Editor’s note: following is an opinion submitted by Westport native and Southport resident Jan Carpenter.
It is noteworthy that the only candidate running for First Selectman in Westport this fall, who is truly independent and has earned the endorsement of the Forward Party is David Rosenwaks. David has an incredible combination of finance, and management experience combined with a unique perspective of an artist.
In today’s polarized climate, it is refreshing to see someone who sets himself apart. He is not bound by party politics or special interest agendas. Addressing Westport’s challenges with these skills is desperately needed at this time. And those who know him have already seen him in action to work for those with lesser voices (think Jesup parking issue).
The Forward Party has a commitment to putting people over politics. The party urges collaboration and compromise – values David commits to and has demonstrated through his accomplishment in civic efforts. His ability to listen, build consensus and lead with integrity is exactly what Westport needs at this moment.
Westport deserves a leader who instead of scoring political points, will bring people together to solve real problems – from housing to schools to traffic!
I encourage everyone to learn more about David. If you are tired of politics as usual and are ready for thoughtful, forward-looking leadership (pun intended!), David Rosenwaks deserves your vote.
Jan Carpenter
Southport
These flowery endorsements for Mr. Rosenwaks are getting tiresome. We get it. You love the guy. You want him elected.
However these sponsorships are written as if they were college application references, full of glowing adulations and the promises of future expectation, but short on substance. Enough already.
Longwinded, repetitive, flowery prose and nebulous assertions are not what residents need or want.
“Westport deserves a leader who instead of scoring political points, will bring people together to solve real problems”.
“Refreshing to see someone who sets himself apart.”
“Ability to listen, build consensus, and lead with integrity…
“Not bound by party politics or special interest agendas.”
“The unique perspective of an artist”.
Sheesh.
While Jimmy Izzo and I oftentimes disagree on how to best resolve issues, I’ve never found him to speak untruths. When he informs the electorate that Mr. Rosenwaks’ miniscule (2 year) RTM tenure was notable only for his consistent inaction, silence, and disengagement, I believe him.
When he informs the electorate that Mr. Rosenwaks never once spoke at the podium – which is the ONLY true means for the public to hear how he thinks or what he believes in – during over 60 impactful meetings, we should believe him.
When RTM representative Jennifer Johnson confirms that Mr. Rosenwaks’ time on the RTM was irrelevant, unremarkable, and silent, I believe her.
Being the RTM representative who I endorsed during his campaign two years ago, watching Mr. Rosenwaks remain consistently silent at the RTM was profoundly disappointing. Silence when our community gardner neighbors (many being senior citizens) were vilified and libeled as being dangerous to children, along with his failure to support the courageous RTM members who were desperately trying to increase resident participation and construction/engineering/project management expertise, was particularly disturbing.
The documented lack of participation, absence of active engagement, and refusal to take the podium in public when it actually matters, does NOT exemplify initiative, leadership skills, prove “integrity”, illustrate the ability (or even a desire) to “bring people together”, reveal evidence of “problem solving”, illustrate the ability to “set himself apart”, or prove an inclination to be openly transparent in informing the public exactly what he believes and why he made decisions. Remaining below the radar is NOT a qualification to be Westport’s CEO.
Mr. Rosenwaks might well win the number of campaign signs tally currently littering our streets, and he might garner the most absurdly grandiose praise being written, but neither are qualification for our highest office.
Westport’s electorate is not stupid. Accolades are intended to award someone for their actual accomplishments or achievements – not for merely occupying a seat and breathing.
So “Where’s the beef”? The fact that significant Westport accomplishments or achievements are absent from these endorsements and his resume speaks volumes. There are none.
One final observation: In this editorial you clearly intended to promote your fledgling “Forward Party”. Fair enough.
However, in this instance, Westport’s electorate should understand the real potential consequences that they face in this election. When the Forward Party runs their own candidate (rather than endorsing the major party that supports their platform) your “Forward Party” has been cited for its “spoiler effect” by splitting Democrat votes thereby favoring a Republican victory.
So I’m not afraid to state the obvious: In this Westport election, Mr. Rosenwaks’ candidacy could easily deliver an unintended and undesired O’Day victory. That’s just basic mathematics.
In 2017 the third party candidates received 462 votes. Mr. Marpe won that election over Ms. Kane by only 455. So did those 462 third party votes permit Mr. Marpe’s victory and 8 more years of Republican rule (Marpe & Tooker) with all the problems it wrought? You decide.
