AM
JHS - try getting into IBM on weekends,pal - sign in with receptionist required even after hours! It is YOU who are wrong!
JHS November 15, 2011 at 01:25 AM
Marxist- paranoid people can't handle the truth. Let them use some of the taxpayers money to investigate.
JHS November 15, 2011 at 01:30 AM
carol- Obviously you attack you don't read. As I said, Only since 9/11 have companies required badging in. Before that it was not a huge requirement. But I doubt you'd believe anything anyone says. Go to any town hall and I doubt you;d see any requirement to sign in or badge in. Don't know why you are still complaining about every thing anyone who doesn't think like you posts. Yes I know anyone who doesn't think like you is wrong. You won. So live with the results. and save us your complaining.
FREE AT LAST! November 15, 2011 at 01:48 AM
I think the point of this whole issue was missed above. In or out. Weekend or weekday. CFO or CEO. The post by Stop the Madness puts it all in perspective: "Oversight costs nothing...unless it isn't done and then it can cost a great deal. It's called management. I think that the gross LACK of management by the current administration and the resultant circus has made everyone very sensitive to the possibility of more mishaps. This is Davis' failure and therefore Davis' responsibility, period." 2,998 people didn't trust this administration and said so. Some people here on Patch don't trust them and are saying so. This is about the rumors of shredding and changing numbers in town hall. True or not, management of the "rumor mill" is the responsibility of the CEO or First Selectman. But why would anyone expect any management in the last 3 weeks of his term when it was absent the first 3 years? I for one, whether paranoid or not, don't trust anything in town hall at the present moment.
Greg Kuehn November 15, 2011 at 01:54 AM
Hang on… 9/11 was TEN YEARS AGO. Let's talk about how things are done nowadays. We're not living in decades gone by. I'll just speak for my family - both places where my wife and I work require some form of "signing in" anytime you are on company property. Whether it's a proximity badge, receptionist, security guard, etc… I can also speak to smaller organizations like JH Ketcham Hose Co., the fire dept. I volunteered for in Dutchess County (NY). Today, every member has a badge and you can't get in or go anywhere in the building without swiping a badge. It's become the norm in many places. That's reality today - for us anyway.
JHS November 15, 2011 at 02:03 AM
GREG- I was merely pointing that Carol was wrong in adamant belief that employees always had to badge in, or sign in. Not the case. And still now, do you know of any town hall that has a badge in requirement? Fire Dept are differant. Things are there that can be stolen. To force a CFO to be signed in or supervised on a weekend is ludicrous. And so what if he was in on a weekend? The assumption here is there is something illegal going on. Hence paranoia.
carol renza November 15, 2011 at 02:11 AM
jHS Since at least the early 1970's this has been in place - long before 9/11 -obviously you don't get it - also policy at many major corporation HQs I worked in in the 1980's in White Plains,NY. Your frame of reference is obviously limited.
JHS November 15, 2011 at 02:21 AM
Look Carol- you didn't work in all companies. your absolutism is annoying. I'm telling you in the company I worked in which was sizeable, there was no requirement. As I said the punch card disappeared years ago. You don't know all companies. And how many town halls require badging in or signing in. It is a ridiculous argument. And I'm a but tired of your insults.
FREE AT LAST! November 15, 2011 at 02:22 AM
In many Municipal Buildings across CT the towns have gone to a FOB system. At a minimum there is a computerized record of which FOB opened which door at which time. Instead of $55,000 on lights that don't even light the sidewalk the town could have considered security. Especially after the audit just conducted found too much money was being left in individual departments and has mandated limits and more frequent deposits. Am I the only person who remembers that just a couple of months ago the CFO was "back dating" checks?
Ruth November 15, 2011 at 02:36 AM
JHS you are incorrect. I worked for a major computer company back in 1980 and we had to badge in and out, even from department to department, let alone to get into the main building. No badge, no entrance.
JHS November 15, 2011 at 03:02 AM
Ruth- did every company require this as Carol states? No. That is my point. Carol is not the authority of when badges or signing in were required. I worked for one and it was a large one. But I guess Carol is the expert. How many town halls require badging in or signing in? I'm done with this conversation.
Ruth November 15, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Thank you for bringing the issue back to where it should be. The post by "Stop the Madness" states it perfectly. And I do not trust anything in town hall either. I equate this to raising a child....you allow them to do certain things based on their actions, but when they mess up, you have to tighten the reins and bring them back in line. It is quite obvious that we, as citizens of this community, need to tighten the reins.
carol renza November 15, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Look,JHS - nowhere did I state 'ALL COMPANIES' I said MANY and your twisting my statements is tiring. Obviously the other posters have broader experience than 'one company you worked for. Further, there were MANY questionable business practices in treasury which caused BOF and BOS to spend about $20K on an operational audit of that department --are they 'paranoid also?
Quid Pro Quo November 15, 2011 at 01:35 PM
Another point is that after all the charges of shoddy fiscal oversight, potential corrupt relationships, favoritism, lack of bidding, lack of following policy, picking friends and family to do work and the other 25 or so proven allegations over the past several years. THOSE RECORDS ARE ALREADY SHREDDED AND GONE!!!!
bumblin bill November 15, 2011 at 01:39 PM
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!
MaryAnn Benevenuto November 15, 2011 at 02:21 PM
Taxpayers are not shareholders. The fact that you are comparing IBM or other companies to Town Hall does not flow. Corporations are governed by by-laws and corporate law : cases and statutes that set precedent for other companies as well as principles of corporate governance if the company is publicly traded. Town Hall is governed by municipal law not the SEC. The Town is not a publicly traded corporation. Whatever experience you have, it is clearly not based on throrough analysis of facts. Argue all you want but the logic is missing.