Arguably Mr. Rosenwaks’ candidacy could have even greater potential to result in a Republican victory than it did in 2017.
Just keep that in mind when you cast your vote. It would be foolish and immature to ignore or discount that election result reality, and its potential long term consequences.
Your fervent opposition to Mr. Rosenwaks is not without merit, as it has been mentioned by others that he has not been a member of distinction on the RTM. Having said that, it is more important to know how he voted on the issues that came before the committee rather than how vocal he was. You referred to him as a possible spoiler who would benefit the O’Day/ Moore ticket which is apparently a problem for you. So it would behoove you to make the case for Kevin Christie, since aside from people mentioning his not voting on certain controversial issues and being a proponent of DEI policies , remains pretty much a cipher as well.
Sharon,
As in my final post below, you’ll see that we agree that a candidate’s voting record is crucial when deciding at the ballot box.
However, I don’t discount the criticality of a candidate being capable and willing to vocalize their positions at the podium in a public forum at decision time when it matters most, rather than pandering when campaigning. That’s why I appreciate the willingness of almost all the other RTM representatives to state their case, on the record, into the archives, for the public to hear – even if I do not agree with their position. Only with that knowledge is there any opportunity for meaningful debate and persuasion. Merely voting from the shadows does not evoke leadership, transparency, or willingness to listen to and engage with others.
You might have misconstrued my comment “Mr. Rosenwaks’ candidacy could easily deliver an unintended and undesired O’Day victory.” Given the mathematics of how this election will be determined, and the oftentimes minimal vote differentiation between the two major parties, it was specifically meant as a cautionary reality for anyone who didn’t intend or desire Mr. O’Day to become First Selectman by their vote for Mr. Rosenwaks. It was stating a reality that Mr. Rosenwaks’ campaign and his ardent supporters are determined to obscure from the electorate, rather than me promoting my preference.
And regarding me promoting Mr. Christie – that’s not my responsibility. Mr. Christie should be quite capable of making his case to the public on his own.
Jay Walshon’s response to Jan Carpenter’s endorsement of David Rosenwaks is laden with criticisms that fail to grasp the larger picture of community support and the qualities that truly define leadership in Westport. While he dissects the details of Rosenwaks’ RTM tenure, he overlooks the substantial and growing backing for him from across the political spectrum, which speaks volumes about his ability to bring people together in a divided political climate. To dismiss this overwhelming support as “flowery endorsements” is to disregard the authentic, grassroots momentum building behind his candidacy.
Dr. Walshon criticizes Rosenwaks for his silence on the RTM, but this critique misses the core of Rosenwaks’ appeal: his commitment to collaboration over confrontation. Leadership is not about making noise for the sake of it; it’s about listening, building consensus, and effecting change behind the scenes when necessary. Rosenwaks’ ability to work quietly, listening and acting on behalf of Westport’s residents—without seeking attention for himself—is a testament to the kind of leadership this town needs. It’s not about grandstanding, it’s about getting things done, thoughtfully and with integrity.
Moreover, to suggest that Rosenwaks has no substantial accomplishments overlooks the very real impact he’s had in the community. From his efforts on behalf of marginalized voices, like those advocating for the Jesup parking issue, to his commitment to transparency and accountability, David has consistently demonstrated a hands-on, results-driven approach. It’s clear that his actions speak louder than words, and those who know him understand his value to Westport far beyond his brief tenure on the RTM.
Walshon’s suggestion that Rosenwaks could play a role in a potential “spoiler effect” is an unsubstantiated fear-mongering tactic. It’s important to recognize that Rosenwaks is not running to split votes, but to offer a genuine alternative to the entrenched political dynamics in Westport. The Forward Party endorsement is not about division, but about providing a platform for leadership that prioritizes people over party. In fact, the large number of supporters who have rallied around him, from various backgrounds and political ideologies, proves that Rosenwaks has the capacity to unite, rather than divide.
Ultimately, what Westport needs is a leader who is focused on solutions, collaboration, and progress—not someone who is preoccupied with petty politics or scoring points for their side. David Rosenwaks represents a fresh, forward-thinking approach to leadership. The support he has earned—ranging from those who appreciate his thoughtful approach to those who have worked with him in the trenches—speaks louder than any one critic’s opinion. His candidacy is not a fleeting moment of political rhetoric; it’s a movement driven by a genuine desire to serve and improve the community. That is the true measure of leadership.
Mr. D’Onofrio:
Thank you for further reiterating my points.
Once again, the absence of substantial accomplishments; and once again another diatribe of unsubstantiated rhetoric and propaganda in an attempt to create a “herd effect”. There are no “hand-on results-driven” outcomes that can be attributed to Mr. Rosenwaks’ brief tenure on our RTM, and “silence” is not effective advocacy and certainly not proof of leadership.
Being Mr. Rosenwaks’ greatest cheerleader, I understand that you are determined in any way possible to convince residents to vote for him – even absent concrete accomplishments and devoid of proven attributes to point to. Obviously you believe he’s Westport’s savior and proselytizing to convert others. That’s fine.
We’ve seen this movie before with your similar advocacy during the last First Selectman election (in 2021) where you were so determined to impact Westport’s election you actually became TJ Elgin’s running-mate for second selectman- accompanied by perpetual denouncements of Westport’s establishment, and constant declarations that residents should vote for “independent thinking, non-partisan, consensus building renegades”.
After losing that election, you went on to sue Westport’s fine health district (and our well respected Medical Director Mark Cooper) making claims and assertions that the courts found to be so devoid of “genuine issues of fact” that your claims were dismissed via “Summary Judgement”. Although freedom of speech grants the right you to make baseless assertions, just like the court demands, Westport’s residents require concrete evidence when making consequential determinations and decisions.
And make no mistake…this election is consequential.
My statement regarding the potential “spoiler effect” of third party candidates is undisputed. It is not “fear-mongering”. However, understandably you will say anything to obfuscate that truth because it suits your cause. In this particular election, votes for Mr. Rosenwaks might well result in diluting the democratic vote thereby propelling Mr. O’Day to victory.
That is just a mathematic reality the electorate should take into consideration.
Mr. Walshon,
Your recent comments—while not unexpected—once again reflect a pattern of misrepresentation and selective memory aimed at undermining others rather than offering substantive discourse. I welcome criticism when it is grounded in truth and intended to elevate our civic conversation, but unfortunately, your response falls short on both counts.
Let me begin by clarifying your inaccuracies. Contrary to your statement, Mark Cooper was not the Medical Director of our district. I held that position, and served it with unwavering commitment during the most challenging public health crisis in recent memory—the COVID-19 pandemic. Your mischaracterization of that role is not just factually wrong, it is telling of a broader bias that seems to inform your commentary.
You also appear to have forgotten the calls you made to both my office and home, expressing a desire to collaborate during the very campaign you now seek to discredit. That history undermines your attempt to now paint me as irrelevant or unqualified. It is convenient, if not disingenuous, to now revise that narrative in order to align with your present argument.
More broadly, your intent to smear my political and civic engagement as lacking substance does not align with the facts. My candidacy—both now and in previous efforts—has been rooted in a sincere and tireless desire to improve the town I love. I’ve spent countless hours working behind the scenes, not for applause or political gain, but because I believe in serving my community with integrity.
Yes, I’ve raised difficult questions. Yes, I’ve pursued litigation when I saw genuine concerns of financial misconduct that warranted investigation. That’s not “baseless”—that’s called accountability. To frame my efforts as anything else is to ignore the content of the filings and the concerns they raise. Unlike internet commentary, court filings are held to a legal standard.
It’s also important to recognize the tactic at play here: shifting the conversation toward me is a distraction, deliberately chosen to steer public attention away from what this moment is truly about—David Rosenwaks, a candidate whose ideas, integrity, and inclusive vision for Westport have resonated deeply with residents across the political spectrum. When people are united in admiration and respect for a candidate—as they are with David—it becomes easier for critics to redirect the discussion toward personal attacks and historical revisionism than to engage with the actual momentum and merit behind his campaign.
Your claim that silence from the podium equals disengagement is another false equivalence. Leadership does not always announce itself with volume. Sometimes, it shows up as listening when others speak, working across the aisle, or refusing to participate in performative outrage that so often defines local politics. My work has never been about headlines. It’s been about results, relationships, and real progress.
I have no interest in personal attacks. But once you chose that path, I knew I had already won the debate—not because I shouted louder, but because I remained focused on what matters: Westport. Its future. Its people. And the potential for politics to rise above the petty and return to the practical.