Ruth November 15, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Because you are so defensive, MaryAnn, you are totally missing the point here. As taxpayers we are shareholders in the sense that we have a stake in the town and how the money is spent. No one is saying that the town IS exactly like a corporation. You are totally not getting the analogy. We all do have a stake in this "corporation". Truly, I am thankful for those who have more experience, more knowledge, more access to information than I do and make all of it known to the public. Do with the info what you want. To me Carol, the Republican-American and others are merely the "messengers". I say "thank you" because they bring out the truth whether you like what it is or not.
MaryAnn Benevenuto November 15, 2011 at 03:41 PM
No missed point here- I simply do not agree with your analogy nor with Carol's methodology for fixing all the so-called wrongs in Southbury. If you were a shareholder, what would you do - sell your stocks. That being said, do all of the oversight you desire, just don't raise my taxes.
Stop the madness November 15, 2011 at 03:41 PM
...light years away from the point. Whether a private corporation or a municipality or a family unit or venus or freakin' mars, the principles of leadership/management, oversight and accountability are the same. Yeesh!
MaryAnn Benevenuto November 15, 2011 at 03:45 PM
STM - Accountability and oversight are not the same in the public and private sectors. That is why we have the SEC. If you compared security systems of towns similiar to Southbury, you might have a reasonable argument, but everyone is insisting on the comparisions to corporate America.
Ruth November 15, 2011 at 03:49 PM
Stop the Madness.....you are absolutely correct. I have found myself getting frustrated and sucked into some of this "stuff" because some people cannot see the forest for the trees. Bottom line.......the people running and working for the town have not been upright, responsible, or accountable. I think Ed will be doing things a wee bit differently.
Stop the madness November 15, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Ruth, it is frustrating. Again, the point is that WHEREVER it is, when people make constant mistakes, misteps and show disdain for the system, oversight is going to be called for and is going to increase. No stalking involved, it's just a natural consequence.
Stop the madness November 15, 2011 at 03:57 PM
We did sell our stocks. Many, many people did. On November 8th. Then we bought into the future.
Ruth November 15, 2011 at 04:00 PM
Enough said.....totally in agreement.
bumblin bill November 15, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Town hall is governed by Federal Law, State Statute, Municipal ordinance and Charter as well as rules and regulations and policies and procedures. In the case of the town insurance, pension plan and investments they are most certainly governed by Federal Laws including ERISA, the SEC, etc... The town government certainly has a fiduciary duty with tax dollars as well as any funds accepted from private grants, federal grants and state grants and the acceptance of those funds put the town in a whole new line of laws and regulations. Ask Greenwich what the feds did to make the town open its beaches to those dirty city dwellers or look at our own senior center that can't be used by anyone under the age of 62. And finally, I am a share or stake holder anywhere that I pay my money in exchange for services. The town has services it is required by law to provide such as safe roadways, police, fire and ambulance protection, health services and the like. In exchange for a $90,000 a year salary I have no problem expecting leadership and management from a first selectman. We did not receive that in the last 3 years. This argument is bogus and unfortunately, one easily laid to rest researching the Connecticut General Statutes. Stop the Madness remember. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink and in this last election there were 2,000 people who couldn't drink.
MaryAnn Benevenuto November 16, 2011 at 08:03 PM
Bumblin Bill: Drink some water here: The discussion I responded to was referring to federal compliance laws such as Sarbane Oxley, which applies only to publicly traded companies. ERISA does not govern public pension plans. Go back to the trough before you post incorrect conclusions of law.
bumblin bill November 16, 2011 at 11:18 PM
But you just voted for Bumblin Bill. Where's the love? From the CT Office of Legislative Research: "State statute permits any municipality or political subdivision of a municipality to create by ordinance or resolution: . . . pension, retirement or other postemployment health and life benefit systems for its officers and employees and their beneficiaries, or amend any special act concerning its pension, retirement, or other postemployment health and life benefit systems, toward the maintenance in sound condition of a pension, retirement, or other postemployment health and life." benefit fund or funds, provided the rights or benefits granted to any individual under any municipal pension or retirement system shall not be diminished or eliminated (emphasis added) (CGS § 7-450). Statute also requires that an actuarial evaluation of the pension or other postemployment benefit system be performed at least once every five years by a actuary enrolled by the joint board formed under ERISA, the federal law that regulates private pensions (CGS § 7-450a). Sorry, but most municipal plans use ERISA guidelines because unlike Southbury, they don't want to try to reinvent the wheel. I'm only in office for 10 more business days, stop in and see the show!
MaryAnn Benevenuto November 17, 2011 at 12:36 AM
Bumblin Bill: No where in the statute that you cite does it say that ERISA applies to municipal pension plans. You have rambled on without regard to accuracy and without distinguishing law from guidelines. And that my friend is the point - credibility. You can ramble on about Bill Davis all you want but you have absolutely no credibility. The laws that you cite- insurance, etc. are in fact exceptions to ERISA pre-emption. As you say, you can bring the horse to water....take a civics class or just google ERISA
bumblin bill November 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM
Yep MaryAnn, you gots me! And I repeat, most municipal pension plans mirror ERISA guidelines and most municipal collective bargaining agreement induced plans require it. So with no oversight of pension, medical insurance and a lame ethics code, these corrupt bunglers can rip us off even more. Rip, rip, shred, shred... Hopefully there are still files left when Edelson takes office. You supported Davis and the rest of the RTC losers. And I have no credibility? Puuuuhhhhhhlease. I'm still not feeling the love


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something