Let us have our debates. But let’s base them in fact. Let’s aim higher than misquotes and ad hominem jabs. Let’s give voters something more than sarcasm and fear tactics—because they deserve better, and frankly, so does this town.
Let’s bring the conversation back to where it belongs—on David Rosenwaks, and the kind of leadership Westport residents are proudly standing behind.
Respectfully
Mr. D’Onofrio,
I never called you or your office to collaborate with the wacky candidacy of TJ Elgin and yourself. That’s just one more in your pattern. And the fact that you were able to muster only 64 votes out of 8,469 cast speaks for itself.
Yes, while Mark Cooper is not a physician, he was the well respected and entrusted Westport Weston Director of Health for decades and remains the Director of Health since the addition of Easton forming the Aspetuck Health District. Formed in 1965 the WWHD was the first recognized CT health district and served as a model for the rest of the state. Mr. Cooper has a BS and Masters Degree in Public Health, was Director of Health in Newtown District, and served as the First Selectman of Southbury from 2001 until his WWHD appointment in 2008. Alongside Chairman Otis Crawford, Mr. Cooper has tirelessly served Westport’s residents since 2008. Quite a legacy of distinguished public service.
Disgruntled, you chose to sue them.
Fact: August 6, 2021 06880 headline: “Former Employee Sues Westport Weston Health District” – that’s you.
Fact: You not only sued them, you and your comrade TJ Elgin initiated a Change.org petition to destroy his career, asserting his “Lackluster commitment to our community and blatant disrespect for our local public health”.
Fact: Your Federal lawsuit, No. 3:21-cv-1052 (JAM) was dismissed via Summary Judgement, meaning your list of claims “does not establish a genuine issue of fact…” and that “there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact…” Anyone so inclined can read this for themselves (ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov).
Fact: Often, as you did on September 16 2025 in 06880, you use the title “Dr.”. While you’ve defended that practice due to your “doctor of nursing practice” (DNP), using the title of Dr. is intentionally misleading to the intended readers (and I believe may be illegal in CT when used in a clinical setting).
The point being, it’s a common theme.
I have no intention or desire to shift the conversation to you per se. It’s only because this election is far too important for the public to be subjected to repetitive propaganda.
Because you’ve become Mr. Rosenwaks’ elite cheerleader, the history of the credibility of what you say becomes a meaningful factor for those you are intending to persuade, or mislead. Interested residents have been looking for provable facts, actual Westport accomplishments, achievements, and a historical record. The lack of substance by Mr. Rosenwaks’ proselytizers has also been the pattern.
To wit: I have never collaborated with the TJ Elgin/D’Onofrio campaign. The Federal courts found your assertions to be without evidence. When disgruntled you actually wanted to destroy our Health Director’s career. You commonly use the title “Dr.” which is misleading. And now you assert that Mr. Rosenwaks is Westport’s savior.
It is surprising to me that, given your historical pattern, Mr. Rosenwaks would desire or appreciate your repetitive rhetorical writings – especially if he is trying to frame himself as being THE candidate who stands for “transparency”, “honesty”, “collaboration”, and “bringing people together rather than tearing them down”.
In the future, as his spokesman, please just list Mr. Rosenwaks’ Westport accomplishments during his brief tenure on the RTM. Publish HIS voting record and list the substantive initiatives that HE began and successfully achieved.
All the rest is meaningless.
Mr. Walshon,
Your recent letter, published in response to my public commentary, reads less like a defense of your chosen candidate or ideas, and more like a personal attack designed to silence dissent and distract from legitimate concerns facing Westport. I feel compelled to respond—not out of personal grievance, but because Westport deserves a public conversation rooted in facts, ideas, and a respect for the democratic process.
Let’s begin where you began: with a reference to a vote count. You mocked the 64 votes I received in a previous election, as if that number alone invalidates my right to speak, participate, or be taken seriously. In doing so, you reduce civic engagement to a popularity contest and suggest that only the politically successful have the right to question or contribute. That’s not how democracy works. Every resident—win or lose—has a right, even a responsibility, to continue engaging, questioning, and working to improve this town.
You then offer a glowing defense of Mr. Mark Cooper, citing his long tenure and credentials. I don’t deny Mr. Cooper’s decades of public service, nor do I question that he’s been a trusted figure to many. But public service is not—and should never be—a shield from scrutiny. The concerns I raised regarding the Westport Weston Health District were not personal attacks; they were calls for accountability. Leadership must be open to oversight. My criticisms were based on real observations, supported by my professional experience in public health, and driven by a desire to see that district better serve the residents who fund and rely on it.
You mention my lawsuit as if it were self-evident proof of bad faith. But you misunderstand—or misrepresent—what a legal dismissal via summary judgment actually means. It does not mean my concerns were unfounded or my motivations dishonest. It means the legal threshold for trial wasn’t met. That is a procedural conclusion, not a moral one. Many meaningful and necessary criticisms of institutions never survive in court, but that doesn’t mean they were wrong to be raised. If the district had nothing to hide, it should have welcomed the opportunity to prove its integrity through transparency—not celebrated a procedural win as moral vindication.
You also cite a petition I helped circulate regarding Mr. Cooper’s performance, suggesting it was an effort to “destroy his career.” It was not. It was an effort to draw public attention to what I, and many others, viewed as insufficient leadership in a critical area of public health. The right to petition is a fundamental tenet of civic life. You may disagree with our assessment, but disagreement is not sabotage. It’s democracy.
Your letter takes a strange detour into the issue of my academic title, asserting that my use of “Dr.” is somehow misleading. Let me be clear: I hold a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), a terminal clinical degree in nursing. The title “Doctor” is both appropriate and accurate in my field and reflects years of advanced education, training, and clinical experience. Implying otherwise is not just incorrect—it’s dismissive of the entire nursing profession. If the focus of your letter is transparency and credentials, this attempt to cast doubt on my qualifications is both ironic and hollow.
Throughout your letter, you assert that I lack credibility, substance, and sincerity. You dismiss my views as “repetitive propaganda,” while demanding that I enumerate Mr. Rosenwaks’ RTM accomplishments. If your concern were really with transparency and informed debate, you would welcome scrutiny of every candidate—including Mr. Rosenwaks—and of every endorsement, including mine. Instead, you rely on innuendo, legal technicalities, and credential-shaming to discredit me. That’s not intellectual debate; that’s rhetorical misdirection.
What Westport needs right now is not more division, not more personal attacks, and certainly not a culture where questions are treated as betrayals. We need accountable leadership. We need candidates who are willing to listen—not just to their supporters, but to their critics. And we need residents who are willing to engage in dialogue, even when it’s uncomfortable, rather than shutting it down with derision.
You say this election is too important for the public to be subjected to what you call “propaganda.” I agree. That’s why we must demand better than dismissive and personalized attacks on those who raise valid concerns. Whether you agree with my perspective or not, I stand by my record, my words, and my commitment to this town.
Respectfully,
Louis D’Onofrio, DNP
In addition, when the intellect fails to engage in meaningful debate, it resorts to personal attack, for it is easier to tear down a character than to build up an argument. This pattern of deflection and character assassination is something I’ve observed in recent interactions, including those involving a certain Jay Walshon’s posts. I have phone records and text messages from someone by that name, and while it’s entirely possible that there is another individual with the same name in town, I’ll take your word for it that you are not the same person. It’s a curious coincidence, though, that this individual appeared to have an interest in supporting my campaigns for Selectman and RTM. Nonetheless, I am open to clarification, and I’m committed to ensuring the conversation remains focused on the real issues that matter to Westport.
Response: Leadership Isn’t Measured by Volume
In response to Jay’s comment on Jan Carpenter’s “flowery” endorsement of David Rosenwaks, while I respect the author’s right to hold strong, party-oriented views, I think it’s worth offering a broader perspective.
Different leaders lead in different ways. Not every effective leader is the loudest voice in the room. Some lead by listening, building consensus, and thinking strategically before speaking, especially in public service, where words carry weight. David Rosenwaks has always been that kind of leader: deliberate, principled, and focused on results rather than headlines.
As an RTM member representing District 6, David helped advance a more transparent, data-driven approach to town planning — linking goals, budgets, and outcomes in a way Westport has long needed. That’s not “inaction.” That’s thoughtful, process-based leadership.
Integrity, vision, and accountability aren’t slogans for David; they define how he leads. He values transparency, welcomes scrutiny, and views public office as service, not theater. David recognizes that the coming decade will test Westport’s priorities and he has the courage to guide a collaborative long-range strategic plan process that balances ambition with fiscal responsibility.
He is at the podium now, participating in every debate and articulating his values, ideas, and leadership style. I understand why that makes some uneasy, because his message is resonating. The concern isn’t about lawn signs; it’s about the emergence of an authentic leader willing to challenge the status quo and put community before politics.
Finally, on the claim that his candidacy could act as a “spoiler”: that assumes Westport’s voters fit neatly into partisan boxes. They don’t. Many residents simply want collaboration and forward thinking over politics as usual. David embodies that alternative and that’s why he’s earning genuine support from across the community.
Westport doesn’t need louder politics. It needs leadership that listens, plans, and delivers.
That’s David Rosenwaks.
Mr. Block
Let’s focus on facts rather than continue campaign platitudes intended to convert residents to your candidate.
Mr. Rosenwaks did not stand up against the current administration’s “bullying” and “censorship”, he joined Mr. O’Day in voting AGAINST the “inclusion” of the Public Site & Building Committee into the Longs Lots School reconstruction project, and HE JOINED Mr. O’Day in ensuring the destruction of the Community Gardens.
In addition, contrary to his assertion to prioritize environmental issues, a review Mr. Rosenwaks’ voting record reveals that on at least three occasions he violated that pledge, instead favoring adverse environmental consequences.
And contrary to his current promise to increase resident voice, involvement, and guidance in controversial matters of consequence, when he had that very opportunity Mr. Rosenwaks voted against the petition requesting a “more inclusive “, “proactive”, holistic, approach to the complex Parker Harding situation that would have increased community voice and participation.
In virtually every instance, rather than lead with conviction and courage Mr. Rosenwaks chose to follow the status quo that you now rail against, and opposed further community voice and involvement.
You try to spin that his remaining silent is a laudable attribute. However when in a position of authority, most view that as either withdrawing in the face of opposition, being unwilling to publicly explain reasoning, and avoiding the risk being judged and accountable. To wit, without offering any explanation, he supported the current administration’s agenda that allegedly he now detests.
“Speaking from the podium” during a campaign, reading the room, spouting platitudes, and making the usual pledges of listening, transparency, listening, increasing public engagement and inclusion, consensus building, supporting community conversation, being proactive, prioritizing accountability, etc. – pledges that every single candidate promises prior to election – is not evidence of qualification, and not a distinguishing hallmark that the electorate can rely upon. Do ANY of the current 3 candidates promise the opposite?
You keep omitting from your rhetorical endorsements the fact that when Mr. Rosenwaks was entrusted with a leadership role on the RTM he was unremarkable at best. In those 22 months he failed in his promise of engagement, inclusion, consensus building, transparency and leadership.
In summary, when entrusted with a leadership opportunity Mr. Rosenwaks voted on the wrong side of many important issues, revealed zero inclination to lead, and illustrated a temperament to avoid verbal positions in the face of controversy. Not qualifications to be First Selectman.
These are concrete facts that the electorate should use to judge, and weed through the customary campaign rhetoric and usual propagandized accolades.
Mr. Rosenwaks is a nice guy, and being a relatively new resident his willingness to become involved in the community is laudable. If he remains a resident he’ll have ample opportunity to participate in Westport’s political scene and seek roles in community leadership.
However given his mundane RTM tenure and the above referenced voting record, not only has Mr. Rosenwaks proven he is not yet qualified to be our First Selectman, in this consequential election a vote for Mr. Rosenwaks might very well be exactly what Mr. O’Day requires to become First Selectman.
All I’m doing is pointing out truths that must be considered, while you desire the truth be ignored.
The math does not lie.
Dr. Jay Walshon is 100% correct on all accounts on his analysis of David Rosenwaks. As a member of our RTM, Mr. Rosenwaks NEVER spoke up on ANY ISSUE.
Our town had over 60 plus “announced and transparent” meetings on Long Lots Elementary and the need for a new school. Mr. Rosenwaks had ample opportunity to SPEAK up and take a position either for a new school, which included Stepping Stones, or oppose it.
David Rosenwaks instead choose to hide in the walk-in cooler when the kitchen of democracy got hot with the Community Gardens. Now David Rosenwaks wants to lead? Mr. Rosenwaks couldn’t even STEP UP for his own children who at the time attended Long Lots Elementary.
Mr Rosenwaks has had plenty of opportunities to participate in the town governing process, why has he chosen as an RTM Member from District 6 to NEVER speak up and cry foul on the many town issues that were in front of us?
We are transparent and do work collaboratively as Westporters, NOT D’s R’s or I’s. Our town is run by Westporters whose only agenda is what we all feel is in the best interests of our kids, residents, and stakeholders.
Yes, we do disagree, Yes, democracy is messy. That is why the process takes time, but in NO WAY is the process NOT transparent. Meetings are noticed, Meetings are open, and engagement of the public is ALWAYS Welcome.
As for Mr. Rosewaks claim to be an “independent voice and candidate?” This is almost laughable considering only a few months ago Mr. Rosenwaks was an “ACTIVE” member of the Westport Democratic Town Committee.
At this time last year Mr. Rosenwaks was not only State Representative Jonathan Steinberg’s Campaign Manager, he was also an avid support of State Democratic Senator Ceci Mahar who voted for CT State Bill 5002 designed to blow up our local zoning laws.
Mr. Rosenwaks claim that he “originated” the RTM Community Q and A conversation, is flawed. It was created by the RTM IT Committee, which included Nancy Kail, Claudia Shaum, and other members. This was not a ONE MAN production.
I urge the Westport electorate to do your own homework. Please utilize Google, Linkedin, and most importantly ask questions. Leaders should first participate in Democracy, show leadership skills before wanting to lead our town.
Jimmy Izzo
RTM 3
Mr. Izzo,
I appreciate your passion for public service and commitment to Westport, but your recent remarks about David Rosenwaks are laced with misleading assertions, selective omissions, and, frankly, a tone that seeks more to inflame than to inform.
Let’s begin with the core accusation repeated by both you and Mr. Walshon—that Mr. Rosenwaks “never spoke up” during his tenure on the RTM. While you emphasize podium speeches as the sole measure of participation, many residents understand that leadership isn’t limited to public performance. Effective governance often happens through listening, collaborating behind the scenes, asking informed questions, and working to build consensus rather than stoke division. David did that—and he did so without seeking credit, which is, ironically, the quality many of us do want in our leaders.
You raise the issue of the Long Lots Elementary project and the Community Gardens—deeply complex and nuanced matters. The claim that David “hid in the cooler” during those discussions is not only inaccurate but unnecessarily disrespectful. The truth is, he took the time to understand the full scope of those issues and chose thoughtfulness over political grandstanding. That may not grab headlines, but it reflects maturity and composure—two qualities our leadership could benefit from.
Your attempt to discredit David’s independence by referencing his past involvement with the Democratic Town Committee is a reach at best. If anything, his departure from partisan roles to run as an independent—endorsed by the Forward Party—is evidence of exactly the kind of courage and conviction we say we want in politics: someone who steps away from party lines to prioritize the community.
And regarding your claim that David falsely took credit for initiating the RTM Community Q&A forum—he never claimed to have single-handedly built it. He supported it, helped move it forward, and promoted its value. Attempting to disqualify someone from leadership because they didn’t develop a project alone misses the very spirit of collaborative governance you claim to defend.
Finally, let’s be clear: attacking a candidate for not speaking more at public meetings, then criticizing him for working on campaigns, then dismissing his independence for changing political paths—all in one breath—feels less like genuine concern for our town and more like an effort to distract voters from the real and growing support for a candidate who refuses to play by the old political rules.
David Rosenwaks is running on a platform of thoughtful, transparent, people-first leadership. He’s not shouting at podiums. He’s listening. He’s building. He’s showing up for those who feel unheard. That’s not hiding—that’s leading.
I agree with your final point: voters should do their homework. And when they do, I’m confident they’ll see past the noise and recognize in David Rosenwaks a candidate who brings both heart and integrity to the table—exactly what Westport needs now.
Respectfully
Sorry Louis, I am not attacking Mr. Rosenwaks, I simply laying out facts, and backing what Dr. Jay Walshon pointed out as being 100% correct.
We all work with integrity and heart. I wish Mr. Rosenwaks would’ve shown a little heart when it came to LLES and the 60 plus meetings, and participated in our democracy like members of not only the RTM. but Board of Education, Board of Finance, and PTA parents.
I appreciate your vigorous support of Mr. Rosenwaks, please understand and respect my perspective and analysis.
We can agree to disagree.
Best,
Jimmy
RTM 3